Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, NoVEMBER 4. THE HARBOUR BOARD AND THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVI, 4 November 1902, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, NoVEMBER 4. THE HARBOUR BOARD AND THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

;IT is to greatly regretted that a measure of friction should have arisen thus early between the Nelson City Council through the Mayor and the Nelson Harbour Poard in regard to the plans for the drainage of the city. It may be that friction will arise in duo course on the legitimate issue of an effluent emptying on tlie foreshore within a lew hundred yards of tbe heart of the city. But there is absolutely no need for disagreement on such a pultry side issue as ' the peremptory removal of plans , sent to one body by another merely j because the latter had not decided i on the pIaLS off- hand at the moment of receipt. The circumstances are known to our readers, and they can judge for themselves whether the Haibour Board or the Council through the Mayor is wrong in the action taken. At the October meeting of the Harbour Board it was announced that the drainage plans had been received that day from the Town Clerk. The Board had to deal with a good deal of its own business, and members had had no opportunity of inspecting the plans or of consulting legal and other authorities as to their status in the matter of giving or withholding consent to drain into the harbour or on the foreshore. To have called a special meeting would hav 1 ontailed considerable expense, as, unlike the meetings of the City Council, ea'.-h meeting of tbe Harbour Poard involves outgoing for travelling expenses for country members and more especially for the two members of Parliament if they are brought away from Wellington while tlie House is sitting. As there was no aupircrit urgency in tbe matter, and as the <|Ucstioiiß involved required deliberate consideration, the ordinary course of fixing the discussion of tho plans for next meeting was taken, members of the Board meantime to have ?».n opportunity of inspecting the plans at the office of their own body. Eut, when a day or two later members called at the II arbourmaster's office to see the plans it was learnt that they had been removed by the order of the Mayor. ■ a » ! Presuming, however, that the Harbour Board should have postponed all other business to consider the plans at a moment's notice and to have come to a merely nominal decision without discussing any of the pros and cons of the important (juestions involved as affecting the ' foreshore of the city and harbour, I what has tbe City Council gained by ! the assertion of its dignity by re- | moving tbe plans before such cpn- j sideration by the Harbour Board was given '.' Allowing for the sake of argument that the Board ought to have called a sp«Ctal meeting, or done other things to go out of its way to deal with the matter in less time than a month after the receipt of the plans, how has the Mayor helped forward the completion of any drainage project by the action he took 1 Is it to be supposed that such assertion of d : gnity* can alter the law, or that, presuming it is unnecessary to consult the Harbour Board, the ratepayers will hi the more willi-ig to sanction a scheme which entails potential harbour or foreshore pollution without the consent and co-operation of the local body entrusted with the great work of improving the harbour ? An an3wor to there questions must be to the effect that the Mayor has pursued a very futile course, and one not calculated to advance action in setting drainage works in operation. • » • Another issue involved is that, however the interpretation of the law may be distorted, it must be admitted th r it t v e Harbour Board must have a say in regard to the disposal of sewage or its effiuent so long as such disposal affects the har--1 hour or its foreshore. But the position is peculiar, inasmuch as the Engineer to the Board is one who has submitted a schema to the City Council and had that scheme rejected. In consequence, the members of the Board naturally feel that they cannot consult their own engiceer in arriving at a decision. Such consultation would be perfectly legitimate, and it is not to be supposed for a moment that the Engineer's recommendations wonld be biassed by the fact that a drainage scheme submitted by him is in rivalry to the I one adopted by tbje City Council. But, as we pointed out several months ago, the complication threatened by the employment of a drainage engineer other than the engineer carrying out the harbour improve- ; ;nent works has already arisen, and

the Harbour Roard is compelled to ; decide the question of consent to I drain into the harbour without consulting its responsible officer. « • • Apart from this matter, however, the issue is simple enough. The septic tank process of drainage may be accepted as fairly established and as of gre.°-t use where precautions I are taken as at fc xeter and elsewhere Ito convey the effluent to a point where there would be no danger from pollution should the works go wrong by any chance or shonld the effluent not be always quite sweet. It has been shown in these columns that f»t Exeter, where there is a typically successful septic tank installation, tbe effluent is taken to ! Duck Marsh, a considerable distance from the city. Coming nearer home, an acknowledged authority on drainage works, and one who has himself carried out the septic tank system, writes in a private letter regarding inspfctions made by him recently at Sydney and Melbourne suburbs : — | " While in Sydney and Melbourne I ■ went over the whole of the treatment i works with the beads of Departments, and can say at once that in no case was discharge from the septic tank or. to a foreshore other than ridiculed by any of the authorities.'' The preponderance of evidence and experience, therefore, is in favour of precaution being taken to prevent the effluent from a septic tank emptying on shallows, especially on shallows or a foreshore within a few hundred yards ef the heart of population, and in a line with that a prevailiug summer breeze. • » * Let the Nelson City Council pouder this rratter, and vary the scheme by insisting on the effluent being taken to deep water by means of sealed pipes, and most of the difficulties in the way of the adoption of any plan of septic tank drainage will be removed. It is not to be supposed for a moment that the Harbour Foard will obstiuct a scheme for mere obstruction's sake, or because it does not happen to be the scheme of its own Engineer. All that the Board naturally requires and demands is : (1) Tbat the risk of the pollution of the waters en- I trusted to its charge, or pollution of the foreshore over which those waters daily pass shall be reduced to a minimum ; and (2) That, in the remole possibility of silt or sludge from drainage works needing to be deposited, it shall not be placed where those waters may not have a chance of carrying it completely away. If the City Council will deal with the future phases of the drainage question on the business-like and intelligible and simple lines here indicated it will probably hasten operations by winning the confidence of tho ratep tyers and the co-opera-tion of the local body it is apparently compelled by law to consult. But not an iota will be gained, or a stop forward be taken, by the assertion of what seems to be regarded by the Mayor as his or the Council's " dignity" in the more or less peremptory removal of plans before the local body to whom they were referred had had time to consider them. It is hoped that the unnecessary deadlock that has arisen wi'l be promptly and amicably removed, and it is suggested that in order to achieve this desirable end the City Council might amend the plans and re-address them to the Harbour Board just as if nothing had occurred. _ I