WATER AND DRAINAGE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 69, 23 March 1911, Page 2

WATER AND DRAINAGE.

10 THE EDITOR. |: !|p Sir, —There is much, control*fejNJH1 going on over the relative advanft4gei§ of the two schemes of wat©r?suf|jil|:,-* gravitation and pumping: Tm' drainage portion of the proposal is not being much criticised, so I take it that most ratepayers are satisfied with the proposed method of disposal. If ratepayers will carefully study Mr Dobson's report (now republished) they may see for themselves the difference in cost between gravitation and pumping, viz: For Hi miles of feed main ... 23,000 For head works 5,000 28,000 Against pumping plant ... 4,650 Increased cost 23,350 But this is not all. A pipe at that increased cost would not- give us high pressure, which would require a pipe apparently double ' the size calculated on above. AH will admit that a gravitation scheme without sufficient pressure would be worse than useless. We can' there?fore easily allow at /least £40,000 extra cost for efficient, gravitation scheme, and this would not alloVof sufficient water being taken out by v Mr Pollard to be worth £400 pey annum. "We have Mr Dobson's own" estimates (on the smaller pi|M»). -of the relative aimual coste of the' two schemes, showing; a balance, in favor of the pumping plant, after; paying running and fuel expenses, of,over £1200 a year, and the pumping plant will give us in every way just a* efficient a supply as the gravitation scheme, and it will1 be much purer water. I think the correct way to view the proposal is this: The pumping scheme will give us all we require at present. If, say, in 10 years' time the' population and properties of the Borough have, so' increased as to warrant a larger'scheme, a gravitation scheme could then be adopted and fed on to the existing reticulation of pipes, and all we should cease to use would be the pumping plant, value £4650. For ten years we should have been saving £1200 a year, total £12 3 00Q, ,ox a clear gain, even supposing we''absolutely throw all the old plant away, of £7350; ,but the plant would still be worth a considerable sum. These figures are arrived -at. on the lower extra cost. If a proper' highpressure service was put in, the say-, ing in fafaor of the pumping plant for ten years would >be ne&rer £$0, 000. For my part I pin my faith to the pumping' scheniei If we cannot afford that, we certainly .clafnnoti afford the larger one; We *t*e toldit is antiquated. It seems to, me it is just the oßposite, arid is the latest method to be adopted in 'most suitable places, on.the scoi'e >o¥ b6th; purity of water arid ■e'coiioiny^;. I. have 'by me a fiaost i^eresti|i]^ $&>&> made ori; the proposed "OlmitffltaWb water supply in -the year .1882. -At that time fche'erigiti^^^ a pumping scheme in preference to a, gravitation scheme for the-city* and. it took the ratepayers the interval! since then, 30 years, to settle thequestion, which they have now done, as all know, in favor of theipumps. The bogey with most critics-seems to be thfe annual running charge for, these pumps. Place the greater amount for interest and sinking fund on the extra amount required against this cost, and where is there any advantage ? It is three times jbhe an- • nital cost with no oorifperisating' advantages that I can see. Councillor Allan's suggestions to Irrigate: farms and stations is an imjtossi-1 bility. You would either require to divert the river into surface ditches and so lose all pressure, or ; have pipes so large that the cost/ would be enormous. Why do not, the Wellington waterworks supply all; the extraordinary demands between ? the Hutt and the.city?. We can all' see that if they did =Ehere would be no water left for the city; and we should be in the same position. No, doubt a further perusal of Mr Dobson's report will alter many rate-, pavers' views on the water question.. EDWARD PARKER.