CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLV, Issue XLV, 19 August 1910, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE WATER QUESTION.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—l have read with great interest Mr. Thomas NeaJe's letter on the water supply, and he is hitting the nail on the head.' It would be suicidal and wicked of the Citv Council to risk our present water"supply for the coming friuumer. The sewers will require some thousands of gallons of water daily to keep them clean and prevent then- Bitting up. The three-gallon flush is plenty for each drain, but has very little effect on a sewer. We now have plenty of water power to really cleanse Langlands' dam. a.nd our City Eingineer says i,t can be made quite secure aaid water-tight for under one thousand pounds. We cannot expect under the most favourable circumstances to get the Roding River supplv inside a year, and by flushing Langlands' dam and making it good our water supply is assured for this Bummer, and the Roding River supply can come on afterwards. Months ago I wrote to vour paper and said that I queried if the health authority would have allowed the lie wsewers "to be laid had they thought for an instant that the water supply was inadequate; and I reiterate that statement. The old system is much better than a sewer without a sufficient and adequate water supply to flush it. Why cannot each member of our City Council drop all their private and political feelings and work in unison for the benefit of the city? We pay for watqr, *aud ought to* have it. Bravo! Mr. Neaile. "Reader" tried under a nora de plume to give you a smack in the eye, and you have given him a facer instead* and your* is quite straight and above board. How is it that people will not wgin their onw name to' what they write': Are they afraid or ashamed to do so r Or is "it that the "'wise child I hat knows its own father" is the custodian of its mother's reputation? Hoping that the Council will see that we have a good and plentiful supply of water this summer, I am, etc., HENRY WRIGHT. Hardy-st., Nelson, Aug. 18th.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l am indebted to -Mr Thomas Neale for his ans*wer to my inquiry as to Imiv the- high levels 'will get water when/ t he. Langlands da'm is repaired. lie has given ''lie only answer 'that, could Ibo Igivcn, viz., from the upper weir, as at; pre-e-nt. Writing from memory, I read in the "Evening Mail" some two or three jeans ago that the caretaker at the reservoir hiad stated that the stream that now supplies the w«M"r had run, to his kiio'wledge. with the same •streujjth for a period of about 40 years, and it was co'mputed tha'c this quantity of water wa: sufficient to fill a 12-inch pipe-, enough -surely to •supply a much larger population than Nelson has. The whole question seems to hinge on what' 1 ' the upper weir is—whether it is to be regarded as a reservoir or a source of supply. Therefore it appears to me that if in a long droughty summer a shortness occurred, througih an extra pressure being ,put unomi the supptly, the -worst that would happen would ,be that it may foe necessary to stop using the water for a few hours in order that the weir could refill itsel'f; tbut the flow of water Would 'be there all the time. This would ibe preferable- to havin,g to go 'without water, as has been the caise when the Langlands dam ,wia-s being drawn from; ibecause its situation was too low to give the'pressure required to supply the .hig'her portions of the town. But Mr Xeale has not referred t.o tne 'point in my letter, viz.,, that in failing to give Mr Piper the credit 'for the construction of the weir lie 'was doing ' m an- injustice; ibut he -ays "his party spent hundreds of pounds i'nj cleaning out the old dam in preference to repairing r tlve Langlands dam." Surely it has been admitted that the ibest arrangement was made at that time, as the uig dam wias leaki'rog, and there was need for an immedia'te supply of water. This was, of course, before the upper weir was contemplated. But why say "iMr Piper and his party 1 ?" This charge of alwtays aeeusin.g one of belonging to one party,or the. other has b-eew the enure of many'holding aloof from public questions, and it is "my reason for writing under a "nom do plume." as T should no doubt (be- a'c once drubbed las (belongiing to so-and-so "s party. But some day. Mr Xeale, we imay have a era elk over the question. T am. 'etc., 1 REAPER. Nelson. August IS, 1910.