THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 10793, 30 November 1898, Page 4

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

SUGGESTIONS BY DR DE LAUTOUR. At last night's meeting of the City Council the following letter, under date 21.st November, was read from Dr Harry A. Do Lautour: - I read with much pleasure Mr Mestayers valuable report on Hie sewerage and drainage of Dunedin. The report is a most excellent one. But I was surprised that Mr MeStaycr rejected " chemical treatment, precipitation, and filtration," in view of the unsatisfactory results of some of the works in England. Mr Mestayer must have been unaware of the excellent results obtained in Scotland by the chemical treatment, notably in the city of lilasgow. And, taking into consideration the careful and painstaking report furnished by Mr Mestayer, and his complete knowledge of our City, it might be prudent to get his further opinion on the question of chemical treatment by precipitation and filtration after a pcixonal visit to and inspection of the works at Dalmarnoek, Glasgow. 1 have been interested in sanitary matter; for some years, and, with many others, thought t Ho chemical treatment of sewage a very doubtful proceeding. But when at Home last year 1 heard so much of the results of this system as applied at Glasgow that I made it my business to go there and see them for myself. By the kind courtesy of ex-Lord Provost Ure, who ha-; interested himself in these works, I obtained permission to go over the sewage purification works at Dalmarnoek. Dr John Guthrie (Christchurch. New Zealand) accompanied me. We went thoroughly over the works, firstly with one of the foremen, and lastly with Mr Thomas Melville, the general manager. I was much impressed by my inspection. There was no nuisance of any kind, no bad smells, everything was sweet and clean, and the premises in clean, working order. U was most interesting to see the drainage of a large portion of such a big city pouring in through a large pipe—oily, treacly fluid, with pots and pans, storm-water, etc. All this pouring in, going through interceptors, precipitation vats, chemical chambers, filter beds, etc., until, before being allowed to escape into the Glyde, a dear crystal fluid alone escaped. I did not drink this fluid myself, but the fo: email did. and so did the workmen, and so far, after some three or four years’ experience, none of the workmen have suffered from the consequence. Now, as to the cost. It is a little difficult to compare Dunedin with Glasgow in the absence of intricate returns, but, taking it roughly and on the published returns, the area to be drained in Dunedin is 1,025 acres, with provision for 35.000 inhabitants, with a daily flow of sewage of from 4,000,000 to 5,630,000 gallons, at a cost of some £109.304 in the principal instance, and an annual charge of ;il least £2,011 ss. And tlie whole of tho sewage is to be deposited in the sea, to be washed away and not heard of ii) in the hereafter, Now. what does Glasgow do, and what lias been done 'i She has drained an area of some 3,465 acres, with a population of 87,000. She bought land i2B acres, of which she used 19 acres) ft r £58,000. The buildings, tanks, and machinery co.-a £67,000. That i.s for about two and a-balf times the population we have to deal witii here. The average amount of sewage dealt with daily in 1896-97 was 9,670,463 gallons; the cost of chemicals was £1 0s 8 2-10 d per million callous. Total working expenses, £2 16s 6 6-10 d per million gallons. But they did not throw their products away, for they realised 50s per million gallons for the sale of this as manure, leaving the cost per million gallons at £1 6s 6 6-10 cl. This same system of precipitation and filtration has nil a small scale been also applied at the works of Messrs Robert Addie and Sons, Limited, Kosehall Collieries, Coatbridge. >■ Transactions of Sanitary Association of Scotland,’ 1895-96.) The work was carried out also by Mr Th. Melvin, who is in charge at Dalmarnoek. The engineer's estimate, Mr Melvin told me, ran into some hundreds of pounds. Mr Melvin, however, established the precipitation system for a population of some (00 people, conveying 25,000 gallons of sewage, at a cost of £9B 13s sd. I have not seen these works myself, but only quote from Mr Melvin's paper, as above, and on his own information. But as to the works at Dalmarnoek I can speak, for I saw them from one end to the other. I am assured that such is the difference already in the river Clyde that trout have been caught in the river in the vicinity of the works, showing how much purer the water must tic now than formerly.

It occurred to me at the time that this system would be very applicable to tho requirements of many of our New Zealand towns, and I was kindly furnished with pamphlets, maps, and descriptions of the whole process. I shall be very glad to place these at your disposal, and give you any further information you may desire. The Mayor stated that the Council were indebted to Dr De Lautour for his valuable letter. Dr De Lautour was a gentleman of standing in the colony, and was a man of scientific attainments, and not likely to talk about a thing he did not understand The whole matter of drainage was one which was forcing itself more and more on the attention of the Council, and it would have to be faced at no far-off date. There Lad been a good many cases of scarlatina and typhoid during the year. There had been altogether eighteen cases of typhoid, diphtheria, and scarlatina, arising from such places, lie supposed, as that described by Mr Chapman and in the other letter they had received that night. Cr Carroll thought the thanks of the Council were due to Dr De Lautour for this contribution. Mr Mestayer bad somewhat knocked out of liis head an idea the speaker had entertained, that science would devise some such scheme as the chemical treatment for the disposal of sewage, but after hearing what Dr De Lautour saiji it was puhaps not too late to consider a proposa of the kind. If it could be carried out it would be an infinitely better system, and would do away with the considerable ex pense of £2,000 a year. It was a very valuable report. He moved that a letter of thanks be sent to Dr De Lautour. The motion was carried. Cr Haynes moved that the letter be referred to the General Committee to consider with reference to the drainage question. He heartily concurred with what had been said. Like Cr Carroll, he had thought that some such system as that described by Dr De Lautour was the one that would salt our requirements, but when he found that Mr Mestayer had reported against it, he was a little disheartened. Here, however, they had a report showing that the system had been tried, and no difficulty had beer found with it. Cr Chisholm seconded the motion, and suggested that they should communicate with the Glasgow Corporation, and get all the latest reports regarding the system. The Mayor said that these particular'' were alreadv in the town.

Cr Chisholm was glad to Lear it. When he was at Home he visited Birmingham, where that system was adopted. One of the eouneillors of the city told him that so far from it costing them anything, they made a revenue out of it. Dr De Lautour dealt with facts—what he himself had seen—and surely they should write Home to get all the information they could. Cr Solomon said that it appeared to him that the advice of a medical man regarding an engineer’s report was as valuable as the advice of an engineer regarding a surgical operation. He did uot think any analogy could be drawn between a precipitation scheme in Glasgow or Birmingham and one here. The cost of labor, chemicals, and the disposal of manure was so entirely different that he was very much more inclined to be guided by Mr Mestayer, who was an acknowledged expert, than by Dr De Lautour. The Mayor said he did not think there was much difference in the price of chemicals. The cost of the chemicals was given by Dr De Lautour. As to tho disposal of the manure, he thought that could be more readily disposed of here than in Glasgow. The motion was carried.