THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1249, 8 March 1878, Page 3

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

At the conclusion of the special meeting of the City Council yesterday a memorandum was read with reference to the action of the Drainage Board, and the probable drift of the report of Mr Clark. The memorandum in question, after premising that Mr Clark had been given carte blanrhe by the Drainage Board, went on to point out that his idea was to have deep drainage and the water-closet system. Under the Act by which the Drainage Board was constituted all that they had to do was to dispose of the surface water. There was not a word about their interference with deep drainage, or with waterclosets, nor had they any power to enter premises for this purpose. It was therefore clear that in giving Mr Clark carte blanche, the Drainage Board had exceeded their powers, and could bo restrained by law. Not only was this so. but the whole testimony of civil engineers was against the adoption of the watercloset system. In proof of this an extract was read from a speech of the colleague of Mr Balzagette in the Metropolitan Drainage scheme, condemning in tho strongest terms the adoption of tho watercloset Bystem. From what could be learnt of the ideas of Mr Clark on the subject, he was in favor of reportirg on the advisableness of a water closet system, the sewage being taken to the sandhills and there purified so as to be able to go into the estuary, a sewage farm being established there to utilise the dejecta. The system of sewage farms had been tried in England and elsewhere and had failed, besides which, the taking of tho sewage to the sandhills involved large expenditure for machinery, ifcc, which the ratepayers could not afford to go into. As to deep drainage, this would be from the very nature of the soil a useless expenditure of money. The whole of the ground around Christehurch had been formed by successive deposits of soil by the Waimakariri, and was full of natural springs. The swamp on the Windmill road was an example of this, being caused by the natural artesian wells under the surface. To attempt to drain country of this description by deep underground pipes was therefore not at all feasible. Whit they wanted was to provide by Bide channelling to iake off the surface water and the house slops. They must remember, returning to the question of water-closets, that they had now a system of pans in force which was independent of the rates, boing paid for privately. If they introduced the water-doge* pyatem, they would not only lose

the first cost of these pans, but the cost of the water system would be a charge on the rates. Another thing was that, even on a very moderate computation, the cost of the water-closets would be a very great hardship on small householders. Taking only the first cost of the closets, without calculating the cost of repairs or connection with the sewers (which would be heavy), the interest would amount to something like 30s per annum, whilst under the pan system it would be only 9s. The difference between these two sums, which it must bo recollected only included the interest on the first coat, would be a very serious item to small householders. Apart from this consideration, the whole weight of professional opinion, as had been shown, was against the adoption of the water-closet system. The memo, concluded by strongly urging upon the Council, as representing the public, to take some steps to prevent the ratepayers being committed by the Drainage Board to a scheme of groat magnitude. The Mayor said it was for the members present to consider what steps were best to be taken under the circumstances. The Drainage Board had given Mr Clark carte blanche, and, of course, he would give the best scheme he could. As to cost, that did not interfere with him. Of one (hing ho was quite certain—that the citizens, as a whole, were directly opposed to the introduction of a water-closet system. There could be no mistake about that, and it was just as well for them to let the Board know this before Mr Clark had sent in his report. Of course they were meeting there that evening as private citizens, and not in their official capacity, and it would be for them in the interests of the city, to take action as speedily as possible. Cr. Briggs agreed with all that was contained in the memorandum. He was most directly opposed to the water-closet system being introduced, but thought they should confine their action to this. He did not think they should enter into the merits and demerits of deep drainage, because they were not competent to deal with the professional points raised. Let them as citizens go to the Board and lay the protest before them. Crs. Buddenklau, Jameson, Bickerton, and Bird also agreed with what had been stated in the memo, regarding the water-closet system. They were, however, opposed to taking any steps at present with regard to the question of deep or surface drainage. After some further discussion, Cr. Bickerton moved —" That the Mayor, Crs. Pratt and Jameson form a deputation to wait upon the Drainage Board at its meeting next morning to place before them the views of the citizens, as expressed at the public meeting, against the introduction of the water-closet system into Christchureh." Cr.Euddenklau seconded the motion, which was carried.