WATER FOR NEW BRIGHTON

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23447, 30 September 1941, Page 10

WATER FOR NEW BRIGHTON

keport on reticulation SCHEMES « TIME NOT OPPORTUNE ” Alternative schemes of water reticulation for New Brighton at an estimated cost of £63,000 and £69,000 respectively have been investigated by the works department of the Christchurch City Council, but, because or the high ruling cost of pipe the committee has recommended that the time is not opportune for such a work. That recommendation was adopted by the council at its meeting last evening. The committee's report held the present supply, from privately-owned artesian wells and some municipallyowned wells, as “reasonably satisfactory” for domestic purposes, although it stated that there were houses with very poor supplies. “There is no adequate r supply for fire fighting, and it is the Fire Board which has drawn attention to the necessity for an improved water supply for fire fighting. While initially the, scheme would provide water primarily for fire fighting and public purposes, the committee foresaw the time when most of the area would be served by high pressure supply. , . “Because of this ultimate use of the reticulation it is wholly undesirable to install a temporary -scheme ill adapted to fit in as part of the whole. Also reasons against a partial scheme are that first, the incidence of cost upon different sections of the community is generally unfair or considered such with the varying degree of benefits received, and second, the incomplete scheme delays the provision of the better scheme. There are various methods of supplying the area but ultimately the two chief ones are: (1) The installation of a water tower and small pumping scheme so that the Brighton water supply is a separate unit—£63,ooo. (ii) One connexion to the city mains and a small pumping station at New Brighton.—£69,ooo. “Scheme (i) can most cheaply be provided by the transfer to New Brighton of the Sydenham water tower after the existing wood stave tank is replaced, and the reticulation of most of the area, “Scheme (ii) incorporates New Brighton as part of the city and has many advantages, although the cost is slightly greater.. "Scheme (i) has the following chief disadvantages: (1) Lower working pressure for fire fighting unless boosting is carried out, (2) The water tower is at present useful in the city until the main Huntsbury reservoir is completed. (3) The possibility of a prolonged local ' power interruption at New Brighton necessitates a _ local standby pumping plant in the initial stages “Scheme (ii) has the chief disadvantage that the city water supply is at present under capacity as far as.

reservoir storage is concerned, and no major extensions should be undertaken until the Huntsbury reservoir is com“After considerable investigation into the various aspects of the case, it is submitted that the most satisfactory and reliable scheme is scheme (n). This provides for a small pumping station at New Brighton and a connexion initially of one eight-inch main only, although ultimately an additional main to the city would be necessary. The small station at New Brighton would provide for normal demands, but excessive demands would be met by city water. “The estimated cost of scheme (n) is £69,000. but this does not include any contingency.” The Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews) said ; it was impossible to get the pipe, even . if the council was willing to pay the high ruling price. Cr. M. E. Lyons supported this view, and Cr. J. N. ; Clarke said the people of New Brigh- ; ton were satisfied the time was not opportune. In reply to a question from Cr. F. ; S. Wilding, Mr Andrews said the council had not considered the financ- - ing of the scheme. Under the council’s consolidation of loan liability legislation there was provision for the burden to be spread over the whole city. Referring to the provision of sewage amenities. Cr. J. S. Barnett said the Drainage Board had not lost sight of New Brighton’s needs. It was a question for the residents, however, to de- : cide whether they could accept the i necessary burden of taxation.