DRAINAGE BOARD.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1244, 2 March 1878, Page 2

DRAINAGE BOARD.

The following is a more detailed report than we were able to publish la-4 night of what took place, at the meeting of the Drainage Board, with reference to My Clark’s duties . Mr Wright suggested the notes of the reception of the deputation from the Ratepayers Committee should be read. The chairman was reading, them when Mr Clark arrived, and was introduced by Mr Napier Bell to the members of the Board present. Mr Clark in reply to a remark from the chairman said he would be very glad to see any plans or estimates in the possession of the Board. He had seen two reports of Mr Carrnthers which had appeared in the newspapers. He was prepared to receive the instructions of the Board. He might mention that he had received a communication from Mr Treadwell. The Chairman said that the gentleman just named hadno connection with the Beard, which knew nothing of what his views were. The members would arrange what questions should be submitted to Mr Clark, and would place at his disposal the services of their engineer, who would afford any information required. M Clark said he was always happy to receive suggestions fy m any one. If any one had adverse opinions, It would be satisfactory to hear what they were. Mr Wright suggested that Mr Clark should be furnished with a brief resume of what had been done. Mr Duncan agreed with the suggestion. The Chairman then briefly related the history of the drainage question. Mr Clark had noticed that the Board appeared to have instructed the engineer to do his work in a particular way. The Chairman said the instructions had been given in accordance with resolutions passed hy a meeting adverse to the views of the Board. Mr Clark s-,id if ho was to he guided by such insiructiona the, matter would be simplified very much* With regard to the opinion of Mr Carruthire it was entitled to ev< ry deference. That gentleman had studied the question, and been in Christchurch for a long time, while ho himself had been only a few hours. He would; prefer, however, to receive from the Board simply instructions to report upon the drainage, wUii a notification that the Board were already in possession of reports upon it. He might say that w.th regard to gravitation, that was of course desirable wherever it was practicable, (nit it might be found that a pumping scheme, though expensive, would be absolutely unavoidable. The fact was that to pump sewage was no more difficult than to pump clear water, and a gravitation scheme might involve a larger expenditure than pumping by machinery. He would like to be at liberty to use his own judgment on the whole question. Mr Wright thought it wou<d be manifestly a mistake for the Board to go to the expense of engaging Mr Clark’s services, and then fetter him. Mr Hobbs said the matter had been left entirely to Mr Carrnthers, in whom the lioard felt the utmost confidence, and no doubt Mr Clark should be equally unfettered. The Chairman said it was. not the Board but the ratepayers, who hud said they would not have certain things done. Mr Clark thought there was no necessity for consulting him it' the opinion of the public was to be adopted. The public mind Aid not always in the direction of what was best. "Why they should object to pumping he did not know. It would bo intelligible if the objection was to unnecessary disease. When people called in a doctor th,ey bad better take his opinion and not proscribe what he was to say. He would prefer not to have anything to do with the business unless he could give his opinion upon it. H e thought it better to educate public opinion, though he did n it say that anyone should set himself up against it For his own part, he would not like to be told in any shape what h© was or w«s not to recommend. The question appeared to be, not so. much the particular fom of drainage as the demand for it. Mr Duncan said that the people objected to have the filth of ope, part of the city taken ta another part, Mr Clark eomdderod that the Board was very iqqcqin the position of the Metropolitan Board’ Of Works in Loudon, which directs the whole of the main drain geand assesses eaih district for the amount of benefit received by it. Each die-

in its deliberations, and was made acquainted with all its proceedings. Mr Hall said that was a great defect in the Board’s Act. They had no power to assess e.,ch Mr W< ight reminded Mr Hall that the Act had been amended in this particular. The Chairman informed Mr Clark that the Board had no power to compel house drainage. Mr Clark understood that in that case the Board’s power was limit' d to the disposal of the surface water. Had the question arisen that it was necessary to have covered drains? The Chairman said that was one of the questions on which the Board were at issue with their opponents, who seemed to th uk that the system of covered drains was exploded. Mr Clark recognised the fact that Christchurch, from its peculiar situation, required a system of drainage specially adapted to it. He did not see the utility of the Board putting down covered sewers and the people _ being allowed to remove their sewage in their own way. The cost of the scheme would jiot be affected, because provision must bo made in any underground system for the removal of all sewage. If the people were content with a aystem of mere surface drains, there was an end to any other scheme such ns was proposed. Mel bourne and Adelaide had rested hitherto satisfied with a surface drainage, the consequence was that at least the last mentioned place, which ought naturally to be one of the most healthy in the world was now one of the most unhealthy. The Chairman informed Mr Clark that there had of late been an appreciable diminution in the death-rate of Oh istchurch and its neighborhood, which the Board hoped had been brought about in some measure by their past action.