THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5580, 15 February 1879, Page 3

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

A meeting of the Drainage Committee of the City Council was held yesterday. Present—His Worship the Mayor, Councillors Maginnity, Logan, Dixon, Allan, Moss, Miller, Greenfield, Hunter, and Fisher. The minutes of the previous meeting were road and confirmed. The substance of a letter from Mr. J. C. Crawford to his Worship the Mayor was communicated to the Council, it being to the effect that long delay in the settlement of the outfall question would be productive of inconvenienoe to him, as he desired to go to England as soon as possible. The following letter was read : “ Wellington, February 13, 1879.

“His Worship the Mayor and Drainage Committee. Gentlemen, —In reading the report of the Lyell Bay outfall, there seems to me some matters which appear to have escaped Mr. Baird’s attention, and as my letter to the Council was the cause of them going to the expense of miking survey and plans, I desire to supplement the report on some points which seem to be forgotten, so that the Council may have the fullest information before coming to a decision. Mr. Baird admits that it is the best outfall on the coast, but points out that about 70 chains would have either to be carried with a syphon or an embankment raised at some cost and trouble, with the risk of the sand blowing away. Speaking in his report of this portion of the scheme, Mr. Clark says that the tunnel being terminated at 22 feet above high-water, would allow the sewage to be distributed over the entire area (400 acres), and the plans showed flats which would have to be levelled or filled. Further, he allowed the sum of £2OOO for levelling and drains, &c. But a reference to the plan of Mr. Baird will show that the longest hollows or flats are at the entrance to the tunnel, which a contractor would consider rather an advantage, as it would be handy to shoot the material excavated out of the tunnel into. Supposing that there would still have to be some small part which would have to be syphoned or a bank raised, I don’t think that a great matter. The sewage of Paris is taken under the river Seine by syphon. Mr. Clark shows them on his plans to be used in 'Wellington. In reference to the sand blowing away, I would remark that the small building of the cable house, which is very exposed, has been built over ten years, and although the phes are not a great depth into the sand, it has not been blown away yet. It is further pointed out by Mr. Baird, and with truth, that this route would not drain what is known as Hunter’s Farm. This is not included in either the schemes of Mr. Climie or Mr. Clark (in fact it is outside of the city, and pays no rates any more than Karori), and I would point out that the same means that Mr. Baird now proposes in his No. 3 plan would be available at any time. But if there is the wash in Ohiro Bay which Mr. Baird claims for it the two bays are so similar there ought to be scour sufficient to take the sewage from the district named. The saving of time is put down at eight months. From what is known of driving large tunnels there can be no doubt that great difficulty and consequent loss of time will be experienced in ventilating such small drives as these. And considering that the Rimutaka tunnel, which is not half a mile long, took about three years to pierce, without lining, the three-quarters of a mile less tunnel in'this route, including lining and cementing, might fairly bo put as a saving of twelve months. And no part of the work is of any service to the town till the tunnels are complete. The cost of each is put as being near the same, but I differ from this. Lyell Bay outlet, with 2574 lineal yards of tunnel and 3894 lineal yards of concrete sewers (whichever Mr. Baird proposes to make it, as the material was at hand), may be estimated approximately at £29,169. The Ohiro outfall (No. 3), as given by Mr. Baird, would be—tunnel, 4026 lineal yards'; sewer, 1936 lineal yards. Assuming the same price as in the former case, the estimate would be £47,036, as against £29,169 for Lyell Bay. I may state that the prices for the tunnel are Mr. Clark’s, and are higher than the estimate which I gave him. I should also state that there is about six chains more tunnel to Lyell Bay than I have estimated, caused by the entrance of the tunnel being removed from Drummond-street to the centre of the cricket ground ; but as Mr. Baird explained that this was to ease the pumps by giving them twelve feet less lift, I do not think it should bo added to the outfall. I should also point out that as it is not intended to line the roof of the tunnel, it is not unlikely that in places,

where tho rook becomes exposed to the air, flakes from the roof may become disintegrated, and by falling, impede the flow, causing a deposit, if not cleared away, so that the less tunnel the less risk of this. I submit that I have fairly maintained the statement I made in my letter to the Corporation ; and in conclusion I may say that I have not a particle of personal interest in the matter, but simply, with every citizen of Wellington, desire to see it taken to the best place, wherever that may be, and in the shortest time.— I am, &e., ■i'lSamoel Brown.” Plans of the various proposed outfalls were on the table, and the City Surveyor answered several questions in regard thereto. He remarked first that the forty-seven acres he had mentioned, and which were referred to by Mr, Brown, were situate in the city in the locality of the Great South-road, and that that land could not be drained if his modification were not agreed to. The Mayor : You recommend the Ohiro outfalls ? Mr. Baird : Yes. The Mayor : What is the difference in cost ?

Mr, Baird : Very little, I think. The Ohira is a hit shorter distance, but then there is a long tunnel on the way which would make up tho difference. The expense of this outfall would make a difference of about £BOOO on Mr. Oiarke’s scheme, bringing it up to £143,000 if Mr. Clarke’s estimates were correct ; but to his mind they were rather high. After considerable discussion, Councillor Allan moved that the Ohiro outfall be adopted. Councillor Miller seconded.

Councillor Moss asked a question in reference to the land through which the drain-pipe must pass. The Mayor said the land was about to be sold, and when sold would probably be brought under the Land Transfer Act immediately. Roads had been surveyed and were about to he made, and it was under these that the engineer proposed to take the drain so that the Council need not expect to have to pay any-

thing. Councillor Logan raised the question whether the Council having adopted a resolution declaring that Mr. Clarke’s scheme should be carried out could adopt this new outfall without first rescinding the previous resolution.

The Mayor did not think such a course necessary. Councillor Greenfield thought it would be desirable to get some information as to whether the Council would have to pay anything for the land through which the drainage would be carried, and if so how much ? The Mayor : My own impression is that it would he best to take the law as it stands. We can take the laud under the Public Works Act, and if any claim is made go to arbitration.

Councillor Fisher presumed it would he necessary to commence work at this particular spot at once, so that there was no necessity far hurrying to a decision on the question of outfall ?

The City Surveyor said this was the largest and most difficult u ork, and it would be most desirable to commence it at once—before the other works, if possible.

Councillor Fisher observed that once it was settled that this was to be the outfall the owners of land would begin to ask a long price for tho land. As business men they should see what would be the cost of land on the various routes.

Councillor Allan : Oh, let us go on and take the law as it stands. The owners could not expect anything much, besides, the roads were proclaimed, and would be made shortly. If necessary, assessors can be appointed, and we will pay whatever they award. Councillor Logan agreed with Councillor Fisher. They should find out the terms before they committed themselves to anything. It wqs quite possible it they did that they would get a premium for taking the drainage a particular way. It would be a great advantage for sellers of land to be able to say, “ we sell subject to a proper drainage system being established on the land connected with the general scheme of the city.” But if the Council decided to take the drainage a certain way, the persons through whose land the drainage went would be sure to make a charge. The Mayor : Certainly I sho-.’ ’ object to any one being given a single pen..., because manifestly it would improve the laud through which it passed. Councillor Hunter said it seemed roads had been marked out, and he believed they were to be made immediately. The drainage was to be taken under these roads, and no doubt would be a benefit to people who bought. He believed a contract had been let for one of the roads. The Mayor said that was so, but he was not sure which it was. The City Engineer thought the Council, under any circumstances, would have to pay something. Councillor Fisher said if public roads were to be made and properly dedicated to the Crown he could understand that no charge could he made; but this was as yet private land, and he supposed that the positions of the roads could be so varied as to make it imperative on the Council to carry the pipes through private land, for which payment could bn demanded. He moved—“ That the adoption of a line of route be delayed until an arrangement is made by the committee with the owners of land for the passage of drainage pipes through their land.” Councillor Logan seconded.

Ceunoillor Hunter said such a resolution was an invitation to those people to make a claim.

Councillor Gbeenfieud suggested it would be advisable to have the opinion of a consulting engineer as to the advisability of adopting the Ohiro outfall. It was almost unfair to throw such a responsibility on the City Engineer, and he was sure Mr. Baird himself would admit that it would be advisable to have another engineer’s opinion. After some further discussion the amendment was negatived, and the original motion was carried. The committee then adjourned.