The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1882-05-07
DIR CITY,s PESTS,
known as Those Annoying
Ponds in East Waco.


In the last meeting of city council the
| East Waco ponds and how to drain them
again came up for large share OF dis
cussion. Barring perhaps only the rail
road bond settlement, there has been
no question before the city council
| which has caused 30 much discussion
| and been more tedious and perplexlng
in its nature than this very lond Ques-
| ton. We WI. not refer again in deta
| to the legislation had in city council on
| this question, the various committees
! appointed to investigate and report, and
| the going over the ground only to go
| back and go over it again, all to no pur-
| pose up to this time. Suffice it to say
we have again got to the point where,
at the suggestion of the council, the
mayor has appointed a committee to
! confer with the different manufacturers
Of terra Gotta piping with view to find
! ing out what terms can be had for
| twelve hundred feet OF this material, or
as much as may be needed, twelve inches
| in diameter, for the purpose OF draining
| this pond or ponds into the river. The
| railroads have, We believe, offered about
| half rates on freight from st. Louis on
| three cars which will be required to
transport the material to Waco. The
| full rate being 500 per car, it will there
fore cost the city about $50 for freight
and, we learn, the cash price OF the nee
essary piping will be S270. This will
! cause the city an outlay at first of S42O
! for freight and material, after which
! the trench will have to be dug and the
pipe put in the ground MAXI g posi-
| BILE expense of one or two hundred dol
lars more. A cheaper article OF piping
| can be had at Kosse, III this state, but as
! Waco people have had some experience
with tile from that place that WAS not
at all satisfactory it might be well for
! the city to see that she gets the
| article that is needed. 1t is safe to say
! that, to get the pipe from st. Louis and
| place it IN the ground, it will cost the
| city at least $500, and those who have
| had more experience and observation
| than we have say perfect job cannot be
done for less than $1,000. We would
consider, for even that sum, it would be
getting rid of those nuisances cheaply.
But there is something more to be
looked at than merely purchasing the
pipe and putting it i'll the ground. Amy
engineer will at once say that unless
properly put down and placed solidly in
the earth the JOINTS will give way, and
the decent must be such as to con-
vey the water off rapidly or the sewer
Will be Of lie practical utility. Itplaced
upon anything like level, the char8c
ter Of that soil is such that sand in heavy
rains will wash into the pipe and lodge,
and We al know that there is more or
less black loan from the fields above
/ carried into that pond which will get
! into that pipe, and together with the
sand will create formation that will
| be hard to get out. In fact any engin-
eer will say that, to make a permanent,
practical sewer to drain that water off,
| the work must be done on scientific prin-
| ciples and under the supervision of
conn etRnt man. Such has been the
experience in all the larger cities,
and the sewerage work is one Of the
most important and troublesome that
/ city legislatures and engineers have to
contend with. We do not refer to these
matters to IN any way perpleX the com
mittee or raise doubt, but rather to
offer q suggestion or two That we think
timely. If We are going to expend so
much money let If not be III experiment
ting but in accomplishing something
that will be real and practical. We de-
sire very much, and so do all good citi-
Zens, to see these ponds got rid of, and
the city should spend money to do it,
for 1t is due to the people Of east Waco,
and the faithful aldermen who have rep
resented that side for the past three
years, as well as the general
health that these nuisances be Rbated,
but if We must S end as much rs $500 or
| 1000 let us be right first, then go ahead.
! The committee viii OF course inquire of
themselves before spending this much
money, Is this plan going to be success
full, and will it do the work and free us
of this nuisance for future time. Thi,
question being settled, even with our de-
| lleted treasury, we must feel that We
/ ought to have the work done and rid
! ourselves of the ponds and Il vexed ques-
! ton at the same time, but all the points
should be well canvassed and every step
that Is IN the direction If spending the
clty's money made only when We are
sure 1t is imperative and for the best.
Meanwhile the question of the RESPONSE
blllty for the existence of these ponds
should be IN this connection thoroughly
considered. That responsibility maywe
suggest, rest not upon the city at al, but
wholly with the owner of the property
and the railroads, which it is claimed
have stopped all possible egress for the
water accommodating upon the land. The
city, 1t may be found on
investigation, is in no wise
responsible for the existence of these
ponds, and in that case is, we think, in
no degree responsible for the expense of
their removal On the contrary the city,
If not responsible for their existence, is
not only under no obligation to pay the
expense of their removal, but is compe-
tent to pronounce the ponds nuisance
and proceed against them as such, re-
gardIess OF who IS responsible for their
presence. Condemned As a nuisance the
ponds themselves, We dare say, could be
sold for enough, and more, to pay the
expense of drainage and yet leave fine
profit upon the original cost.
In any case, we suggest the city treas
ury Is not in so pIethoric condition as
to warrant the drainage and improve
ment OF private property at public ex-
pense; least of all, when the city is in
no WI responsible for the exi-tence of
the evils to which reference is made.
Let the expense, like the responsibility,
rest where II properly belongs.
TbvcDnpcio