WATER SUPPLY LOAN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 3 May 1937, Page 6

WATER SUPPLY LOAN

CORRESPONDENT’S VIEWS [To The Editor] Sir,—l have, until the last two days, accepted, without reservation, that the Roding River, at the proposed intake of the aqueduct, will give us a minimum daiiy supply of from 3 to 3£ million gallons. I was assured that careful stream gauging had been carried out by competent observers, and that the gaugings agreed fairly accurately with calculations based on a coefficient of minimum run off per square mile of drainage area. I have reason to change my views, and with a full knowledge of responsibility in what I am saying, to state that in mj opinion it will be found that the discharge of the Roding River at the proposed intake, will fall to at least 1A million gallons daily, and possibly less. This should completely dispose of the scheme as at present proposed, unless a storage reservoir be adopted, and a storage reservoir in such a position would probably silt up as we have seen at Waihopi. My reasons are as follows:

I understand that the drainage area of the Roding river above the proposed intake is 15 square miles, and that of the Brook street supply 1700 acres or 2.656 square miles, that is a ratio of 5.647 to 1.

Taking now the minimum discharge of the Brook street source as given by the City Engineer, viz 400.000 gallons per day. and multiplying this by the above ratio of 5.647, we get an estimated discharge of 2.259.000 gallons per day.

This did not satisfy me. so I worked out the coefficient of discharge in cusec.; on the drainage area, on the assumption that 3. 3j. and 3A million gallons were discharged, an obtained the figures of .35. .38, and .41 cusecs per

square mile. / Now these are very high figures, and out of all proportion to anything I have j been accustomed to use in calculating minimum discharges off drainage areas. | I was assured that they satisfied the re- ; quiremcnts of the Public Works De- | partment. Now I had reason recently to consult the Public Works Department on the value of this coefficient with my investigations of the Cobb and Cowan hydro electric proposals, and found i that they were accustomed to use .25 ! cusecs as a minimum discharge per square mile on New Zealand drainage I areas. This figure I therefore adopted, as it agreed more nearly with what 1 have found correct elsewhere, and bearing in mind that the figure is less important in a power plant than when used in connection with City water supplies. I may state that I have had a great deal to do with stream gauging in my time. It requires expert knowledge, and great care, if accurate results are to be obtained, and it is very easy to go wrong. I have never adopted the I methods described to me as having | been carried out in these investigations | at the Roding, in any important works, and real accuracy is impossible in any , case without a more or less permanent gauge. It will readily be appreciated that the correct maximum and minimum coefficients of discharge on any draining area, can only be ascertained after many years of investigation. Fifty years is considered none too long. The shorter the period the less accurate, but within 50 years there is pretty sure to be a drought and a flood that will far exceed anything likely to occur within say 5 to 10 years. Naturally in New Zealand our records are very incomplete, and practically no efforts have been made to obtain them until quite recently. In older countries this is different, and there have for many years been automatic water level recorders on most important drainage areas from which very important and valuable data has been gathered. I give below the coefficient of discharge for the Thames, and also those of the Birmingham and Liverpool water supplies, as recorded on their large undertakings in Wales, on both of which I was engaged. My figures ore almost certainly not minimum figures as they were all obtained about 45

years ago. Gn the Thames, with a drainage area of 3766 square miles above Teddington Weir, and an average rainfall of about 37 inches, the minimum cusecs, up to then recorded, abounted to .198 per

s';' ire mile. The same figure for Birmingham with an average rainfall of 63 inches on a drainage area of 71 square miles (r_ to 1896) was .104. It is probably considerably less by now. Coming to the Liverpool gaugings at the Vyrnway on the River Severn, with an average rainfall of 76 inches, and a drainage area of 27J square miles, the figure up to 1893 was .130. This also is sure to have been considerably reduced by now.

. I In Nelson our average rainfall is 38 i! inches, and the number of rainy days averages about 112. In England it is j greaer as regards number of wet days. The following is what Mr Kidson. the N..Z. Government Meteorologist, has to say on the subject in his 1930 annual report. “The Dominion is very fortunate in that, in spite of the fact that the rainfall is, in places, very heavy, and th i general average is high, the number of rain days is practically nowhere excessive. In this respect it compares very favourably with, for instance, the British Isles.” It will be seen that the Roding coefficient, far from being .41 may easily fall to .20 if not lower, and still be double that of wet Wales with its peat bogs and heather moors. If so our Roding discharge will fall to 3 cusecs or 1,616,000 gallons per day. I consider that 11 million gallons is the safe figure to assume as a minimum, having regard to the fact that the drainage area is well wooded. If it was bare and rocky I ffiould consider the figure too high. I hope to get in one more letter before the voting takes,place next Thursday, summarising my views on this important decision. —I am, etc., H. G. FOSTER BARHAM. Nelson, 30th April. i ITo The Editor] Sir, —As long as I can remember whenever any proposals for works of major importance are placed before the ratepayers of Nelson uprises a host of I amateur and other engineers to criticise j and condemn. Any progressive move ic is viewed with disfavour and pessimism, s Self-appointed advisors, perhaps seek- c ing cheap notoriety, as a rule do not 1

possess all the facts and information concerning the proposals enabling them to guide ratepayers. The present Water Loan proposals are no exception to the rule for again we have the usual host of critics. Allow me to remind ratepayers that our City Council for many many months in fact years investigated various proposals for improving the totally inadequate water supply and guided by expert advice they determined the Roding River Scheme was the best under all the circumstances attaching thereto. They accepted the advice of expert and fully qualified engineers whose credentials and records are available to all. In the first place the Hume Pipe Company—a public company experienced in carrying out large works of a similar nature throughout the Dominion—were so satisfied the proposals were sound that they offered to undertake the work on contract. In doing so Ihey took their own engineer’s advice.

In addition to this expert opinion the following Engineers favourably reported on and recommended the proposals the City Council are now placing before ratepayers:—

The Public Works Engineers at the 1 request, of the Government. The Minister required the assurance of his own expert engineers before the Govern--1 ment would grant financial assistance : i and sanction the loan. : j Mr F. J. Williams, Member N.Z. j Society of Engineer. Member Royal | Sanitary Institute. England. Member • j N.Z. Institute of Surveyors, the Consul- ' I tin? Engineer who ranks high in his ' | profession throughout the Dominion and ' i w'ho has successfully carried out large | undertakings and finally the City's own j Engineer who has given very close study to the whole question of the ; City's water supply. : Surely, these constitute a strong array of experts. 1 do hope the Nelson ratepayers will not take heed of the balderdash served ud bv some critics. To do so. appears to ; me to be akin to a mothers’ meeting accepting the aavice of a Blue Jacket on the latest system of Plunket Nursing or the Rugby Union taking notice of a lady school teacher on the 3-2-3 scrum formation. When medical advice | is required you seek the aid of a doctor j whose reputation and skill is well known. If legal advice is needed you obtain the opinion of the solicitor you consider is the best. For expert knowledge on house building you go to an architect or master builder you know you can depend upon. Surely, then, it is only commonsense m the case of an important engineering work such as the proposed Water Supply Scheme that ratepayers should accept the advice of selected skilled engineers whose reputation and standing is known to them and recognised throughout New' Zealand. The proposal recommended by the City Council and its expert engineers to ensure an adequate suoply of pure water at all seasons of the year and to encourage and meet the growing needs of our city appears to mo to be worthy of enthusiastic support. But when we take into consideration the fact the Government are paying £35,000 towards the cost the bargain is too good to miss. The carrying of the loan proposals will be a definite incentive to progress.—l am etc. C. MILNER. ! Nelson. 3rd April. ITo Tile Editor! Sir..—The result of the Water Loan poll on Thursday will mark Nelson’s decision cither to take another step forw'ard tow'ards the ideal of a well equipped modern city or to remain under the stigma of a dangerously inadequate' supply of that first essential, water. Leaving aside the questions of faulty reticulation, w'aste etc., the plain fact of the case is that the dry weather I flow of the Brook is below the mini- . mum requirement of the city No improvement in reticulation or elimination of waste can alter this fact and bis should be apparent to every unbiased citizen. Once this aspect is recognised the matter becomes solely one as to the source from which an additional supply should be obtained. This point has been considered for years both by the ; present Council and by the preceding one, in fact there has been so much de-! liberation on the matter that some of us 1 had begun to despair of ever getting an ' adequate supply. 5 I believe, however, that these Coun- 1 cils are entitled to our gratitude for the ‘ sehse of responsibility they have shown * in coming to a decision and that no councillor had any preconceived ideas i as to whether the additional supply I should be obtained from the Roding, ! c the Maitai or from pumping. I s

The decision has been a unanimous

one in favour of the Roding and this decision is backed by the expert opin ion of the City Engineer, the City’s Consulting Engineer, and the PublicWorks Department. The great point for the Roding Scheme is that by adopting it we are enabled to help our country neighbours and to do so without cost to the city. For reasons of selLinterest alone this factor should influence us, as anything which tends to increase prosperity in the country must

inevitably result in benefit to the city.

Against the Council’s decision the only expert opinion advanced is that of Mr Foster Barham. I know nothing of Mr Foster Barham’s qualifications, but it is certain that his expressions of opinion carry no responsibility whatever to the citizens of Nelson and I suggest to ratepayers that we should disregard them and place our trust in our own elected councillors, who are themselves all ratepayers, and in the backing they have from selected civil engineers.

It appears that the cost in additional rates to the average home owner will be from 10s to £ 1 per annum according to the value of the property. I find it difficult to believe that'any man would not pay this trifling sum for the ines-

timable boon of a certain and bounteous supply of water during the dry summer months. Any man with sufficient energy to work in his garden could, with plenty of water available get his additional rates back from his vegetable patch alone. The advantages of an increased supply for fire fighting purposes have already been pointed out and I would ad that our present supply is so unsatisfactory in this respect that there can be no certainty that insurance rates will not be increased if it is not improved. I hope, sir, that the Loan Proposal will be carried by a thumping majority.—l am etc. W. B. GRIFFIN. Nelson, 3rd May. ; fTo The Editor] Sir,—l listened a few days ago to a discussion as to whether Nelsonians are short-sighted. Like most arguments it ended without decision. It seems to me, however, that the decision on the water

question on Thursday will show if wa are shortsighted or not. Water ill abundance is a heaven sent blessing, we have it at our back door and can get it made available to our homes at a reasonable cost. Over a third of the cost is being provided by the Government.

Do all the ratepayers realise that in the next few years Nelson will have about another 300 homes which of necessity will have 300 drainage connections, 300 baths, 300 sinks with about 1500 water taps. Where is the water coming from to provide for an increasing population unless we make provision for it now? Nature plus your vote on Thursday will provide us with ! 3,250,000 gallons. Sufficient for Nelson I City and our good neighbours at jTahuna, Stoke and Richmond, j The average cost of 14s per household j per annum is so small considered with j the benefits that it seems to make water 'too cheap. If ratepayers will keep in mind the j big benefits, the reasonable cost, they will not miss the chance to vote for more water next Thursday.—l am. etc., RATEPAYER. [To The Editor] j Sir,—As a ratepayer I would like I these questions answered through your ! paper:— If this water proposal is so important ' for saving lives (as our Mayor states) ! why was the Fire Station erected before there was enough water? Who bears the expense of Council ! employees using Council trucks when j they are not working? i What is the benzine account for the j Council for a month. We have other ! reports put in regarding gas, light, etc., | but no mention of benzine and it is up to the ratepayers to be informed on this subject. As a ratepayer I feel I am paying quite enough for the water I use. but I do think that some people ;nre very wasteful, and I think that I there should be more inspectors in dry | weather than there are. There is quite enough water for all if everyone was careful and the wasteful ones made an j example of. My rates are going up every year and : it does not encourage the wage earner to buy a home for himself and family if every little thing the Council wants l the humble ratepayer is called upon to ; pay for. Hoping I’ll have the backing of a few more ratepayers in not voting for the i loan.—l am etc. OVER-TAXED RATEPAYER Nelson. 3rd May. Ho The Editor] Sir, Each of the 10.000 water eng'neers of this city appears to have a different scheme to settle this water question for good and all. Fortunately the majority agree in the necessity for some definite improvement in the present condition of affairs. I would humbly suggest that they all waive aside the'r still born ideas and unite in supporting the scheme brought forward by the responsible men, whose business it is to know all about it. As the president of the Horticultural Society I am concerned in a good ; supply of water for private gardens. That obtained, Nelson with its most l beautiful surroundings and good climate could become, what some citizens rater prematurely assert, it is, the- “ Garden City” of New Zealand.—l am etc. G. F. DODDS. , Nelson. 3rd May.