SEWERAGE SCHEME

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 165, 26 April 1935, Page 6

SEWERAGE SCHEME

PROPOSAL FOR METHVEN. RATEPAYERS DISCUSS PLANS. CONSIDERATION IS DEFERRED. There was only a small attendance of ratepayers at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening to discuss the proposal to instal underground drainage in Methven, and after the plans had been gone into, and a large number of questions answered, it was agreed that consideration of the proposal should be deferred for one month, by which time there will be available a report on the question of the water supply, several speakers having expressed a doubt that the present system was inadequate, though the meeting was assured that there was sufficient water for every purpose.

The meeting was presided over by Mr J.. Carr, who, with Mr R. W. Wightmau, was instrumental in having the proposal placed before the County Council, and with him were Messrs D. J. Morrow (County Chairman), R. W. Wightman, G. Kelly (County Clerk), H. A. Vezey (County Engineer), and Dir. T. Fletcher Telford (Medical Officer of Health for Canterbury and Westland).

Mr Morrow said that it had been suggested that the time had arrived when there sliould be an underground drainage system in Methven, and at the request of the district representatives, the Council had obtained a report on a suitable scheme for the township, and the report would be presented that night.

Costs Were Decreasing. Mi' Carr said that about 1910 the Road Board suggested that something better than the old system was due for installation. There was a good deal of opposition, and the scheme was dropped. He had heard complaints in recent years against the system now in use, and had conferred with Mr Wightman, both agreeing that a better system might be installed. Of course, Methven was a small place, and there might be a too heavy burden of taxation as a result of the proposal being gone on with. Increased building had greatly reduced) costs for the watersystem, and as time went on the position would improve further. The cost now was half what it was when the system was put down. Mr Carr said that the first question to be asked was regarding the cost of the drainage system, and that could not be answered till a report had been obtained. The report had cost £SO, the opinion being that it would be worth the money, as the plans would be available in future years. The cost would be borne by the Mount Hutt riding if the ratepayers turned down the scheme. Mr J. W. M. Dart: There will be row about that! Mr Carr: I expect so. A voice: But we are going on with it! Saving in Interest. Mr Carr displayed the plans drawn up by the consulting engineer, and he said that many people were dissatisfied with the present system, which was costing £268, and as time went on i there would be fewer people on the system, and they would haye to pay more individually, as the cost remained while more septic tanks were being put down. He had been told that the proposal was 25 years too soon, biit at that time, perhaps, all the septic tanks would have to be scrapped, as the underground system must come eventually. Money was cheap at the present time, and there would be a huge saving in interest charges, alone. Most of the cost of the installation would be spent in the township, and materials were cheap now, whereas in five years, or more, the position might be reversed. The engineer's plans called for a good deal of concreting that was really not necessary, and the cost of £7750 would be reduced. The annual cost for interest and sinking fund, with 10 per cent, added, would be £440. The water scheme .district was valued at £146,742 ; when the scheme was put in it was £102,000. The individual annual charge would he 80s 'for the new system. There was a suggestion that the open portion of the race should he piped, and the cost would be £I6OO.

Subsidy Probable. Another cost to be faced was that of installing the system in houses, a cost of about £3O each. This was too much for working men, but the payment could be carried oyer ten years. The Unemployment Board might be induced to subsidise the labour of the scheme, and if this came about the sum available Avoiild be about £960, one-eighth of the total cost. Mr Carr said he did not want to press the people to carry out the scheme, but the facts were known to them, and it was for them to agree to it or to turn it down. Mr Wightman supported Mr Can's statements, and urged the adoption of the scheme. Dr. Telford outlined the history of sanitation, and said that while the population was small at Methyen, the pit system was all right, but progress demanded a step forward, and a better system should be installed, though if the methods adopted were not good, the present system could be more dangerous than the old one. An up-to-date scheme was now put forward, and it was up to the people to decide for or against it. The proposed system had many advantages, and it should bo considered seriously. He had gone into the engineer's plans, and they were reasonable in every way. The only dtfficultv lay in the cost of the initial installation'for fittings. He thought it would be desirable for the householders to meet and discuss whether they could meet the expense. Under the present system the people ran the risk of disaster from disease sooner or later. Mr S. Smith commended the district representatives on the Council for having brought the scheme forward, and added that there was some fear that the present water supply was not suffi-

cient to cope with it, and perhaps something might be done at the headworks to ensure an ample supply. He was sure the majority favoured the system, proposed.

In reply to a question, Mr Carr said that some areas of streets had been left out of the system, but it depended on the ratepayers whether they were brought in or not. The water supply was 1200 gallons a minute at the start, and he could not understand why there sliould be any falling off since. Before any scheme was gone on with the water supply would have to be sure, of course. It was stated that the pressure in the mains to-day was oOlbs. against 451bs. when the system was opened.

Dr. Telford said that the usual supply catered for was 30 gallons a day for each person in a town. Mr Kelly said that the area included in the drainage scheme was the same as the water supply scheme for convenience sake, but it could be made larger or smaller as required. Dr. Telford said the Road Board had been singularly "soft" in allowing people who built septic tanks to escape the sanitary fee. He always urged local authorities in similar circumstances to charge the fee against everyone, for it killed objectors when a bigger scheme was required. In iieply to a question, Mr Cansaid that owners of sections would pay a rate on the capital yalue of the section toward the costs of the drainage scheme, just as the owners of land on which tliere were buildings. ' After some discussion in regard to water supply, Mr Dart said that the meeting should confine itself to the drainage scheme, and he was satisfied that there would be no trouble over the water supply. A great many people in Methven could not afford the expense as outlined, unless they were assisted. He knew of a case where a man now paying 30s a year sanitary fee would have to pay from £8 to £lO. This man had a large piece of land in the drainage area, and he had to pay dearly for water rates. The scheme should he made more popular by eliminating payment by men who had unimproved property. Mr Carr said there would be cases ot hardship, but there ne'yer was a scheme which did not bring hardships, as was evidenced when the water supply scheme was put in. The consulting engineer thought the system would require 5100 gallons of water a day. Dr. Telford said that he did not know of any town of the size of Methven, in his district, that had a scheme of drainage as proposed in Methven, but a scheme had been asked for, and the representatives on the Council had produced one." In regard to rented houses, Mr Cansaid that the cost of installation could be added to the rent to the extent of 5 per cent. It was proposed that the cost of installation (£3O) could be repaid in from five to ten years in cases where assistance was given to householders. " On the motion of Messrs A. Henderson and J. Manger the discussion was deferred, as stated above.