THAT MYSTERIOUS CLAUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14093, 22 June 1909, Page 6

THAT MYSTERIOUS CLAUSE.

THE DRAINAGE BILL. A PROPOSED CONFERENCE. At last night's meeting of the Remucra Road Board the manner in which the now notorious clause 19 got into the Drainage Bill was discussed. Mr. J. S. Dickson said the proposal had been made to him, whether officially or not he could not say, that he should meet the Finance Committee of the Drainage Board, and discuss the matter. He had agreed on condition that the meeting should be open to the press. The Chairman (Mr. J. Dempsey) suid that after making inquiries he was convinced that the Board's delegates to Wellington had acted in an open way. The city representatives had ample time to protest to the Local Bills Committee if they wished, as a draft was placed before their solicitor. Mr. C. A. Cawkwell said that the Remuera Board's engineer (Mr. Wilson) had suggested that the size of the sewers should be inserted in the Bill.. A draft was sent to their solicitor in Wellington (Mr. Bell), but; when a copy of the Bill came to hand it was found the sizes were not specified. Mr. Bond thereupon spent £1 in sending telegrams of protest to Wellington. Mr. Dickson said that in the absence of Mr. Bush, Mr. Kidd, the member in charge of the Bill, had undertaken the responsibility of having the sizes specified, and had since informed the Drainage Board to that effect. Mr. Cawkwell said Epsom had been bought by the promise of the same size of sewer as Remuera, and now the Drainage Board proposed to put in a 12in pipe through Greenlane. He thought there would be trouble when the Epsom people woke up. The city representatives had come back fend told the City Council they had only conceded Remuera £7000. whereas the actual concession was £30,000, and now they were trying to cover up their mistake by reducing the size of the sewer* The Chairman read the following letter from the Board's engineer : — Re Remuera and One-tree Hill sewer: I will refer first to the portion between South Road and tunnel under the Remucra Road. The area of sewer stipulated is equal to a 21in pipe, whereas it is now proposed to substitute 12in pipes. From the information you have given me, this 12in pipe is estimated on a populaton of 20 to the acre, and 25 gallons per head per diem. This dry weather flow is too low. In the City of Auckland it is about 60 gallons per head. The city is drained under the combined system; hut the basis of the computation for the sewer under review, 1 presume, is on the partially separate system. The roof and yard drainage has to he accounted for, and it is erroneous to estimate on six times the dry weather flow to meet this contingency on a basis of 25 gallons per head of population. A considerable percentage of water gets into the sewer through leakages and other causes. Take, as an instance, four houses to the acre, which, on an average, with yards and outhouses, each occupy an ares of 65ft by 80ft, and, say, lin of rain fell in a continuous downpour— a common occurrencethis would mean a flow of about 10,000 gallons to the acre. Multiply this by 700, tins number of acres in watershed, and you get 7.000,000 gallons. Added to six times Mr. Bush's dry weather flow,' ,uii .jave i,650.000 gallons to dispo«; of in 24 hours, which will require a 21in pipe, or, for preference, a. 24in pipe. My estimates are rather under than over. On the, east side of Remuera Road the area of the sewer fixed upon is equal to a 27in pipe. It is proposed to substitute a 21in pipe through the tunnel, and then reduce the siie to a 15in pipe, relying obviously on the velocity to compensate for the decrease in size. I cannot find any precedent, for such a course being adopted with so;ior pipes, but it is a practice sometimes resorted to in water works. It is not worth while in sewerage works, for, as you proceed, branch sewers augment the flow. A sewer should only run two-thirds full, %nd not under a hydraulic head. An abnjrmaL flow in the case under notice would surcharge the sewer, and if the crown did not burst a portion of the contents would overflow at manholes and cause a nuisance. The only other object for reducing the s;zo of sewer at the points mentioned is that the conditions there were favourable for an overflow weir. This is not so, as there is no place for an overflow weir until reaching tidal waters, and any attempt to put sewage, even in a well-diluted state, in the gullies would be strenuously resisted. The statement made (hat the sewer was " designed" is unfair. Only the area of sewers and approximate route were given. The information was provided at short notice, and there was no opportunity to confer with Mr. Bush. Any reasonable modification in either the route or the size of pipe could easily be mutually agreed upon. I submit that the areas of the sewer were fixed rather on the small side, and the Board should vigorously oppose the scheme offered. I also respectfully suggest that if the necessity should arise the opinion of two or three experts be obtained outside Auckland. Mr. E. Bond said Mr. Bush had promised that the money Remuera contributed would be spent on the sewers of the district, whereas even now Remuera was contributing £15,000 more than was being spent on the sewers. He thought that to attend such a conference as Mr. Dickson had mentioned would open up the whole matter. Mr. thought he could convince the Finance Committee of the Drainage Board that an unjust insinuation had been made against Remuera. Mr. Cawkwell thought that if the Bill were to be amended the Board had better. drop out and have its own sewage system. . Mr. Bond considered that the correct attitude of the Board was to demand that the Bill should be adhered to. Mr. Dickson said that it might be policy to meet the Drainage Board, because after the evidence they could bring forward the Drainage Board would be compelled to drop any proposal to amend the Bill. Mr. Bond thought things had been "messed up" on the Drainage Board. The Chairman said he had not known what the Rcniuera representatives had done in Wellington, but he took up the position that the Bill must be adhered to Mr. Dickson agreed that that was so. but ' a slight had been put on the Remucra Road Board. It was resolved that Mr. Dickson be empowered to meet the Finance Committee of the Drainage Board, if requested, and to take any member with him who might be ueeful. It was then unanimously resolved tint the Remuera Board had no evidence before it to warrant it in acceding to the proposed alteration to clause 19.