The Tumeka Leader TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1889. DRAINAGE FOR TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1974, 26 November 1889, Page 2

The Tumeka Leader TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1889. DRAINAGE FOR TEMUKA.

f Messes Meason and Maechant’s J water and drainage scheme for Tomuka is both elaborate and extensive. They , propose to take the water out of the river at the back of Mr Cliff’s property, bring it down through Mr McOallum’s . paddocks and along the main road to the town boundary, where it is to be distributed into the various channels required for watering and draining the town. The watering appears a very inconsiderable part of the scheme, but ] the drainage portion is extremely ‘ elaborate and expensive. They propose to run down a drain, in which they will lay 9 and 12 inch pipes, midway between the sections which face the railway terrace and the main street respectively. The sewage from all ’ the houses will be taken away through \ this drain. The water scheme simply consists in flushing the side channels, and will cost .only £450, but the drainage scheme will cost .£2450 if carried out according to their design. 1 There can be no doubt but that the 1 j drainage scheme is extremely desirable, but the expense it involves is great. To carry out the scheme in its entirety would require an expenditure of close on £3OOO, which means increased taxation on the people of Temuka to the extent of about three-half-pence in the £. Put in a practical form, i the man who pays £1 in rates now ’ would have to pay £2 10s or therer abouts if the scheme were adopted, 1 And the question for the people is, Are ! they ready to spend so much money ' to make their town healthy and clean ? For our part we do not believe that there is a father of a family in Temuka who will not gladly make the sacrifice required of him to secure such a boon as good drainage for the town. Thera can be no doubt but that, as at present, the emptying of all household water on sections adjoining the houses is very dangerous to health. Our supply of drinking water is pumped out ef these sections, and hence the danger. Now what one has to ask is: Is the removal of this danger worth the money ? In our opinion it is, as the money would not be lung going in medical attendance. The only question to our mind concerning the scheme is whether it would not be possible to devise some less expensive one. We are of opinion f that such a thing is possible; that Messrs Meason and Marchant’s scheme is more elaborate than is required at present, and we should suggest to the board the advisability of asking them to modify it. H