THE New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, MAY 28, 1898. OUR COSTLY DRAINAGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3440, 23 May 1898, Page 2

THE New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.)

MONDAY, MAY 28, 1898. OUR COSTLY DRAINAGE.

With which are incorporated the Wellington Independent, established 1845, and the New Zealander,

Ws publish in another column a summary of the Drainage Engineer’s report to the City Council on the work that has been proceeding under his direction during the past year. The document is apparently only a record, a sort of progress report to the Council on the work of the year and its results, and in that way is doubtless satisfactory. Taere are- other aspects of this drainage scheme, however, aspects of greater importance, which will have to be investigated later on if they are not inquired into now. The recent sewage overflow (which it now transpires will cost the city about .£1230} has bsen explained in part by statements that the officer responsible for it had been overworked The question that suggests itself by way of answer to that is, Why was ha overworked ? Ha was, apparently, in a wearing position. He is “a rant competent man,” but he had been at work night and day repairing breakdowns nsir the Te Aro railway station, and ha and his staff “h ad had a most trying time.” There came, also, another “trying time” when a burst in Brandon street kept him working until 9 o’clock on a Saturday night, at the conclusion of which undertaking the officer went home without remembering to close the ejector valves in Victoria street. No fair-minded parson will blame him Precisely who blundered in this costly connection we do not know. But this is plain, that where breakdown after breakdown occurs at short intervals, and in one case at a cost to the city of well over .£IOOO, it is worth while for the ratepayers, who have to foot the bill, to ascertain where the responsibility is, and try to remedy the defect in administration if any such defect exists. Xu particular it should be ascertained, if possible, how it comes about that newly-laid pipes, when they burst, are found to be honeycombed, though they had been inspected before being put down. This is a pounds, shillings and pence question to the ratepayers, and ought to be investigated in their interest as. well, as in that of. the officers in charge of the drainage system.

; The fact about this drainage scheme is that it is going to te much more expensive than is generally estimated, and even then will probably turn out unsuitable in a few years. That it will bo heavily expensive is known to anyone acquainted wit!} the progress of tlje worif and of

municipal affairs. It will cost the city thousands of pounds more than was reckoned on. The flooding of Messrs Bing, Harris and Co.’s cellar alone will cost about .£1250. In addition to that there is the expense caused by a stupid abrogation of control by the City Council. The arrangement under which the works are being carried out makes the Drainage Engineer and his staff independent of the City Surveyor or the Council. They can tear up streets as they choose, without reference to the Council or its officers, and in point of fact have done so recently—with good reason their point of view, no doubt, but with damaging results to city traffic. It one case a street in the heart of tbe cit y whica had just been repaired was broken open, so that the Council’s expenditure on it will be virtually doubled —at the ratepayers’ expense, of course. Probably this could have been avoided if there bad been co-operation in administration between tbe regular civic officials and the drainage officers. But all we know is that it was not avoided. Why ? Because the Council made an unbusinesslike contract, and one which failed to safeguard the interests of the citizens, "We do not suggest tha the Drainage Engineer is carrying his work on inefficiently or even without regard to the city's good . but it is very clear that if the City Council had attended to its work with proper caution and foresight provision would have been made to ensure this work being conducted as a part of the city’s local governing scheme and in cooperation with its permanent officials. It is too late now to remedy these defects. Only two things can be hoped for—namely, that provision will be made, if possible, ; against tbe repetition of such a succession of expensive accidents as have occurred lately, and that ratepayers will make that ; independent observation of municipal affairs which will relieve thbm of liability to again fee billed for the blunders of the City Council. Probably : another thing which ought to be liken into account is the Question of Mayoral tenure. We elect a Mayor now for a year, and if the best administrator obtainable got into the position he would have to come out and fight for it after being there twelve months. There is no continuity of administration. no ohanoe for a capable Mayor to propound, much less carry out, a policy. That is why we have had so many dazzling schemes flashed out of the Mayoral chair; their enunoiators generally went raw and enthusiastic into office, and only stayed there long enough to lose their enthusiasm. It is a question whether we should not change the conditions that produce this effect—whether tbe Mayoral tenure should not be lengthened, so as to allow the Mayor to remain in office long enough to become well acquainted with his work, and so guarantee the city the staple, business-like government for the lack .of which it is now paying heavily.