DRAINAGE BOARD.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1292, 10 May 1878, Page 3

DRAINAGE BOARD.

Friday, May 10. The Board held their usual meeting on the above date at the office, in Hereford street. Present—Messrs Tancred (chairman), Hobbs, Duncan, Harman, Ross, and E, G. W right. The minutes of the last special meeting were read and confirmed. engineer’s report. The Engineer’s report was read as follows: — I have examined the Heathcote as far as the Christchurch Quay. I would suggest that before including it in the contract for the upper part of the river, that it be first cleaned by day labor, and all trees and other obstructions removed by contract. A large number of trees are growing in the bed of the river, which ought to be removed at once. Tenders are submitted to the Board which have been received for clearing certain drains in the Avon district for ono year. The railway culvert over the Biccarton drain has been lowered by the railway department. This will enable the drain to be lowered 2|ft., which is much required in wet weather. The old course of the creek through the land of Mr Kruse has been re-cpenecl, by which the water will de diverted from the side of the North road, and will prevent the flooding of parts of the road in heavy rains. Tenders were received for clearing drains in the Avon district for one year, and that of Mr Rhoda for £l3O was accepted. The remainder of the report was considered satisfactory, and was accordingly received and adopted. ST. ALBANS CREEK. A letter was read from Mr Webster, Springfield road, calling attention to the state of the water in St, Albans creek, which is causing annoyance and danger to the adjacent property. Referred to the engineer, with power to act. CANAL RESERVE. A letter was read from Mr Garchawske, stating that the Board having deepened the drain on the canal reserve, he is unable to get his crop across the drain, and requesting that a bridge should be thrown across it. A similar letter was read from Mr Robert Forsyth. The Board decided in each case that the drain, being a public drain prior to the existence of the Board, it could not comply with the request, but would permit the applicants to make bridges over it under the supervision of the engineer. BROOM FARM. A letter was read from Mr De Bourbel, requesting that the ditch on the north side of rural sections No. 183 and 185, situated in the Avon district, and known as Broom Farm, might be widened and deepened for the purpose of carrying and draining the water from the north side of rural section 183, as the water has no other outlet to the river except by this ditch. The matter was referred to the engineer. PETITION FROM PAPANUI. A letter was read from Mr N. J. Suckling, with reference to a resolution passed at a recent sitting of the Board, and drawing attention to the fact that so far as the petitioners are concerned they have seen nothing of the Board’s engineer, neither had they heard that any action had been taken in the matter. The letter also stated that the ditches are now- so choked that, in the event of a down pour of rain the consequences would probably be serious. The Board referred the matter to the engineer, with directions to act in it as early as possible. WOOLSTON. Letters were road from Messrs 801 l and Reading, residents at Woolston, referring to the drainage of section 1146. The Board passed the following resolution—“ That the Board are of opinion that the drainage of section 1146 occupied by Messrs Atwood, Drydon and Redding, and others, would be best done by a drain through the centre of the section, and that should all the persons interested give the Board a legal title to the land, the Board will take the nee: ssary steps to have the drain opened through Dryden and Reddings and Attwood's land as shown on drawing, and on that arrangement being completed to the satisfaction of the Board will favourably consider the question of abandoning the northern portion of the drain through Dryden’s land.” A letter was read from Mr R. Fenton, stating that ho bad applied to the Heithcote Road Board regarding an artificial drain that runs through his property into the Estuary, and requesting the assistance of the Road Board in the matter. The latter had referred him to the Drainage Board. The writer hoped that as he intended fillii g up the drain and enclosing the property that the Board would be able to help him in the matter. The matter was referred to the engineer. ( . ACCOUNTS, ] Sundry accounts were passed for payment.

NEW MEMJJER. It was resolve cl that Wednesday, the 22nd of May, be fixed upon lor the election of a new member of the Board for the south-east portion of the city, and that Mr G. L. Lee be appointed returning officer. mb clahk’s report. Mr Herman said that it was unnecessary to go orer the ground again vviih reference to

Mr Clark’s report, his reputation as an expert was so high as to entitle him to tho confidence of tho Board. With reference to Mr Carrubbers’ report, he could see nothing in it which entitled them to disregard tho opinion of their referee. Mr Clark’s report had met with very litll ) hostile criticism, and had there been any it might have been expected to have been made by this time. Ho had much pleasure in moving the adoption of Mr Clark’s report. Mr Wright said they had had Mr Carrut hers’ report and Mr Clark’s report before them for some time past, and he thought it was fully time they should commence the substantial work of drainage. The time had arrived when a system of deep sewers and pumping stations was essential. Opponents of the old scheme had since tho publication of Mr Clark’s report strongly advocated its adoption. There was a great deal of similarity between the schemes of Mr Carruthers and Mr Clark. They both condemned the pollution of tho Estuary, and advocated deep sowers and pumping stations. Mr Clark had modified Mr Carruthers’ plan, and ho thought that that of Mr Clark might be usefully modified by Mr Bell. He recommended acting on tho basis of Mr Carruthers’ levels and carrying out Mr Clark’s plans. Ho considered Mr Carruthers’ plans were more adapted for a young city of rapid growth with increasing requirements, while those of Mr Clark were better suited to a more matured place. The question, he thought, of carrying out Mr Clark’s plans on Mr Carruthers’ levels should be referred to the Engineer of tho Board. Mr Hobbs said he intended on general grounds to support Mr Clark’s scheme us the one most acceptable to the ratepayers. He thought, however, that either of Mr Carruthers’ schemes would, if carried out, have been successful. In fact, Mr Clark had adopted the levels of Mr Carruthers, The cheapness of the water privy, and the removal of the sewage from the Estuary were the two important points in Mr Clark’s system. In conclusion, he remarked that, as far as the public were concerned, at the expiration of the Board’s tenure of office, those who wished to criticise their act ion in the adoption of Mr Clark’s scheme would have an opportunity of doing so on the election of tho new Board.

Mr Ross thoroughly endorsed all the features of Mr Clark’s plan, and would deprecate any tampering with it. The motion that Mr Clark’s report be adopted was then put and errried. Mr Duncan remarked on the advisability of getting on with the works of the Board with as little delay as possible. That portion of the drainage system which they had provided funds for, extending from the Heathcote Quay up some portion of the Ferry road, be thought should be proceeded with, and that the engineer should be instructed to prepare specifications and call for tenders for tho work. It was a separate work, apart from the general drainage scheme, and he thought a commencement should be made with it.

The following resolution was then put and carried :—“ That the engineer be requested to prepare specifications for cutting off the storm-water from the south-east portion of Christchurch and Sydenham, and for the constructing of the sewer from the mouth of Bell’s creek to Matheson’s road. That the engineer be requested to report os soon os possible what other portions of Mr Clark’s scheme should first be proceeded with.” The Board then adjourned until Tuesday, the 28th May.