SEWERAGE OF A SEASIDE TOWN. 785 



all to ado])t an iri'ig'ation system, nothing- would have been 

 lost, for the money tiiat the farm and its adaptation the 

 outfall sewers, and the }»nni|)ing- stations and machinery 

 would cost would be still available, as it would not have been 

 spent ; and the money that had been spent on ])recipitating- 

 tanks would have been saved in sewer construction. On tlie 

 other hand, the adoption of the irrigation scheme involves 

 permanent committal to it, as, notwithstanding any advance 

 whatever that hygienic science might make as regards sewage 

 disposal, no change could l)e made without sacrificing enor- 

 mously costly works. 



And tliis brings me to anothei' practical disadvantage of 

 the irrigation system. Not only are the farms, the outfall 

 sewers, and the pumping stations sjiecial requirements for 

 this system, and, at least in great part, useless for any other, 

 but the two millions they are to cost must be spent before 

 anything else can pi'actically l)e done. For you must begin 

 your sewers from their outfall. Thus, not only must the 

 most questionable ]>art of the expenditure be first made, but 

 the commencement of all the rest of the work must be 

 delayed until it is made. On the other hand, if the precipi- 

 tation system were atlo])ted each district might begin its work 

 at once, and the whole woi"k of actiuil house-drainage might 

 be completed befoi-e it could be commenced with the irriga- 

 tion scheme. 



It has been ol)jected that tlie use of the ejector system 

 entails liability to a great disaster in case of accident to the 

 pipes or machinery — disaster in the shape of sewage-flooded 

 cellars, and so on. This may be true in the case of a 

 sewerage system based entirely on sewage-lifting by the 

 ejectors in parts of a district at a distance from a natural 

 outfall. But the system I have recommended is not based 

 on such dependence upon the ejectors. The ejectors would 

 be employed to do specific work, and their failure to do it 

 would not involve anything more than the discharge of sew- 

 age for a time without purification — nothing like so serious 

 a disaster as the failure of the machinery at a jjumping 

 station such as those proposed for Melbourne. 



In conclusion, I wish to repeat that I do not ])retend that 

 the calculations I have made to illustrate the financial result 

 of adopting the precipitation system at Melbourne are any- 

 thing but rough approximations. I liave not the time, nor is 

 it my duty, to make the detailed examination necessary to 

 arrive at exact figures. I took Melbourne ^s mj illustration 



