A MUNICIPAL MUDDLE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8182, 15 August 1906, Page 2

A MUNICIPAL MUDDLE.

NEW PLYMOUTH WATER AND DRAINAGE. The disclosures mado by us in our issue of Wednesday last concerning the leakage at tke waterworks tunnel and the liijjlily unsatisfactory state of the septic tank caused considerable comment at the time, strong exception being taken by several ratepayers to the attempt male by Mr Mestayer, the consulting engineer, to lay the whole of the blame at the door of the Borough Council. It was hardly likely that the council would lie content to accept the position into which they ivere placed liy our report, and Mr Mestayer's extended report on his visit to the loan works carried out on his plans and under his supervision was awaited with sonic interest. This came before the Borough Council on Monday night, and we reproduce it here.

MB MESTAYKH 8 BErUDIATIOS. The report stated that in company with Mr Kendall, Vlr Mestayer had mado a thorough examination of the side drive on 7th August, and obtained from the Mayor and Mr Kendall some particulars of the cost of rendering the inside of the tunnel as partially executed under Mr Gibbon's directions. Although from a somewhat purely theoretical point of view it was no doubt better to prevent tho water from escaping from the tunnel by rendering it internally, from the practical standpoint there wero so many objections to this course that he could not recommend it. In the first place tho cost would be excessive, and in the second, in order to carry the rendering out completely it would be necessary to shut off the water entirely for at least a week; and this was quite out of the question. Of course, if the safety of the works depended upon the water being sealed up in the tunnel it would be different; as a matter of fact, the escape of this water did no harm at all, and there was consequently no justification for adopting any such measures as shutting down the works, even for a single day. The alternative was to seal up the drive, that the water could not escape, and this could be done at a small cost by putting in a concrete wall across the side drivo where the ground was solid, backing this up with a puddle bank of strong clay, and then filling up tlio space between the tunnel and the puddle bank with earth. . . Tht cause of tho trouble w .s unquestionably bad workmanship on the part ol the contractor, not as regarded the tun nel itself, which was all right; but u not filling up the side drive, properly When the drive was opened up re cently by Mr Kendall's instructions, il was found that the old filling consisted of tree roots, lumber, and rubbish o: all kinds, and that there had been n( attempt to fill it in conformity with tin specifications. No contractor with ani regard to reputation would have len himself to such a piece of scamping and Mr Mestayer said ho could no understand how the inspector came ti pass it. He was sure that if Mr Golle: had remained in charge of the work this would never have happened "Before leaving the subject of thi tunnel," Mr Mestayer said, " I ma] refer to a misapprehension whicl appears to exist in the minds o some people a'l to tho object o lining it; this was not for the pur pose of making a water-tight tube but to prevent earth falling into tin tunnel, and it is done solely in sue! places where the ground appeared un sound and likely to fall in when expos ed to the action of running water. Thi lining is fulfilling its purpose perfectly and there is no justification for thi statements which have been made a: to the tunnel being defective. If i had been required to form a water tight tube from the river to the pipe head, this could easily have been done but quite a different construction wouh have had to be adopted, the cost of thi work would have been at least fou: times as great, and nothing whatevei would liave been gained." 1 Mr Mestayer then commented 01 | the septic tank. He dissented entirol; from the statements made as to th septic tank not working satisfactorily ' the fault to which his attention hai been called on Tuesday—and whicl Mr Gibbon should undoubtedly hav brought before him sooner—was no due to any defect of the tank, nor o its working, but was entirely outsid and independent of the tank itself and was capable of very easy remedy . . . Tlio original plans of th ' tank supplied to Mr Gibbon had showi a grating field to screen off rags, cloth and svuh like Foreign bodies too large t [ piss through the orifice. The origins - screen was, according to Mr Gibbon too fine, and choked up quickly; si t Mr Mestayer sanctioned the use of on with wider bars, but in addition to tin it was now found that on his owi 1 initiative, and withoiit referenco to M [ Mestayer, Mr Gibbon had altered th position, of the screen, and fixed it oi the outlet end instead of tlio inlet em ' of the orifice, the consequence beini that all objects brought down by th sewers had now to bo passed through ; '■ six inch pipe. This was constant! being blocked up, and the sewage no being able to pass into the silt cham ber, backed up in the sewers, wliij] , then became waterlogged. Thi ■ remedy was either to replace the screei in the collecting chamber or to enlargi , the orifice, and Mr Mestayer recom mended the adoption of the laite: course. He had instructed Mr Ken dall to carry out this work. " I ma 1 , here point out" ho added, "that owinj to the flat grade of tho Broughan 1 street sewer, which was quite unavoid able, it will always bo necessary tu pa] special attention to this sewer, and frequently Hush it, more especially whilst there are many houses uncon ncctcd which will ull imately deliver intt it; in other words.Jthe more sewage thai (lows into it, the less will bo the attention it will require. I have asked Mr Kendall to report to me on the effect of the alteration of the orifice, and do not proposo to make any further suggestions until sufficient time has elapsed to give the new arrangement a fair trial."

AN INCONSISTENT IIEI'OIIT. At tins stage it is interesting to quote the report submitted by Mr Mcstayer to the borough engineer on June 9th last, lie wrote: " I consider that rendering the inside of the first section of the tuuuol lining will make a more effective and permanent job than building a wall across the mouth of the side-drive. The latter couv-e might prove effective hut if this were done it would in my opinion also be necessary to till up llv< side-drive completely with gned dry clayey material, and first remove all the water-sodden soil now there, otherwise any escaping water would inevitably sooner or later, find a new outlet. As you say in your letter of 2fitli ulto, that: tl}D (low from the side-drive has materially diminished since the rendering has been done, that proyei the efficiency of that course It is undoubtedly the better to malic the inside water-tight if possible, rather than seal up merely the oseape channel, unless it can be assured that no other channel can be opened."

SOME STRAIGHT TALK. Whcu the latest report was submitted to the Council, Or. P. E Wilson expressed surprise at its condemnatory tendency, as the work of rendering had boon carried out under Mr Mcstayer's instruction. He referred to the News' report of an interview with Mr Mcstayer, and suggested that as the paper had so fully published the consulting engineer's opinion of tho Council and its officials, it should as readily publish his (Or Wilson's) slaloment that "any fault in the tunnel or in the septic tank must lie at Mr Mcstayer's door, and," he added, "it does lie there," He would like to s;io it re-published, too, that the method new alopted by Mr JJosinye'r at (lie waterworks was really Mr Kendah's idea, lie could not see why Mr Mestayer should take the credit. Or Monlu.ith fallowed. He said he had olijepiel to the proposal to send for Mr Meslayer on this occasion, for reasons that ho named, He consider-

od Mr Mestayer should have met the Council on his last visit, instead of slipping in to the town and out again, leaving a report. Cr Montcath gave the Mayor credit for devising tho tuunel repair scheme. The Mayor disclaimed any credit, as his scheme only provided for a puddle wall. _ Cr Monteath added that it mattered little anyhow, tor the suggestions had been condemned by Mr Mcstayer then, though he favoured them now. The Mayor stated his opiiion that the leakage at the pipe-head would increase as soon as the other leak was stopped. Ho had no intention of relieving Mr Mestnycr of any responsibility, for ho alone was responsible Referring to the septic tank, His Worship said the drainage had never entered the tank properly until an alteration was made, as suggested by Mr Kendall. He moved that the Council authorise the engineer to carry out Mr Mestayer's recommendations. In answer to Mr Brooking, Mr Kendall said it would be unnecessary to empty the tunnel. Cr. Bellringer considered that the Council had spent £SO on this rendering of the tunnel, without reoeiving benefit. It was Mr Mestayer's idea. The fact that the consulting engineer had adopted Mr Kendall's scheme showed the Council had a better man here than in Wellington, He dishkod the tone of Mr Mestayer's letter. The Mayor said Mr Mestayer complained he had been kept in the dark as to the working of the septic tank. He had seen in Mr Mestayer's office in Wellington a bcttle containing clear water and bearing a note from Mr Gibbon that, this had passed through the tank. It was vory different to the effluent at present leaving the tank. The motion was carried.