DAY'S BAY WATER AND DRAINAGE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 241, 29 June 1918, Page 8

DAY'S BAY WATER AND DRAINAGE

PROPOSED SCHEME CRITICISED (To tho Editor.) Sir,—As a ratepayer of Day's Bay I am in favour of a proper system of drainage and water supply tor that suburb, but I intend to vote against tho proposal at the poll on Monday for two reasons: Firstly, I do not ( think the present time is one in which a small community liko Day's Bay should embark upon a Echeme the ultimate cost of which ijot even the city engineer (Mr. Morton) can possibly foresee; secondly, I don't approve—and many others are of my .opinion—of the scheme which it is proposed to give us> If I may trespass -upon your space I will state briefly the main objections upon which I—with others-have decided the direction of my vote. The present estimated cost of the scheme represents the maximum burden which it is considered the ratepayers of the district would bo prepared to carry in the matter of rating. This estimate is the second approximate of cost which has been drawn out for this . identical scheme, and -represents roughly an increase of over X2OOO on the originnl estimate. The revision of cost was rendered necessary by the increase in the price of labour and material. Who is to tell what the ultimate cost will be by tho time tho scheme,'if approved, is-put in hand and carried through? Everybody knows that the prices of industrial material are rising steadily all the' time. On top of that, every ratepayer will have to face the cost of his own connection with thp system, anything from ,£7O to over ,£IOO at present rates. And this amount, let it be 'remembered, will eomo out of his pocket in one lump sum. Per- ( , sonallv, T think we shall be mad lo go on with the idea during the war. With regard to my second objection—tho scheme itself. We have been informed that this scheme represents something which is a compromise between the price of a really efficient scheme nnd that which the ratepayers are prepared to carry. In other words, the city engineer has had to cut his coat accordins to his cloth, and plan a scheme whicn as far as ho can foresee will combine cheapness nnd efficiency. We are told that we must take the city engineer's plans on trust so far as efficiency goes; that the scheme will be as good as Island Bay and Wadestown. Everybody knows that the Island Bay and Wadestown septic tanks have given a good deal of trouble. Whv, then, should we of Day s jay be satisfied' with something similar to 'Island Bay and Wadestown systems on.tho score of cheapness? We are informed on reliable authority that if septic tanks are not equipped with filterbeds the effluent will tend to createh»K created, -in fact—a nuisance. . The city engineer does not think a nuisance will develop from the proposed septic tanks'at the Bay, basing his opinion on the fact that the effluent is to be discharged 5 feet below low 7 water mark. If the tanks have no filter-beds 20 feel below that level wouldn't obviate the nuisance, and T for one am not prepared to share the ci.ty optimism in this connection. I. think the ratepavers of "Day's Bay will be very well advised to' wait till after the war before thev tie a millstone like tins round their necks. . Tn the meantime the elementary principles of home sanitation can be purchased for n few pence. Let tho people of the Bay read vn their pnhjpot, apt nn to what is laid down therein, nnd .there will be no fear of epidemics.—T Dav's Bay, June 28.