DRAINAGE BOARD OPERATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 12523, 6 June 1905, Page 8

DRAINAGE BOARD OPERATIONS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —At last nights meeting of the Drainage Board Mr J. T. Noble Anderson, the Board’s engineer, submitted a statement showing the extent to which the Board will have to borrow money to carry out the drainage scheme for the Uity and suburbs. Mr Anderson mentions that some £loo,ooo has already been spent. His first estimate of the cost of the whole scheme was £183,000; so that he has only £SOXOO left to go on with. Therefore he finds himself in financial trouble, and wants his Board to find him cash to the extent of some £263,900, a sum which he considers will be sufficient for all the work the Board would be justified in carrying on until the population has increased and the rating value has improved. From a ratepayer’s point of view, the amount of work that has been done for the sum of £130.000, and the amount of work that will have to be done to complete the scheme for the balance of £130,900, anyone ban see the thing is utterly impossible. .„0,000 will be much nearer the mark, and the rate 2s and Is, and then the scheme will not be complete, as by the way the Board’s works are carried on by dav labor no one can tell what the works will cost. ' I am quite satisfied, from what I have seen of the men at work, that every man employed by the Board at the rate of 8s per day works at a loss to the ratepayers of from Is to 2s per day each. I don’t blame the men; it is the management., No wonder the engineer’s estimate of the work done has been exceeded in some cases by one-half. I notice he complained to the Board some time ago that he could not organise the day labor work, and suggested to the Board to have all the work done by contract. The sooner the better‘for all concerned. No doubt, day labor in the hands of the Drainage Board has turned out a complete failure. The only piece of work that has been done for the Board at a reasonable cost is the Forbury sewer to Ft. Clair, which was done by contract; but I‘ notice that the contractor cannot get a settlement. Still, .-.e Board have agreed to pay the contractor 5 per cent, on the disputed balance; yet they are : throwing away thousands of. pounds on this dav-labor fad. I fully expected that, with new blood in the Board, better results would have been obtained, but I see very little difference. The money is being spent in thousands, and not much headway is being mane. Np doubt, the engineer has had a hard time, and I would suggest that the Drain ace Board give him twelve months’ leave of absence on full pay. When he returns we may have better results.—l am, etc., Ratepayer. June 3.