THE WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4429, 5 July 1882, Page 3

THE WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE

QUESTIONS. TO THI BDITOB 07 THX STAB.

Sib, — Both these questions are attracting a good deal of public attention just now, especially the former, as tke initiative step in the shape of a public meeting is to be held to-night, and in due coarse of time a yoto of the ratepayers will be taken for or against. My main object in writing is to show, in my opinion, how the ratepayers' money is being "frittered" away by our local authorities. About the end of last year the ratepayers negatived the then proposed new Town Hall building and waterworks scheme (£120,009 loan, I think), the expenses of same costing over £400. And the beginning of tbh year they also negatived the £20,000 loan for waterworks, which no doubt would cost another hundred or so. Now, we have a third one (£60,000 loan) for waterworks, the cost of which, I suppose, will not be known till after the vote of the ratepayers is taken upon it. Three "professional" gentlemen have made to tho City Council their several reports on the present one before the public, and I have not tho slightest doubt but that thoir " bills '" will be something great. 1 will not be surprised if the coßts altogether in connection with the three loans run into "four figures !" Then there is the £200 the Council voted to the Mayor j and also money paid out of the Council's funds to lawyers, for unnecessary legal advice, ico., where common sense and sound judgment would do quite as welL Let the ratepayers take a note of the above. All this expense goes for nothing ; because I am pretty certain that the present intended loan before the publio will also be negatived. The proposed new waterworks will only benefit those ratepapers in and near the centre of the city. It will be some time before thoso near the belts derive a benefit from it ; but if it is carried they will have tho " benefit" of paying 4fcd in the £ for nothing for some time, Tho rates are quite high enough, and tho ratepayers wish them to be reduced, not increased. The present Mayor, I understand, when before the ratepayers seeking their suffrages, and at the official declaration of the poll when duly elected, said " he would do his utmost against increasing the rates," or words to that effect. I leave tho ratepayers to judge whether he is doing so or not. The only good piece of work done by the Council during tho past twelve months is that of "putting tho streets in order." Look at the disgraceful stato of many of the footpaths. Next comes the drainage works. All the loan monoy is nearly epent, but tho works are not finished yet. The Council har dapped on another Id in the £ for the special drainage rate, and tho Board has raised tho ordinary from lOd to Is in the £, making 3d more in tho £ than last year. Total amount of rates in the £ are 2s 5f d. There is a probability (that the Board will have to borrow jnore

monoy, or still further increase the jates : — 1. Special meeting (a short time ago) of Counoil re Drainage Bill, at which it was said, in reference to a certain scheme that would enable the poorer classes to connect, it was not thought advisable to bring it forward at present, "as it would involve more borrowing." 2. Meeting of Board (June 19) the Engineer said, " the flushing power was sufficient, and could be increased at a small coßt. * * * There would be no difficulty in increasing the flushing power by the construction of new tanka, which could be made without any serious expenditure." He also said, " that tho pipes were really far too large." The opinion seems to be rather premature. Time will tell whether th9y aro too large or not. A late Chairman of th« Board some time said the connection would cost about £5. Well, how is it that it costs from £8 to £10? " The Board did not intend to allow connection to be made unless there was a sufficient flushing power on the premises for the purpose." But still the Engineer says the flushing is sufficient. Who is right ? Even the Engineer (last meeting of Board) acknowledges " that th<s traps were smaller than those approved of by Mr Olark j they require to be emptied pretty frequently." I think, so far as things have gone, the drainage works are not a success — at all events to the ratepaj ers in a " rate " sense. The works cannot be a success until all the ratepayers are on an equal footing. The supporters of the new Bill say the Board only wishes to be able through Parliament to allow ratepayers who are willing to connoot to do so ; the opponents say it is only a ruse on the Board's part to get more power to borrow, hence more rates. Which side are we to believe ? In conclusion, 1 think the ratepayers should first finish with the large drainage works expenditure, or have some idea ho.w much more they will have to pay, before they go on with another " white elephant " in the shape of large waterworks. If the majority of the ratepayers are of this opinion, then certainly they will vote against any further waste of money at present by the local authorities. — I am, &c,

ANOTHEB RATEPAYER,