“CREDIT WHERE DUE”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20632, 13 August 1941, Page 4

“CREDIT WHERE DUE”

WHOSE WATER SCHEME? COUNCIL CONTROVERSY EFFORTS OF PAST YEARS During the discussion on the water supply last night, when the Gisborne Borough Council had before it a report from Mr. F. W. Furkert on augmentation proposals, more than one councillor said lie wished to give credit where it was due in regard to the origin of the scheme. Early in the discussion, Mr. H. H. De Costa said that since 1918 the various councils had been discussing the water supply and got no further. He was glad that the present council was going to go ahead with it at last. Mr. G. Bradley Smith: The other councils did the spade work. Mr. H. E. Maude said it was due to the old councils that the schemes had been narrowed down. Had it not been for the work of other councils the present council would have been starting de novo. As it was, the present council had the whole position clarified. i *| “The scheme has been referred to as Mr. Furkert’s scheme, but it is really Mr. Clapcott’s scheme,” stated Mr. F. Tolerton at a later stage. Mr. Furkert had merely endorsed the proposals of Mr. Clapcott, the assistant borough engineer, on which Mr. Furkert was asked lo report. He believed in giving credit where credit was due. This remark was followed by one from Mr. Maude, who said that the council appeared to have overlooked the fact that Mr. Clapcott, as assistant engineer, went out to make the report under the direction of the borough engineer, Mr. E. R. Thomas. Other Engineers Mr. Smith said he also could not believe that Mr. Thomas did not have something to do with the original report on the Puninga ponds. The Waipaoa scheme was not Mr. Thomas’, who was directed to go on with it. “I am sorry this question of Furkert versus Clapcott has arisen, because I believe that our own engineer had something to do with it.” he added. “So I, too, believe in giving credit where credit is due.” The Mayor, Mr. N. H. Bull, said that Mr. Furkert had not tried to take away any credit from anyone, and, in fact, had acknowledged Mr. Clapcott’s report but after all, the report under consideration, was Mr. Furkert’s. Mr. Bull added that he was always against the Waipaoa River testing, and he believed that the river scheme should have been put into discard long before it was. Mr. Vickerman recommended it, but he also suggested the damming of the Mangapoike. and Mr. Clapcott was instructed to investigate that proposal. Mr. Clapcott brought down a very able report. Mr. Furkert had been asked to report on two proposals, Waingake development, or Mangapoike exploitation. All the council was required to do was to adopt Mr. Furkert’s report to provide enough water for as many people as the council might have to supply. The borough engineer said that Mr. Vickerman was actually responsible for mentioning Mangapoike and though he never saw the area he asked Mr. Thomas to investigate it, Mr. Thomas finding it very attractive. That was why Mr. Vickerman mentioned the Puninga ponds in his report. Later Mr. Clapcott was sent to propound a scheme for Mangapoike.