KIWITEA WATER.

Feilding Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 1410, 15 April 1902, Page 2

KIWITEA WATER.

As the question of a water supply Etnd drainage scheme will be a burning one during the forthcoming Mayoral election, we now publish in extenso the statement made by Dr Sorley at the last meeting of the Water and Drainage Committee : — "Although I have on a previous occasion gone into the first analysis of the Kiwitea water and its interpretation— taking each item in detail —no opportunity has been given me of speaking on the findings of the subsequent analysis of that stream. It must be remembered carefully that the first analysis was the analysis of a storm water. No storm water is passed over filter beds. Provision is always made for lateral channels, into which storm water is diverted, and thus conducted away from . the reservoir and filter beds. The succeeding analysis were taken of varying conditions of the river, and show a marked improvement in its composition, as was to be expected. But I should like to state just here that I deprecate any notion that I am wedded to the Eiwitea stream. That is not so. We have had the facts about the Oroua, and no one doubts that it is a superior water. But the first analysis of the Eiwitea has obscured the real state of matters. No attention has been paid to any other analysis ; and consequently we hear a good deal of unnecessary and unmerited abuse in regard to that river. To show the improvement let us leave out the factors of ' total solids,' ' chlorine,' and ' free ammonia,' which were all well within the limits of the standard of water of good quality, even in the first analysis — and turn to the * albuminoid ammonia.' This was excessive in the first analysis, and registered *04 per 100,000. In the following analysis it fell to -01 per 100,000. The English authorities state: 'In drinking waters of good quality the albuminoid ammonia should not exceed -01 per 100,000.' This, by the way, is also the American standard. The next item of the analysis shows a corresponding reduction in ' oxygen consumed.' It has fallen in the two following determinations from 2*25 to '635 in the one case and to •640 per 100,000 in the other. This is still above the standard of purity, but is a great improvement on the first analysis. There is no tactor over which authorities display so much difference of opinion — as to its value — and it is a matter of less moment for us, as the impurities in the Kiwitea, such as they are, are of a vegetable origin. I have told you before that a glance at the chemical analysis alone, was sufficient to form the opinion, that any impurity existing in the Kiwitea was of a vegetable nature. Organic impurities of vegetable origin are not to be mentioned in the same day with organic impurities of animal origin. Peaty waters are not generally placed among those of the first class, but they are notwithstanding not unwholesome. The bacteriological analyses confirm the opinion that any impurities in the Kiwitea are of a vegetable nature. Where in the world will you find a stream that hasn't impurities ? Mr Gilruth, in his report of the first analysis, stated there was an absence of the ' bacillus coli communis ' — a very valuable piece of information ; valuable because the 'bacillus coli communis' is a constant accompaniment of sewage, and is rarely, or never, found in pure water supplies. Mr Reakes, in the next examination, reported that the micro-organisms were chiefly of the non -liquefying class. This is again corroborative of the opinion that any organic impurity the Kiwitea possesses is not of animal origin. It is the liquefying microbes that are most concerned in the breaking down of animal matter and where it is, there they will be. Mr Bagnall, a short while since, referred to the number of micro-organisms — 4080 to the cubic centimetre in the first analysis of the water — in terms of fine and exuberant scorn. In all likelihood Mr Bagnall is not aware that the vast majority of these organisms play a beneficent part in the economy of nature. They have fallen, however, in the second determination to 1260 per cubic centimetre, and to 1200 per c.c. in the next. And Mr Bagnall has evidently forgotten some facts which were brought forward when we first discussed the analysis. They are these. Five London companies take their water from the Thames at Hampton. The number of micro-organisms is 16,138 per c.c. as against our 1260 and 1200 per c.c. The Thames is also fouled from its source to its entrance into the sea. Truly in comparison to the Thames the Kiwitea is a prince of a stream. After storage one of these companies, " The Chelsea Company," finds a diminution to 1067 micro-organisms per c.c, and after filiation the number falls to 34 per c.c. Another— not to quote too many —the "West Middlesex Company," lessens the number by storage to 1788 per c.c, and after filtrations finds it has 58 micro-organisms to the c.c. This is well within the standard as laid down by Professor Koch — and considered much too exacting by most authorities — who says that the microbes in a drinking water should not exceed 100 per c.c. He says, that however numerous they may be, efficient sand filtration will reduce them to that number. No one, I presume, proposes to tap the Kiwitea, or any other supply, direct. It take it, Mr Mayor, that the ordinary precautions of storage and efficient sand filtration will be observed, To sum the matter up : the last analyses show that with storage and efficient sand filtration there need be no apprehension on the part of this community in taking the Kiwitea as a source of supply. And I do not say this lightly, as I have given the matter a great deal of consideration, and have compared our results with those given by both English and American authorities in the analyses of their different water supplies. Dr. Mason, at this table, stated that the Kiwitea was by no means the filthy stream some would have it, and that there were many worse rivers taken as a water supply. If you found it beyond your means to take the Oroua, and were afraid to face the constant large expense of any pumping scheme, and were to ask Dr. Mason, under such circumstances, whether he would allow you to use the Kiwitea as a source of supply, I am convinced — although I have held uo conversation with Dr. Mason on this subject — I am convinced that Dr. Mason's answer would be "Under these circumstances use the Kiwitea by all means, but first store and then sand-filter." I have been struck, repeatedly, during these meetings, by noticing that there is a tendency to look upon the water supply as chiefly a matter for fire-prevention purposes. Now, gentlemen, this is a very estimable object, bnt the chief reason for a water pupply is the he»jth of

the community. I have mentioned this before, but I wish to emphasise this feature. It is to be hoped some scheme for a water supply will be adopted, and that early, as I need scarcely remind you that we are getting nearer epidemics every day. I shonld'nt wonder if small-pox were to put in an appearance in the colony before long, and when it does, it will make an awful impression upon its people. We have already had the plague in New* Zealand, and one way of keeping these epidemics at arm's length, is to have a thoroughly sanitary state of our Borough. This cannot be attained, in any degree of completeness, without an abundant and wholesome supply of water. In fact, Mr Mayor and gentlemen — the supply of wholesome water, ix> sufficient quantity, is the fundament^ sanitary necessity ; and you know as well as myself, that there is no greater source of poverty than illhealth. In addition, a good and efficient water supply increases the commercial value of a town."