THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5043, 23 May 1877, Page 2

THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

[Contributed.] In accordance with our promise we return to the question of the drainage scheme. The citizens will soon be called upon to express their views upon it, and say yea or nay. The importance of the j subject at issue cannot be over-estimated, and we trust the ratepayers of the city will consider well what they are about, look the matter fairly in the face, and make up their minds to support it. We hope they will not be apathetic nor indifferent to a subject of such vital moment, but will take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with the proposed scheme, and then we do not fear the result. We may further express a hope that they will not permit themselves to be carried away by any crude, undefined, and visionary theories, more than one of which are likely to bo put forward. Mr. Gumib’s scheme is an appeal to common sense, and we hope it will be supported by the common sense of the community. Since this scheme has been before the public various counter schemes have been proposed, and every scheme, however Utopian, will find some advocates. We have heard lately of the “pneumatic,” the “ dry earth,” and the “ pail ” systems ad nauseam. We may dismiss all the foregoing schemes with the remark that they have all been “ weighed in the balances of experience, and found wanting.” They are therefore unworthy of serious attention. But another scheme has been propounded and much talked of, which deserves more than a passing remark. We refer to a scheme, of which wo have heard frequently of late, of putting the serfage into the bay. Against such a proposal we feel bound to raise our warning voice, as it will have the effeotof defeating most effectually the very end its advocates wish to obtain, namely, the purification of the city from unwholesome smells. The effect will be to concentrate these smells, and bring them to a focus. Where the site of a town is only a little elevated above the tidal water-line, as is the case with the city of Wellington, the delivery of the refuse from the sewers must be either by pumping, to render it constant, or it must be intermittent, therefore leaving the sewage for a time stagnant in the channels of conveyance. During the period of intermittance—-that is, when the tide is high, and the flap-traps consequently closed —the sewage would be stagnant in the sewers. The solid matter would settle to the bottom, and remain in the sewers. Experience has proved that there had better be no sewers at all than that they should be merely sewers of deposit. That towns so situated can be effectually aud economically drained by pumping is proved by the condition of Holland, where the laud is almost all below thelevel of the sea, and the cilies are amongst the most densely populated in Europe. Wherever the sewage of towns has been allowed to run into tidal waters, or into rivers, it has been found that the evil has not been lessened, but frequently increased. In the case of Sydney, the sewage was permitted to run into the harbor, a tidal estuary ; but at low water the stench arising from the locality near the outlet of the sewers is so great as to become a public nuisance ; and arrangements are now being made to take the city sewage, by a tunnel four or five miles long, into the sea, far away from any human habitation. We may also instance Brighton, in the old country, as a case in point. In that place the sewage was turned into the sea ; but it was found that even the strong current of the English Channel was insufficient to take it away. The shore was lined with filthy accumulations, and it was found necessary to divert the course of the drainage, which was done attheoxpenseof £121,000, which was of course added to the original expense of the drainage [scheme. Other instances might be cited ; but these will suffice. Further, supposing this scheme to be adopted here, what would be the result 1 It would necessarily lead to the indefinite postponement of the measure. The matter would have to be deferred until the reclamation of the Te Aro foreshore is accomplished—a work not yet begun, nor likely to be for some time to come. Wo may therefore put it down that the question will be shelved for at least two years. Should it be determined to proceed with the work of drainage at once, it will be necessary to lay pipes out into the bay for at least half a mile, unless it is intended to poison the inhabitants of the Te Aro foreshore, or drive them from their homes. On the score of expense not a farthing would be gained : the one scheme would cost as much as the other. We are informed

that the best cast-iron pipes would not stand the corroding influence of the sea water. They would require constant attention and frequent renewal. The drains would have to be fitted with flap-traps, which would require constant attention, and last, but not least, the noxious gases generated in the sewers would be driven back by every rising tride. We hope the inhabitants of the locality indicated will be on the watch to prevent the consummation of such a scheme. .. It jn.ay be said that the sewage oL London is cast into the Thames, hue it must not he forgotten that it is first received iuAo large tanks, prepared for its reception, where it is deodorised by disinfectants, and mixed with various chemical agencies for fixing the gases before pumping it into the Thames. And all authorities agree that even these precautions, which are both expensive aud laborious, are only partially successful. One thing is clear, that any scheme for putting the sewage into the bay, without first disinfecting it, which is, as we have indicated, a very expensive process, will be a failure and a waste of money. If Mr. Climie’s scheme is adopted, the sewage will be taken to the south side of Mount Victoria, where the pumping engine will be erected; not on the town side, as stated by some. Thus, the city will be free from all unwholesome smells and dangers arising therefrom; the sewage will be put upon the land, where it will be mixed with the soil, which has been proved by experience to be the only safe way of disposing of it. We purpose now to say a word or two relative to the expense of Mr. Climie’s scheme, as compared with the present system of removing the solid excreta by means of carts. For a population of 5000 it is estimated, upon a moderate calculation, that the present arrangements would cost a sum of £25,000 per annum for the removal of solid matter only, allowing 8 cubic feet per annum for each individual, or 400,000 cubic feet for the whole city. This involves an expense of 10s. for each person, or £3 10s. for every average household of five persons. That this is considerably under the mark we are fully aware, for we know some families of eight who pay £0 a year. The population of Wellington now is probably not less than 17,000 or 18,000, say 17,500. By the time Mr. Cli.mie’s scheme is carried out, the population will probably not be less; judging from the present rate of increase, will amount to 21,000. Thus the annual expense to the city, under the present system, would be be £10,500. We are in a position ta know that Mr. Climie’s scheme can be carried out for very much less than the original estimate. There has been a considerable reduction in the price of coals since that gentleman made his calculations, amounting to 33 per cent., thus saving about £7OO per annum. An engine of much less power than fifty horses would suit the requirements for some years to come. Drains would not have to be laid down in streets which, as yet, only exist on paper. We have no hesitation in saying that the annual expense of the scheme, for some years to come, would not exceed £7500 per annum, resulting in a clear saving to the citizens of £3OOO per annum. Taking the relative cost of the two systems for the maximum population of 50,000, the results are more clearly in favor of Mr. Cli.mie’s scheme, as the figures would stand at £BSOO per annum against £25.000, showing a clear yearly saving of £10,500 to the citizens. Again, speaking of the relative quantities of sewage matter removed by the rival systems, the figures are immensely in favor of the improved scheme. Taking the estimated water supply at 30gals. per bead per diem, the aggregate quantity discharged by the sewers would be about five cubic feet (that is speaking in round figures) per diem for every individual ; or for a population of 50,000 it would equal 250,000 per diem, or 91,250,000 cubic feet per annum. Thus, taking the present cost of removal at Is. 3d. per cubic foot, it can be shown that under Mr. Climie’s scheme 075 cubic feet of sewage matter can be removed for the same sum.