UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13661, 1 August 1908, Page 6

UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE

a feSv words are expected ! from.me on the report;on the above ques- J tion which appears in your issue of to-, j day. lam not Very proud of the spoils so far—"an increase:in the and : the elimination' of the J septic tank." Mr Craigie is made to say that the original ! plan proposed a fall in the intercepting odwer of lin 1200. If thjs refers to' Meason and Marchant's plan dated May 4th, 1904, I beg to say that the Ml placed before us there is lin 700. I'he cost, and probable superfluity of an intercepting sewer are small items in comparison with the addition .of it, perhaps, proving a permanent, detriment to effective drainage. It is not too late yet to ask our '-■ city fathers for some data, to the letter understanding of this "hearsay" business. Lefthem give, say, the. heights above "high water of the bottoms \of the sewers under the railway- at George, Beaton,''Mill, and-Queen streets; the cost of extending the" ■ sewers 'at Beaton, Mill, -■'. and Queen . -streets (where very little-prolongation in future will be necessary) for the ' past fourteen years; the. cost of extending George street sewer since the Eastern Extension began trapping shingle,, say, 1901 or seven years. Has sewage beett* discharged at George iTtreet, outlet.for some years? /Have any complaints been received of the said sewage afiecting the foreshore front? If the outlet of" any drain is not open, itagnancy. landward will soon cause a nuisance;—X<am, etc., - '•■•''■' : '

T<v.-the Editor; of the "Timaru Herald." Sir.—ln- connection with the southern outfall of the drainage scheme I note that a complete -departure from the plan which was approved' of by the ratepayers has been adopted by the- Borough Coun-. cil "in committee." It .will; no doubt be jremembered. that at the time.this important subject 'was before the a very strong point was made of the success of the septic tanks by the Council and: their engineer,'and that by adopting these at the northern arid southern outfalls there could be no possibility of any nuisance arising. How is it that a change is now "proposed,, and further if a tank is not necessary at' the southern outfall, why has so much money been spentvin building one/at the, north' where, in my opinion at least, .iti is not so : much required,' for if any nuisance did arise it would be; carried away by the current ? Should such" nuisance' arise alt the south end as/no' doubt' it will (with all. due respects to "the experts' opinions) it'' can only be carried into the bight' behind; the mole,-and find a resting, place. along the southern beach. On this particular point the property owners-in the south endshould have something to say. • : Another point is, how can the Council, even at the. suggestions- of their'engineers (who very pointedly -remark thatl if it does not suit they . can revert back- to the septic tank) depart • from a plan upon which the ratepayers gave tlhem votes withoutagain consulting them? lam very much afraid' that .this is only the .first of manytroubles that will be encountered before the drainage scheme is an accomplished fact. If a .little more .time, had been taken in the first:place instead of..rushing the; matter/ through, a great: many difficulties .which seem, to;■ be coming to the front might have been avoided. • I am. convinced the-whole subject is one. of such vital importance thatl it should be very carefully' watched by the'ratepayers, ■otherwise they will find themselves liable for an enormous expense. Such at all events seems, t'.o be the bitter experience of other towns. —I an etc., ■■:""• WATCHFUL.,