WATER SUPPLY LOAN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 1 May 1937, Page 6

WATER SUPPLY LOAN

[To The Editor] Sir—ln regard to the proposed Roding River scheme it appears that from observed topographical features of the surrounding country rock a presentation has been made easting doubt on the stability of the proposed tunnel, or at least the public to do so by inference. The rock formations in the environs of Nelson consist of an extensive deposition of strata laid down when New Zealand was on or near the shore line of a great Continent. It consists generally of alternating slates, shales and greywacks with intercalated beds of greenstone tuff. These rocks, wherever met with in New Zealand, are mainly coloured grey, blue, green and red, the latter being strongly developed at Lake Te Anau. A deposition of carboniferous limestone in the Maitai Valley estimated at 1000 feet in thickness rapidly thins out as it moves south west to the Wairoa River. This is probably the lowest deposition of this series exposed in Nelson. The general arrangement of the strata is in the form of a simple syncline which on the Waimea side is bounded by a fault line. In the Roding River a thickness of 7000 feet of perno carboniferous strata is exposed. In regard to hardness, it is not necessary for the country rock to be as hard as a building stone for a stable tunnel. This can be obtained in country where the roof flakes to a gothic arch. The velocity through the tunnel is 5 feet per second. Our lower grade tertiary sandstones of 12 tons per square foot safe load will take this velocity and up to 10 feet per second according to hardness. Reference has also been made to the tunnel being in an earthquake area. In the Murchison earthquake the paleozoic rocks and intrusives did not slide out at all. It was the weak and well stratified tertiary formation that came out mainly along the angle of dips and,

high escarpments. Movements along the Waimea fault line was the major cause of destruction in Nelson where the buildings were on or. flanked the fault line, as the Boys’ College. It is possibly 27 years since the Roding River was gauged over the ridge at the head of the Brook street valley. This was in connection with the proposed tunnel through the hill into the headwaters of the Brook street stream. The readings were commenced in January with a little rain, but February and March were dry months, and that was important. The reading was 5 cusccs or about 2:1 million gallons per diem. The Engineer by coming down stream has evidently picked up another 1J cusecs making an approximate total of about (B cusccs, and I can see a mathematical and topographical value in that. However. I also have made calculations of flow' and I determine 3,449,000 gallons per diem which comes somewhat handy to the Engineer’s data. I have made several calculations in regard to the scheme and I am satisfied that the scheme is sound, and at the next meeting of our Progress League I propose to give our people sufficient technique for them to vote intelligently. Another matter is the question of waste. Here again half truths are misleading. The inference to the public is that the. present scheme is not required if we eliminate waste. A commission of experts in the United States determined 1500 gallons per mile as the lowest possible averaging 5 gallons per head. The Engineer gives us 400,000 gallons into the dam. We give the population of Nelson an average of 85 gallons per diem and yet we have 500,000 odd gallons going to waste. That certainly seems an anomalous situation to perplex a third dimensional being. Pumping water seems attractive but taking the distance and height to which the water has to be pumped, it is not difficult to sec without calculation that annual charges would be considerable. Half truths and generalities are never very reliable. Finally, in regard to the Government grant of £35,000. It is this that has made it possible for the outlying districts to

works for. Nelson. I think that is a big concession and we should be big come in, and reduces the cost of headenough to say so. —I am, etc.. GEORGE BLAKE. Talumanui, 30lh April. [To The Editor] Sir.—To-day I received a folder from the City Council which, at some length, sought to prove that the Roding River scheme was (lie only satisfactory way in which our water problem was lo be solved. Answer 7 (d) reads: "For any quantity over 600.000 gallons a day they (Talumanui. Stoke and Richmond' will be required to pay at a rate remunerative to the City.” In connection with that I should like to know if there is to be a limit to their plus quantity? Also, which is the more advantageous to the citizen, during a dry season: ample water for his daily needs or a surplus in the Council’s exchequer? — I am, etc., INTERESTED.

• Nelson, 29th April. [To The Editor] Sir, —There has been a dickens of a lot of talk about this water scheme lately. Real clever experts have had .heir talk, so I thought, Mr Editor, you would like to hear what a feller what doesn’t know anything about it has to say. For a start, I don’t see why I should pay for what somebody else wastes. George Page says we use 85 gallons per head per day. Eight-five galons! Oh my hat! Now I’ve got six children and me and the wife makes eight people. I’ve got my eldest girl to work out how many gallons that makes for the lot of us. My girl is pretty good at arithmetic. She says the lot comes to 680 gallons. That’s half as much again as our tank holds. It docs seem a dickens of a lot of water for eight people to drink and to wash with. Now take our family; the baby doesn’t drink much water, it’s still on milk. . We have the Plunket nurse come round and we get our milk for nothing. Now, Mr Editor, I drink very little water myself. It’s mostly beer. Of course I’ll admit that washing clothes uses a fair poultice of water, but half a tank per week would be plenty for that. But some people waste a dickens of a lot of water in washing themselves. Now I wash myself once per day at night time so that makes me right for the next day. Two gallons is all I use. That makes 16 gallons for the whole family, we will say 18 because Nel washes herself twice a day, she’s courting and puts on a lot of dog. This everlasting bathing business fair gets on my goat. In the summer time I have a real good sweat and a rub down and I’m as clear as anybody. These Plunket people are terrible water wasters. Our baby gets washed nearly every day that’s two more gallons gone west. Then there’s the washing up, my wife always washes up at night, that makes two more gallons. The water that we wash with can be chucked on the garden; we don’t grow many vegetables, my wife isn’t much of a gardener, she seems to be frightened of a spade. I don’t do any; gardening seems to knock me clean out. I’ve got a weak heart. So you see MiEditor, we use very little water. I’ll guarantee our neighbours what let the hose run all night on their garden, waste more water in a week than we use in a year. George Page says that it would cost us all threepence a week for this water scheme. When I told Sam Fuller it would only cost us 3d per week, well I wouldn’t lower myself to repeat what Sam said. He said 3d per week be . My house is rentable at £6O, that means I wil have to fork out about 30 bob extra for rates per year. The extra rate will be at least 6d, because it always costs more for tunnels than they expect. Sam said, “Suppose everybody had been using tanks up till now with water what comes off the roofs of their houses, and we suddenly got our present water supply, why everybody would reckon they was on the pig’s back; they have any amount of water.” We would have plenty of water at our place what comes off the roof. Thirty-five thousand pounds does seem a dickens of a lot of money just to shove a hole through a hill, and then an earthquake might bung it up. And besides I don’t see why we should put this scheme through when wages and material are such a dickens of a price. Foster Barham is about the longest headedest man in the town and he doesn’t believe in this tunnel scheme. I reckon Foster Barham is the one what has forgotten more about waterworks than all the rest of them ever knew. Our municipal debt is now over three hundred thousand pounds without watering, and we haven’t paid for our last water scheme yet. Talking about water, Mr Editor, Harry Atmore says, “we are still paying for Waterloo.” Water is might dangerous stuff to tinker with. I knew a cove what got drowned in it.—l am etc.

PRACTICAL. [To The Editor] Sir, —The water question is undoubtedly having the earnest consideration of every live ratepayer. “The Mail” and the various City Councillors have put the benefits of the Roding scheme very plainly before the voters during the last few weeks. As years go by Nelson wil become more sought after by tourists. Our beautiful Maitai Valley should be left untouched. It is one of the pleasantest sights in the summer time to see the numerous little picnic parties on the banks of the Maitai and the dozens of kiddies padd!ing in the waters of the river. Taking water from the Maitai means perhaps the spoiling of the cheapest and healthiest pleasures of the Nelson children. Hoping that the Roding scheme will be carried with a record vote as water means health for the children,—l am etc. A WOMAN VOTER.

[To The Editor] Sir, —It is inferred that those who are opposed to this new water scheme are opposed to, or at least indifferent to any improvement in Nelson’s water supply. This is not the case, many who will find it, in conscience, impossible to support this £BB,OOO loan carrying a rate of in the £, are just as anxious to sec an adequate supply of water ’ for all legitimate purposes the whole year round as arc those who so loudly acclaim the scheme. It is the scheme itself they object to, and not unnaturally ask.—Have the potentialities of the Brook stream ever been really fully explored? Has every avenue of improvement been exhausted? What percentage of the many hundreds of millions ol gallons flowing each year past the wier and big dam docs Nelson people really use? Has any real effort been made to conserve supplies? Has any attention been given to decent reticulation? Has it :c-ally been considered wliat the imposition of this 6id rate (on top of all the other rates) will mean to many struggling borne owners in Nelson? These have by dint of stupendous self-denial managed by the skin of their teeth, to hold on to their

lit lit., homes during all the years of l lie slump? Are they never lo be completely flattened out by this staggering addition to their inescapable obligations? We know that the incomes of many

amongst us are not improving—rather the inverse. Their existence is becoming more and more preearions—especially those depending upon the fruits of their inilustiv and their careful tlilift during their years of active work. These have no chance whatever of passing on this new charge the business mail has as a £2OO rental value his new water rate will he Cl 4s 2d ye,lily. This will for him simply mean increased overheads, and he will if he is wise he not siow to act. lie will “pass it on,” which will in no wayhelp the thrifty house, owner —referred to above. I certainly think the Government acted very handsomely, in coming to light with a £35.000 grant, provided the service is extended to Stoke, Tahumi, Richmond. But after all. £55.000 is less than one half of the proposed loan. The Nelson lat,(.pavers stand to hear the brunt. Assuming that Stoke. Richmond, etc., are able to linanec their respective reticulations—and gel their water laid on (sold at a surprisingly low price too) it is fair to assume that they will he very Free users—(.specially in dry seasons. Their orchards etc. will absorb tens o" thousands of gallons—in which ease I ask, how much further will we he advanced in. Nelson? No one has claimed that in the Roding River we have a limitless supply. It is perfectly dear that on this matter of water expert opinion is at serious variance—and whether we agree with Mr Foster Barham's conclusions or not, the ratepayers should be grateful that he has entered the arena—and given us the benefit of his wide and comprehensive professional experience. in many places. The average ratepayer, whilst claiming no expert knowledge, has his common sense and his experience to guide him, and his common sense will prompt him lo enquire if this is really the best scheme, that could have been evolved? If it has been well advised—and if in its present form it fills the hill it, will have his support on the day of polling—but not otherwise. This water problem is indeed an “absorbing” problem. It actually provokes “a thirst.” In (his present state it is giving us all very considerable concern—there is no denying it. And it is to be sincerely hoped that its anxieties, its shortages, its debates and its other inconveniences will he wholly' confined to this particular plane. We can only hope for the best.—l am, etc.,

OBSERVER. Nelson, 29th April. [To The Editor] Sir, —There is one important point not mentioned by correspondents on the question of improved water supply to our city and district, and that is thousands of pounds of the loan money will be spent in wages to local workers. These wages will be circulated in Nelson lo the grocer, butcher, baker, etc., to the benefit of all. Secondly the undertaking will provide work for a large number of men and so relieve the pressure of unemployment and help many an “out of work” to find steady employment. I hope the Loan will be carried.—l am, etc.,

JOHN CITIZEN. Nelson, 30lb April. ITo The Editor] Sir, —With your permission 1 would like to ask the Mayor or Councillor Gibbs a few questions as to enlighten the ratepayers a little before voting. 1. How much has the Engineer allowed in his estimates for the airway? What power does lie propose to use for same? 2. How much for the three mile of tramline points and sleepers for the double line? 3. What power to bo used for hauling tiio trucks in and out? 4. What will be the grade in the tunnel? 5. The cost of lighting the tunnel for workmen ? 6. How is the work to he carried out, contract, piecework, daywork or dole? 7. What provision is being made to carry on when money runs out when about quarter way through? 8. \\ hat is the Engineer’s estimate per day for workman wages? 9. How can the Engineer blow a bole hrough the lull with explosives without timbering or lining with concrete? 10. What will he the cost to timber tunnel through? 12. Is there a road to tunnel mouth, if not what will it cost for same? 13. What will if cost for road, intake end if required? 14. In what year will the tunnel be completed?—l am, elc.,

TUNNELLER. Nelson, 30th April. [To The Editor] Sir,—Ratepayers will appreciate the Mayor’s efforts to place before them so much information on the Roding river scheme for the improvement of o ur water service. Vet we wish to bo further advised before voting in this very important q list ion on the following points, via. : 1. What is the estimated cost of the proposed tunnel? 2. \\ bat will be the consequence if the actual cost of construction exceeds such estimate in the same ratio as that of the Otira TunoJ? 3. How does the City Council reconcile their promise that the additional rate iiivoied will not exceed 3d or 4d with their official advertisement regarding loan pledging the ratepayers to “an annually recurring special rate of 6Jd in tile pound’’ 4. If as stated in the Council’s circular, pumping from the Maitai would not be (permitted “how is that such pumping lias been in operation for several years? 5. Has the City Council ever considered a system of filteration of the water as adopted in other cities, and as suggested by' Mr hostcr-Barliam—a. citizen fot whose opinion, as an expert consulting engineer on water works, of such vast experience and qualifications—the ratepayers of Nelson will always bo indebted?—l am, etc., H. G BERRYMAN. Nelson, 30th April.