WATER FOR THE BAYS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 91, 14 October 1931, Page 8

WATER FOR THE BAYS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondent "Anti-Jficrobe Ratepayer" issues a challenge to Mr. Hoggard or "anybody else" in regard to water supply and drainage in Day's Bay. From his letter he certainly needs enlightenment, and in fact, from the questions he asks, he seems to know little about the matter. To those who have given some thought to the matter, however, the letter appears to be propaganda on behalf of a certain interest which seeks to stampede the Day's Bay people into unnecessarily saddling themselves with a portion of Eastbourne's latest commitment and so lighten the burden of that community.' However, to get on with the correspondent's questions:—

(1) An inquiry at the City Water Engineer's ollii-e will probably show that, not only a majority but probably Da per cent, of the houses in the Buy are supplied from the two sources in Williams Park.

(2) The supply on the south fide, owing to silting in the dam and the fact, that the reservoir should b« higher up the

stream, is not all that is desirable. On the north side there is not a "satisfactory," but a truly magnificent, neverfailing supply of clear, clean, uncontaminated water more than sufficient to supply the needs of the whole of the residents of the Bay, and 90 per cent, of which at present is running to waste through the lack of a reservoir. (3) I know nothing of the York Bay supply. (4) The majority of ratepayers in the. Bay are solidly behind the Health Department in their demand that the Hutt County shall proceed with a water and drainage scheme in the Bay, but they certainly don't want to be mixed up in any scheme to bring artesian water five miles when they have an ample supply at their back door, nor will they consent to be rated to provide an expensive water and drainage scheme for five or ten thousand citizens of Wellington who see I fit to patronise the beach on Sundays and holidays.

(5) The ratepayers of Day's Bay have been rather disgusted with Mr. Hoggard's attitude to the whole question of water and drainage, and as the Eastbourne Council's scheme has only just been announced, were not aware of his "continued resistance" to it. I can safely say, however, that if Mr. Hoggard steadfastly refuses to join the Eastbourne scheme he will immediately find the residents and ratepayers of the Bay behind him to a man.

Day's Bay ratepayers are not beginning to have their eyes open; they have had I them open for years, and have been, and ■ are now, prepared to pay for the scheme they want, which is undoubtedly what is known as the Morton scheme, the product of the greatest water engineer in the city's history. Good luck to Eastbourne and the progress you will undoubtedly make. We in Day's Bay are not envious, and have left you to work out your own scheme; now just leave us alone to work out ours. Undoubtedly a meeting of ratepayers will be held in Day's Bay, and I suspect that, owing to the lack of the ratepayers' qualification, "Anti-Microbe Ratepayer" will not be present. I shall, because I am, SOMEBODY ELSE. 13th October.