WARD'S GULLY SLUDGE CHANNEL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6986, 13 February 1891, Page 4

WARD'S GULLY SLUDGE CHANNEL.

(to the editor.) Sir, — At the last meeting of the County Council, I see by the Argus, that there was a deputation appointed to confer with MrDrennan re Ward's [Gully sludge channel to turn it from Galway's farm to somewhere else not stated. Now, it would be interesting to many to know how much this mismanaged affair cost the ratepayers. Some say that it cost over L2OOO. The last item to be paid Mr Drennan is L 250. For what ? For a mere nothing ! Our worthy County Engineer, after the last law suit with Mr Gafway, must have got in a rage, for he gave instructions to shift Mr Galway's house instantly, as he was to cut a channel along the road. He surveyed the ground for that purpose. Then some one told iim that it would be better to pierce a tunnel through the terrace above Mr Drennan's farm, as more suitable to let Ward's Gully water sludge into Nelson Creek. The survey for this was completed last week, but to every one's astonishment this was abondoned at once in favor of Mr Drennan's offer to turn the water off Galway's for the sum of L 250. It looks as if this is was cut and dry before hand, because Mr Drennan was waiting in the council chamber to make the offer. Now, was this the only legitimate way ? Could not the engineer find a better or cheaper way to get rid of this nuisance for the last five years ? Could he not find a way before now? Are we paying L4OO an year to a engineer who could not propound some scheme to divert the water of Ward's gully when it was bo plain and simple to any person with qrdinary intelligence 1 Have not the council bought a strip of land from Mr Drennan for LIOO an acre, extending from Ward's gully to / Nelaon Creek bridge? Then why not convey thla water by some means to Nelson Creek along their own land ? It could be done for less than half what Mr Drennan is to get now. All the cost already incurred (about L 2000) and a vast amount in other places could have been saved to the ratepayers by proper supervision. I believe that more than the bank's overdraft haß been squandered in ways simlliar to the above, and all through Borne person or persons connected with the county council affairs. Now, I am told that the matter is not to rest here. Tho settlers on the south bank of Nelson Creek put In an objection to empty Ward's gully waters into Nelson Creek for fear of augmenting ihe waters of Nelson Creek In time of flood.— l am, &c , Observer. February 9, 1891.