Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

-----__.--THE LIBERAL LEADER'S…

THE FREE LIBRARY.

______________! ! THE SEWERAGE…

News
Cite
Share

THE SEWERAGE OF STANSTY. That the privilege of local government is fully appreciated by those who feel directly the burden of local taxes is shown, whenever a question of importance arises, by those immediately interes- ted taking the subject into their personal con- sideration, and making their opinion known by means of vestry meetings, &c. When, how- ever, the ratepayers and property owners meet in vestry, and discuss a subject with which they are not thoroughly acquainted, it is only to be expected that they will come to conclusions which are quite erroneous and sometimes foolish. Such has recently been the case in regard to the important question of the sewerage of Stansty. The ratepayers of this township have held a couple of vestry meetings to consider the schemes by which the sewage of the district is proposed to be dealt with. Owing to the non-observance of one or two most important points, they passed resolutions on the subject of the sewerage which cannot be reconciled, and which showed a defi- ciency of knowledge of the important subject under consideration. A third vestry was held on Tuesday evening, when the ratepayers present, by the assistance of their representative (Mr. W. THOMAS), obtained a more correct view of the position of affairs, and accordingly passed a resolution more in harmony with the true in- terests of the township. The meeting, though small, was fairly representative of the township, and the discussion was carried on in an amicable and profitable manner, but one or two of the speakers were greatly inclined to go beside the real point, and raise difficulties, in connection with questions which does not affect them. Mr. RICHARD JONES, who seems to be the leader of those who were in favour of the Rhasnessney scheme, will persist in saying that tlifc brook is polluted by the sewage of Wrexham, and there- fore to add to the quantity of sewage must add to the pollution. The first proposition is but partially true, because although the sewage no doubt is the polluting matter, yet the sewage is not the first cause of the pollution, but the storm water. The second proposition is likewise only half true, because an increase of sewage would not increase the pollution, unless with the sewage the storm water is also increased. Now the intention of the Council is this, that if they increase the quantity of sewage running through their mains by taking in that of Stansty they will decrease* the storm water by diverting a portion of it from the mains to the brook. So, in reality, although the sewage would be increased the liability of the brook to pollution from' sewage would be decreased to a considerable extent. Consequently Mr. RICHARD JONES is entirely wrong in saying that the addition of the sewage of Stansty must be an addition to the pollution oi the brook. There is another fallacy which found advocacy in the Stansty vestry on Tuesday, and that is the supposed advantage of the single system, or the running of sewage and surface water through one main, .and to one and the same outlet. No doubt such a system is of advantage when the sewers empty themselves into the sea or into a rapid river, but when the sewage has to be disposed of by any other mode the system increases the difficulties to an enormous extent. Wrexham is an instance. What could Wrexham do with its sewage except what it is doing ? What is the greatest nuisance Colonel J OES has to put up with ? Why the enormous and uncontrollable amount of surface water which rushes through the mains, partially inundates his farm, depre- ciates the value of the sewage, and now and again carries a, quantity of it into the brook. On the separate system the full value of the sewage is retained, and the farmer knows pretty correctly the quantity he has to deal with, whilst the surface water, instead of being the first cause of pollution, merely swells the brook or river without doing it t4e slightest harm. In refusing to have the separate system the Stansty ratepayers were refusing a great boon. Let them consider the consequence of the com- bined system with an outlet at Rhos- nessney. They would have an immense quantity of effete and almost useless sewage mixed with hundreds of gallons of water. The former would be of little value, and the latter be quite unfit to be turned into any brook. The one would interfere with the possibility of dealing with the other, and both together would fcs an intolerable nuisance. Are the ratepayers r of Stansty prepared to overcome these inevitable difficulties, or do they think they can get rid of them without paying? If not they should not call for he combined system, which every engineer of eminence and every man of common sense, who understands the subject, has con- demned. But to consider the two schemes which were before the vestry. If the outfall is at Rhos- nessney, what will be done with the sewage when it is aiken there ? This is a point which was just mentioned at the vestry, but the reality and extent of the difficulty is not, perhaps, fully realised. The question of the sewage of Stansty is not settled when the last pipe is laid and the last house connection made. When the sewage is at Rhosnessney it can- not be left to dispose of itself. It must be dealt with and disposed of in some way, and works, &c., will be a necessary concomitant of its disposal. What will be the cost of these ? Here is a question which the ratepayers should not deal with lightly, and especially whilst they stick with a wonderful tenacity to those of less importance. But if they pass their sewage into the Urban sewers they have, for certain, no after difficulties in connection with the disposal of their sewage. Tho probability is that they will have to do nothing but bring their mains up to the Urban mains and then hand the right of their control over to the Council. Such certainly will be a great advantage in many respects, apart from the matter of cost. However, the Stansty people are not quite satisfied even with this, and they go so far as to say that it is slightly unfair for them to have to sewer Chester-road because such is within the Urban boundary. Well, after doing this, they get rid of their sewage for £1,500 less than if they take it to Rhosnessney. It would be difficult to meet a man who, after gaming £1,500 by a transaction, should exclaim that such was unfair to him- self. But such is what Stansty is doing. Of course the sewering of Chester-road by Stansty will be a save to the borough, but not a save of the whole cost. There must be set against it the cost of the diversion of the storm water, which must be done before the sewage of Stansty can be taken. Certainly the diversion will not cost so much as the sewering of Chester- road, but Stansty must not be so unreasonable as to expect the whole advantage of the bargain. It would be -hard, if, in saving the township £1,500 or more, the borough could not save it- self a small sum. The whole undertaking will be to the great advantage of both parties con- cerned, and now that Stansty has approved of the union with the borough it is most heartily to be hoped that those who have the considera- tion of the legal and other points in connection with the arrangement will let no light matter stand in the way of carrying out what will con- fer so great a benefit to all, and which has been discussed until all are nearly tired of it.

[No title]

--------WREXHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

I__________I ---------I WREXHAM…

----___---SPECIAL SERVICES…

[No title]

----JMR. GOrGHS FAREWELL ADDRESS.

SA riJidPl E, September 27th,…