WATER AND DRAINAGE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 59, 10 March 1911, Page 3

WATER AND DRAINAGE.

10 XHE EDITOR.

Sir, —As one interested in the pros and cons of the drainage scheme I welcome criticism and correspondence on. the master such as "Jaeyell's" letter in last night's issue. In less than four weeks now the poll of ra,tepayers will be taken on this matter, one of great importance to the Borough, very strongly advocated and also opposed, and it wants thorough discussion in that time. "Jacyell" is one of the large section recognising the advantages, but doubtful if we can afford it yet. I myself would not like to answer the question. It is one for the ratepayers to decide for themselves. The cost is roughly £4500 a year, some years hence when fully completed. For this we get water supply, up-to-date fire appliances, and sanitary drainage, which will include closets, baths, and kitchen sinks. If the loan is not carried the Council .will be compelled to undertake and supervise the removal of nightsoil. The Sanitary Inspector reported some months ago that there were 800 closets in the Borough, and it is estimated to cost 26s per annum each for an up-to-date pan system, total £1040 per annum, or one quarter of the larger scheme. How would we raise this £1040? The laws of the land allow the Council to rate ut> to 6d in the £ on. the annual rentable value for undertakings of this kind or a uniform charge per convenience, but the uniform charge must not produce more than the 6d in the £. In Blenheim this amounts to about 12s 6d per convenience, so we should consequently have to take the other 13s 6d, or, roughly £540, out of the general r^ate, just about the same amount necessary per annum to run the proposed pumps. Personally, although I advocate the larger scheme as the most economical in the end, I am not worrying over which way the poll will go. A large section of ratepayers want a scheme, and they .now have the opportunity to prove whether they are in the majority or not. At the same time I shall be found working for the scheme, for the following reasons:— We shall "have to adopt some scheme in the- near-future, and as money is cheap now there is no better time to procure it. . We shall save several hundreds of the present ordinary/expenditure1 every year, as there is no question that money is wasted •on temporary schemes.now, such as the gasworks tank, which cost £350, and we pay 2s 8d per working day, or about £26 per year on the average. to put the water into it. We. should 1 not have built the Town "Hall belltower if we had got our water-tower up for the bell to be1 on. We should not have to discuss - Councillor Adams's suggested sump-holes in the various creeks all over the Borough, that will cost anything from £10 to -£10Q each, and may number ui> to 20 before we finish putting them in. • These sorts of temporary expedients are always cropping up, and there are always, some of them being carried out. 'Householders in all directions are building their own septic tanks and running the overflows into the Borough ditches. This cannot increase much more; then what is going to happen? We are at present making very fine street surfaces extending outwards from the centre of the town, and this is a waste of, good money if we shortly have to difr them all up again to lay water and drain pipes. It will be cheapest to lav the pipes first, I consider. Yet we want the good streets, and nobody would suggest that we should discontinue , these improvements. Regarding the particular scheme itself there is much difference of opinion, and I propose later to compare it with others suggested, with their advantages and disadvantages, if you will giant me the space, Sir. I would simply state this opinion here: We selected Mr Dobson as a practical experienced engineer, and paid him 100 guineas for the estimates and suggestions, Some now suggest paying another engineer to criticise his "Tecommenda? tions. This wouM cost another considerable sum, and I consider we should first definitely decide whether we are g«ing to carry out any drain-r age scheme or not, before incurring any more engineering expense. < ; In the event .of the poll being successful, then by all means the first thing to do is to make sure we can get nothing" better for the , money, and another engineer's report in criticism of these pumps, etc., would be well worth paying for, and I would be the first to try to secure this expert criticism, which of course would be part of the preliminary expenses. If the proposals are not carried, this expenditure is not necessary. 1 trust we shall have plenty of arguments for and against during .the next few weeks, and that they will be carried on amicably and impersonally, all endeavoring to arrive at something for the best interests of the town. I regret that some make it a very personal matter when one advocates improvements, and would practically suggest that one is a thief, an axegrinder, and all sorts of other undesirable things. I don't desire to .iamb this scheme down anybody's throat, and I presume the majority will decide whether we can afford the £4500 per annum, (less the savings of present expenditure), that the scheme will cost us finally, but this will not be for several years, for even if work were commenced immediately, there would be no cost to the ratepayers the first year, and very little the second year, as the work would not be very far progressed. EDWARD PARKER.