Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 771, 10 December 1886, Page 22

£# 7 = - It is curious to observe how the Wellington drainage question seems to rise • to the surface from time to time, only to sink again wholly out of sight for lengthened periods. Just now the subject appears likely to assume prominence once more, but for some years past it has been as completely ignored as if this city possessed the most perfect sanitary system under the sun, instead of having absolutely none at all. One can hardly realise now that the merits of certain rival plans for the city drainage formed such a burning question a few years back as absolutely to obliterate all other party lines in municipal politics. The alleged wrongs of Mr Climie and the supposed superiority of his drainage scheme were the theme of voluminous and impassioned eloquence on the one side, only to be utterly derided by the admirers of Mr Clark, who swore loudly by the proposals of their favoured engineer, and at those of his rival. Indeed, we are not sure that some actual personal conflicts did not occur among the more enthusiastic partisans of the respective authorities on sanitary engineering. But all this has passed away and is almost forgotten. The Clark and Climie schemes are as dead as. Queen Anne, so far as any influence they exert on the present, notwithstanding that they represent many thousands of pounds out of the ratepayers’ pockets. We presume the actual plans still remain enshrined in some pigeon-hole in the Corporation Buildings, but will they ever see the light again as practical measures of sanitary reform ? Supposing the City Council once more should undergo a spasmodic revival of energy in the direction of sanitary improvement, would they resort to either of these schemes, and if so to which ? Judging from past experience it seems more probable that both would be disregarded and a new start made, with possibly a recurrence of old blunders. It might be well, however, for the citizens to bear in mind that One of the two drainage schemes already in their possession—that of Mr Clark—is the work of a very distinguished engineer, and that it is scarcely likely a more ca pable adviser will be found at this end of the world. Even at Home drainage engineers of the first-class are none too plentiful, but of these few the late Mr Clark was one ; and as he prepared a complete scheme of sewerage and outlet for this city, it is surely desirable that this should, if possible, be utilised. No more ludicrous exhibition of vacillation and incapacity was ever afforded than the action of the City Council in relation to, the Clark-Climie. controversy. Perhaps the most glaringly ridiculous feature of all was the way in which successive engineers bounced ” the Council into accepting from them drainage schemes which were never ordered. Mr Climie was not originally instructed, to prepare a drainage scheme, but simply to make certain preliminary surveys. But the astute Mr Climie chose to interpret this as a much larger order, and instead of the mere bare surveys, presented a cut-and-dried scheme of sewerage to cost £BO,OOO. The Councillors were a little staggered at receiving a whale when they had only ordered a herring, but they thought the whale “ might come in useful,” so they decided to keep it. In other words they adopted by resolution Mr Climie’s scheme. Then they kicked over that resolution and passed another, coolly repudiating all responsibility for the duties entrusted to them by the ratepayers, and referring the question to the ratepayers themselves for decision. The ratepayers might well have retorted that they did not keep dogs with the object of having to do the barking themselves. But they did not. They seemed to think it was all right, and dutifully voted on one side or the other. The result was that Mr Climie’s scheme was adopted. But now the Council began to have qualms of misgivings as to the wisdom of “ buying a pig in a poke,” and

passed a new resolution that thescheme should be referred to an engineer of standing. Mr' Napier Bell was that referee, and he speedily settled the question by condemning the Climie scheme, lock stock and barrel, and tendering certain counter proposals. Hence the outcome of the Council’s dual reference was that one referee (the ratepayers) approved the scheme, and the other (the engineer) condemned 1 it. This was a dilemma, but Mr Climie was not disposed to let judgment go by default. Mr Napier Bell had in his haste made one or two slips. On these Mr Climie pounced with glee, and he made so much of them that the general public was easily convinced that “ Climie had knocked Napier Bell into aeocked hat.” But this only made matters worse for the poor Council, who had a three-horned dilemma to sit upon, and found it a most uncomfortable, not to say painful, seat. In the very nick of time Mr Clark turned np, having come to Christchurch about local drainage affairs, and in desperation the Wellington Council determined to refer the Climie and Napier Bell reports to him as arbitrator. But Mr Clark was not born yesterday. He was not going to bother his head about the merits of other engineers’ schemes when he had the capacity to evolve better plans by the score from his own inner consciousness. So he quietly dropped the Climie and Bell schemes into the waste-naper basket, and forthwith proceeded to turn out a brand-new design of his own,, and this was promptly, adopted by the Council, who were overjoyed to have the vexed question settled at last. But no sooner had they taken this step than they repented, and resolved to hang the whole thing up indefinitely. And it has been thus suspended ever since, although not only was Mr Clark handsomely "paid for his services, and Mr Climie for his, but heavy compensation was actually awarded to certain landowners whose interests were alleged to be affected by the sewerage outlet ’ proposed in Mr Clark’s plan. The plain fact is that the Council found it would cost fully £150,000 to carry out the Clark scheme, and that meant £7500 a year interest, to be raised by a drainage rate, and this they dared not propose. The position still remains the same. Mr Clark’s scheme has never been seriously assailed. The attacks made on it have always proved to be based on pure ignorance and prejudice. It stands unassailed as the only feasible and adequate plan yet proposed for this city’s drainage, but it would cost £150,000 to carry out. That is undoubtedly a formidable difficulty. The city . cannot afford to pay higher rates than now, vet a special rate to defray the interest on. a drainage loan would be imperative, if the matter were seriouslv taken in hand. What is to be done"? Is the city to remain without any regular system of drainage, or is it to have one at the crushing cost above mentioned, or can any feasible third course be devised ? That is the problem to be solved; and at <• present none of our civic luminaries have seriously attempted its solution.