DRAINAGE OF DUNEDIN.

Evening Star, Issue 12900, 24 August 1906, Page 6

DRAINAGE OF DUNEDIN.

MR SMALL'S VIEWS,

IS THERE A SCHEME? SOME SAY “YES”; OTHERS “NO.” Hr Goughtrey has publicly characterised as gross falsehoods the statements that have been made that the Drainage Board in 1903, when they adopted the scheme, had no defi'mte scheme to go on, or that they were devoid of any plans outlining the complete scheme, or that up to the time he was chairman. of works—le., January, 1905—they bad no detail plans of what had been done, or, again, there was no complete scheme on paper. The doctor adds that he now knows from whom Mr Manchester gathered the information which led him to make such strong statements, and the inference is plain. Mr T. Scott and Mr J. Small were the two members of the Board who said at the meeting this week, in answer to Dr Fulton, that it was true that there are no plans, and we have asked these gentlemen whether they have anything to say in support of their remarks. Hie questions put by our representatives were as follows ; 1. Have the present Board departed in any material particular, or in any way, from the scheme adopted in 1903? ’ s 2. Are Dr Coughirey’s statements that there was a complete scheme adopted in that year, or at any time, correct? 3. Vyhat foundation is there for his insinuation that something has happened to the plans? MR SCOTT'S REPLIES.

Mr T. Scott slid to our reporter; I have nothing to conceal, and never had, and vou may print What I now tell you. This matter of the deviation from the original scheme was mentioned by the late engineer, Mr Noble Anderson, and denied by every member of the present Board. I am, as you know, not one of the original members of the Board. . I was elected in January of 1904, but have taken a close interest in this question. If any deviation has taken place it must have been while Dr Coughtrey was chairman. The Board as at present constituted never agreed to any deviation. As a matter of fact, I raised the question, and asked for an authoritative answer, as to whether the Board by resolution altered or deviated from the scheme, and the official reply that I received was that there was no resolution of the Board altering the scheme. My answer to your second query is this: No member of the present Board has seen the complete detailed drawings of any scheme. Dr Coughtrey characterises it as a falsehood to state that there was no definite scheme. Well, that is a totally different thing from a completed scheme with .detailed drawings of the whole scheme. I am not making, the assertion on my own knowledge. Of late it has been amply bome out by the Board’s officials that there, is no complete detailed drawings of the, whole scheme. I think the best answer to Dr Coughtrey's statement is that Mr Slinger positively refused .to have any more to do with the drainage unless we got the very best man possible to give us a complete detailed scheme. If any man should know the position in this respect, I think it is Mr Slinger. As to your third question, my reply is that there is no foundation whatever. The complete answer to the insinuation, I should say, is that no member of the Board has anything to do with the’ plans—they have been entirely under the control of the officials.'

We all know that (here have been plans galore of the different sections of the scheme. But what we wanted all along was the complete connections between these different plans, and some assurance that they would fit in with each other, and that assurance wo have never had. Personally, so far as Mr Manchester is concerned, I have not advised him in any shape or form as to what completed plans we had or had not, and to the best of my knowledge Mr Manchester was relying on the Board’s officials for the statements he made as to the absence of plans. So far as I know, the construction of the main intercepting sewer is satisfactory, although experience has. told us that it is not self-cleansing. It' was put forth .as being self-cleansing, and it is not. Then there is a very grave doubt as to the capability of the engines to do anything like the work that it was represented to us they would do. They are not powerful enough. Again, the fact that we have spent over £7OO in repairs to the rising main creates grave doubts as to its stability. There is another thing, too—the gravitation part of the present outfall is undoubtedly too small, thus putting extra work on the pumps. Further, the main intercepting sewer runs into a receiving chamber, not into a suction well. The surface area of the main intercepting sewer is roughly about 24ft, whereas the inlets from the receiving well to the suction well, where the pumps take it. is only about Bft. Fortunately this can ho altered without great cost, hilt still, if we arc correctly informed, this is a defect. These and the other matters T have just mentioned are serious questions upon which we must have expert advice before we do anything further. The position I have taken up lately has been that a very heavy onus is on each individual member of the Board—an onus which should not lie on anyone except our professional adviser, and it is to end this that I proposed to call in Mr Cardue. A statement has reached my ears that the Mr Cardue whom I proposed is Major Cardue, who reported on the electrical supply for Sydney. I wish to disabuse the public mind on that point. There is no connection between the Mr Cardue and Major Cardue. The Mr Caxdu© who was suggested by me was for many years one of the officials on the Sydney metropolitan serve rage and drainage works, and is now in private practice in Sydney. He lately reported on the drainage of Geelong. As to the question of fee, my motion does not definitely fix the sum at £SOO. The motion simply says “ at a fee of, say, £500,” and I think that if wc get the information arid advice that we require a sum considerably higher than £SOO would be money well spent.

Mr Small, chairman of the Works Committee. on being interviewed tins morning with regard to what plans the Drainage Board hove for their engineer to follow in. .completing the drainage system, and whether these are sufficient to work from, had no hesitation in replying to the latter part of the question.. He said No, the present plans would be ; totally insufficient to continue work from. Being reminded that a hint had been, thrown out that possibly some plans have disappeared, he said: “There is nothing in the insinuation that any plans have been removed or destroyed. All that were ever., prepared are in the possession of the Board at the present moment, and they are totally insufficient to complete the scheme from. For instance, we are proposing to reticulate portion of Leith street, and a part of Kensington. We have first to start doing what should have been done long before namely, to take the levels and prepare longitudinal sections of the streets, to show the contractors the depths to which they have to go. If a complete scheme had been in existence, this would not have been necessary.” ; Asked as to what plans the Board had, Mr Small pointed to a map of-Dunedin and TtrvaTvW

office Trail. This plan, drawn to a scale of six chains to the inch, bore under Mr Anderson’s signature the date 27/6/05. It shows the streets and buildings, etc., plotted, as well ,as existing sewers, proposed reticulation, and the work carried out by the Board, such as the main, intercepting sewer, etc. It has no levefe marked on it, but shows one or two contour" limes traversing the, hill boroughs. The plan, does not include the outfall site, stopping short where the rising main ends and the, gravitation outfall begins.!. “The old• Board never, had -this plan,”" Said Mr Small (meaning by the old Board the Board as constituted prior to 1904, when a number of members were unseated and replaced by new men, most, if not all, of whom still - retain their seats). “The new Board,” continued Mr Small, “insisted on this being prepared-prior to Parliament being approached for additional borrowing powers. There are no levels on this plan, for they have never been taken, except for the few necessary to mark in the one or two contour lines shown on the plan.” Mr Small was asked what plans the Board had prior to this, and he produced a much smaller map, dated 15/4/03, also prepared hy Mr Anderson. It is on a scale of twenty chains to the 'inch, and shows a portion only of the district, but it includes the sit© of the proposed outfall at Bird Island. No buildings are shown, no levels, and only one branch sewer. “This is only a sketch or skeleton plan, and could never be used for a working plan,” said Mr Small. That is the only map the old Board had.” “ Even the newer and bigger plan could not be worked from,” he continued. “What we want is longitudinal sections of every street, showing the depths and fall of the sewers.” “So your present plans and drawings would not, contain sufficient data to enable a consulting engineer fn Australia to formulate a complete scheme, with accompanving working drawings, supposing you sent hun them over?” Mr Small was asked. “No,” he replied. “We should have to bring him oyer here first, and then he could indicate what should be done. Otherwise we might do work which might not meet our requirements at ail.” . Mr Small desired to make an explanation m connection with a letter appearing in yesterday s isme from Mr Manchester, in which that gentleman wrote : It having com© to my knowledge that I no scheme was ever prepared for the drainage of Dunedin, I beg leave to correct that impression. T simply retreated what was told me by the chairman of the Works Committee, and the impression that no scheme has ever been outlined seems a ‘general one, judging from the remarks made in the daily Press. This afternoon a scheme outlined and reported oil and published in 1902-03 habeen brought under my notice. Air Small said: “In regard to Mr Manchester’s statement that he simply repeated what I had. told him, I have to explain that I came into the secretary’s room yesterday during the course of an interview between Mr Manchester and Mr Esther. When I entered, their conversation seemed to be touching upon the point of the plans of the scheme. Mr Manchester seemed to be aware of the fact that there were no plans, and I agreed with him that such was the case. However, I pointed out to him that it was scarcely so bad as he thought. I referred him to the large-size plan which the present Board insisted on Mr Anderson preparing in 1905. He glanced at the plan, and asked if there were any levels. I said No; no levels had been taken. He pointed out the fact that we had been doing work in a piecemeal fashion over the whole of the district, and that the plan indicated that_ the high portion of the main intercepting sewer had been constructed before some other portions had been, which was contrary to the usual procedure. He also said that there might be a difficulty about these detached portions of the work fitting into th© scheme when it came to be carried up to tbe points at which they were constructed, and he thought it too dangerous an experiment for anyone with a reputation to lose to tackle the Dunedin scheme in its present state. I further stated that if there had been a proper scheme designed and in our possession it would have been unnecessary for the Board to have called him or anyone else in; that was what wo had called him acres for. I also said the Board would be willing to offer him six months to pick up the threads of the scheme and prepare a report and a complete scheme for the district. The difficulty of doing this preparatory work and carrying out the works of the Board at the same time be thought would be very conflicting and very harassing to any engineer, and that it was more than he cared to undertake.” Mr Small was also asked as to whether the present Board had “ seriously deviated ” from the scheme as outlined in tbe report of 1902-03. Ho replied ; “ The present Board have not, but the old Board '^ c °k* Board made some material deviations. For instance, in the plan laid before the Board at the meeting when they adopted the scheme the original route and levels of the main intercepting sewer north of Frederick street have been changed by the old Board. A portion in Clyde street has been cut off, and it has been carried through the Albany street School grounds, under the Leith, and along Harbor terrace up to Dundas street. A very serious deviation from the original scheme mad© by the old Board is tho reduction in size of the tank at tho pumping station. It was originally intended to be 90ft- in diameter; now it has been reduced to 120 ft x 30ft. The effect, of this is that a very slight accumulation of sewage in tho tank raises the level to such a height as to force the sewage back through tho St. Kilda main branch sewer and up the reticulated pipes, to the serious inconvenience of the ratepayers connected. This should have been obvious to those who made the alteration. If the present Board have made any variations on the proposals of Mr Anderson it has been in the direction of modifying and cheapening them. A case in point is the drain from the Rattray street and Maclaggan street sewers, through the Arcade, along Manse street, and down Jetty street to the main intercepting sewer. This was tendered for, and the cost- was found to be about £6,000. Mr Slinger, since Mr Anderson's departure, has been able to overcome the difficulty which this sewer through the Arcade was meant to obviate, and did so at an expenditure of under £IOO. In regard to_ the Forbury aqueduct, this at a very slight extra cost mioht have been made a very serviceable sewer. A variation has been mad© by the old Board hero. It is shown on the original sketch plan as being continued from the second beach at St. Clair along Forbury road, up David street, to the Main South road. As constructed by tho old Board it was brought to Royal terrace in the form of a concrete aqueduct, but from there up to Mr Barron’s corner it was continued by a pipe of very much smaller diameter. There are a great many other alterations, including the alteration of the section and depth of the storm-water levels in the flat, etc.” Mr Small strongly emphasised the contention that there is not tbe slightest cause for tho public to get into a state bordering on panic in respect to Drainage Board affairs. “ I deprecate the tendency to create a scare,” he said. “ The Board are not hampered in any way by what has happened. Their business and work have been going on in a perfectly satisfactory manner.”