The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1877.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 5011, 12 March 1877, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1877.

It is of the utmost importance that the Drainage question should bo fairly discussed. A system of drainage is before the public under the auspices of the Drainage Board. Of all the ideas now before the public, this is the only carefully prepared, and thoroughly thoughtout system that has yet been planned. The rest are made up of suggestions, bints, propositions, disquisitions, all, no doubt, exceedingly valuable in themselves, but varying in character, and not one of them, in their present condition, to be honoured with the title of a system, or indeed professingtobo the result of well informed thought or systematic research. The only exception is the scheme detailed by Mr Jacobsen in his letter to one of the morning journals. The propounders of the rest have a clear enough idea of the general requirements of a drainage scheme, but not the remotest notion of how they are to be provided for Now the scheme of Mr Oarruthers, whatever its merits and demerits, is definite and tangible. It is the outcome of much careful thought, and well directed technical skill. It has a definite object, and is arranged so os to carry it out in the greatest completeness and with the utmost rapidity obtainable. This scheme was described in a report drawn up by Mr Oarruthers, who embodied in his report certain recommendations. The hostile criticism

which this report hoe received have boon many and sovero, and they have boon twofold. Both tho roooaunondationo of tho Engineer and his Bohoinc have boon denounced in good not tormii. Aa to tho recommendations, they havo boon made, ot itioisod, and not only not accepted, but not considered. They need, therefore, not bo further noticed in tho present article. As to tho scheme, it has boon denounced, but this does not prove that it has boon as yot understood. It is, as wo havo said, a scheme which has boon well tbonght out, it is complete in every detail, and it bus cost its framers many months of consideration, re-consideration, and arduous labour. It may bo good, or it may bo had ; hut it is of the utmost consequence that it should bo judged on its merits. Regard for tho public good as well as fairness to tbo framers require that, in the discussion, tho schoino should bo made to appear in its true colours. Tho public has called loudly for a scheme of drainage. Now that it is before them, the public should see that scheme aa it really is. Now, we think that much of tho adverse criticism which tho scheme has lately obtained is unfair. Much of this has been summed up of late in tho leading columns of our morning contemporary in a convenient form for handling. Tho objections against the scheme are put into tho form of questions. Tho first asks tho Drainage Board whether it is willing to guarantee that tho estuary will under no circumstances “be usedasasewer.” This wepresurne —but wc speak under correction—means a receptacle for sewage. That being the case, wo should like to ask—what sewage ? Thero are two kinds of sewage —night-soil and surface water of various kinds. The question proposed cannot refer to both kinds, because tho Drainage Board havo not determined to utilise the scheme fjr the conveyance of night-soil. It is one thing to criticise tho recommendation to that effect of the Board’s Engineer; quite another to object to tho scheme on account of the recommendation. Tho Engineer’s report makes it quite clear that the drains are made largo in order to obtain velocity sufficient for flushing purposes. Their size is sufficient to admit of the adoption of a system of water-closets, but this is not the end for which they were “ expressly designed.” That end is to combine two objects—to carry off the rain water, and to remove the house slops. Finding that the diameter he had fixed upon waa such as to admit of the inauguration of the water-closet system, the Engineer recommended its adoption. But his recommendation is not of itself evidence that the Board has accepted it or is going to accept it. The reports says:—“ The primary object of “ sewers is not to carry water-closet “ dejects, but to remove household water. “ * * * Besides the removal of house- “ hold water, the removal of rain “ water from the ’streets falls on the “ Board; one set oi sewers being re- “ qnirocl fnr tho -household water, it “ would seem to follow without fear of “ contradiction, thtt the simplest and “ cheapest way of providing for the rain “ water, would be to make the sewers “ large enough to carry it as well as the “ household water.” It follows then that as far as the scheme—as apart from the recommendations of the Engineer—is concerned the first question refers to the sewage in the form of house slops and rain water. Wo fail to see that to make the Estuary a receptacle for this sewage is any objection to the scheme. The scheme does not invent this practice. The particular sewage in question is taken to the Estuary now. The next question asked is “ how do “ they—the Board—propose to get rid “of the sewage when it reaches the “ Estuary ?” This admits the object of the scheme, as it certainly is its object, to be the ultimate concentration at some given point of the sewage, not necessarily mixed with night-soil we must observe Well, all we have to remark upon this is, that whether the sewage goes into the Estuary, or whether it is treated by some process, it must bo collected from the different portions of the district. If it could be absorbed off-hand by the clouds of heaven, or sent over the fields in the shape of reviving showers of odorous spray, there would be no need of a drainage scheme at all. As it is, we must have a scheme of some kind. Tho drainage must be collected, whether any one knows what to do with it or not. The absence of any definite plan of ultimately dealing with the sewage—house-slops and rain water—can be no objection to a scheme which proposes to drain these off from tho district. The Board has, in a letter read at the meeting of ratepayers of Feb. 15 last, “ unreservedly aoknow- “ lodged its obligation to adopt no “ plan * * * which is likely to “ cause a nuisance, or bo prejudicial to “ tbo health of the inhabitants of any “ portion of tho district.” In addition, the Board has purchased a block of land, avowedly for tho purpose of dealing with the sewage by irrigation. The Board clearly realises its duty, and has sot about carrying it out. But this is entirely apart from tho scheme of Mr Ourruthers, which is one of drains and levels. As such it should bo discussed on its merits, without tho importation of extraneous matter.

Wo have boon opigninimatically told that tho scheme is tho Christchurch District drainage schoino with tho district left out. A glance at tho drainage plans is sufficient to show tho hollowness of the epigram. Tho plan simply comprises nil tho populous suburbs around tho City; tho area proposed to bo drained outside tho City is more than double the area of tie City, and tho population benefited outside the belts is certainly not loso than that which lives within those boundaries.

These are three of the chief objections urged against the scheme. There are others, which wo propose to notice in a future article. For the present, wo must conclude with the observation that it is of the last importance that the scheme should have a fair hearing on its merits. To do so, it is necessary to keep certain recommendations of the Engineer apart from the scheme he has drawn up. No one has condemned those recommendations more freely than we have. For all that, we should like to see the scheme obtain a fair hearing.

What hu become of the Central Board of Health appointed fer the Colony by OatnlU notice oo Nov. 10 P Tho Board, it may bo remembered, oomiite of Doctor* Hector end Bkae, and Bfetira Cooper, Seed, Brown, and A, Johnton, tho Colonial Secretary being President tm qfftoio. Their first meeting was died to bo held on Nov. 20, and was, wo believe, hold accordingly. The fruits of this wore, that, on Deo. 7, a proclamation was published in which tho following diseases were declared infectious diseases within tho meaning of tho Publio Health Act: —Cholera, small-pox, scarlatina, diphtheria, enterio or typhoid fever, typhus fever, and measles. From that time there has, so far as we are aware, been nothing heard of tho Board, nor have any of tho regulations which arc needful in order to give full effect to the Aot, and to enable tho Central Board to control or supercede neglectful Local Boards been made, although full power is given in clause 20. Tho consequence is, that by many of the Local Boards the Act is as yet totally neglected, and will continue to be so as long os possible, for the simple reason that, in order to carry it out effectually, expenses must be incurred, and these are to be defrayed out of tho general District or Borough funds. As the revenues of by far the larger number of Boroughs and Boad Districts are already so straitened as to be scarcely adequate for their proper and original purposes, it is certain that the governing bodies will not expend a farthing more upon carrying out the Publio Health Aot than they can help. Nor does it appear that thero is any power of compulsion until it can ho shown that a Local Board has neglected to carry out a regulation of tho Central Board, when the latter will acquire the power to supersede the former under olause 26. The most glaring instance of neglect seems to have occurred in Hokitika, where the mortality from scarlet fever is said to be increasing rapidly. Of the inactivity of tho Local Board, under these circumstances, the local journal says .--"We have no hesitation in saying that if ever a publio body was guilty of gross carelessness, that body is the Hokitika Borough Council. As a Board of Health they have simply done nothing. A more appropriate name for them would be a Board of Disease.” It will be observed that in the list of diseases proclaimed infections, scarlet fever is not actually named, but scarlatina is. Whether this is because in disease the ordinary rule may be reversed, and the less or milder form may be supposed to include the greater or more virulent, or is simply an oversight, we cannot say. There can, however, be no doubt of the dangerous character of the disease, whether it be called infectious or not, and whether or not it is included in the term scarlatina. Until the Central Board makes the necessary regulations for the prevention or control of such diseases, and farther institutes a system of inspection or supervision of the Local Boards, whereby it may be at once apprized of any infringement or neglect of the regulations by the latter, it is clear that the Act will in most oases remain practically a dead letter, as it is the interest of the local bodies that it should remain. No steps whatever for the institution of such a system of inspection hare as yet been taken, the Central Board apparently relying upon the several Local Boards voluntarily confessing any sins of omission or commission ot which thoj- maj bo guilty—an expectation which will certainly not be realised. Unless much more vigour is displayed in this matter, the repeal of the Aot of 1872 and the passing of the Aot of 1876, will prove in practice to be simply the substitution of one dummy measure for another, and when the need for instant activity and strong measures on the part of the Central Board arises, as it will some day arise, the time lost in devising and creating the machinery suitable to the crisis will be absolutely irrecoverable, though the perfection of efficiency should be subsequently attained.