WATER SUPPLY LOAN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 4 May 1937, Page 2

WATER SUPPLY LOAN

|To Tbe Editor 1

Sir,—The correspondence regarding the merits and demerits of the proposed water scheme would have been very interesting were the position not so serious. There is, however, one point of view which has not yet been advanced by any of your correspondents and that is the position of the indirect rate-payer.

Doubtless there is residing in Nelson a large number of householders who' Ihe myself for the purposes of convenience do not actually own the fee simple of the properties on which they res'de but it is submitted that we actually pay rates although we do not personally pay the amounts involved direct to the City Council. We pay them periodically to the owners of the properties and in return for these payments we are entitled inter alia to a good water-supply. To my mind it will be nothing short of tragic if due to the parsinmonious attitude of those who cannot see further than a small addition to their rates this beautiful city is to be deprived of the use of the bountiful supply of water afforded by Nature. Personally, and I feel I am expressing the view of others placed in a similar position, if my landlord is too mean himself to pay the additional rates involved through the provision of the water-supply then I would gladly pay them direct to the Council myself if by so doing I could be assured of an abundance of pure water when required.—l am etc. INDIRECT RATE-PAYER. Nelson, 4th May. 'To The Editorl Sir,—Councillor Harley stated that my figures were not fair, and even incorrect. Well my figures were taken from the reports of our paid engineers, and I for one am quite content to accept them as correct. But I am afriad Mr Harley missed my point. I expressly stated drought readings, which are the ones we are really interested in. We know the Brook stream has supplied us with 1.500.000 gallons daily for over two years, besides that which has overflowed the dam, but we also know that that same stream once fell to 400.000. I don’t doubt for one minute that during those same two years the Roding could have supplied 3.250.000 gallons daily. Let me give the engineers’ figures once more; Roding 1,800,000, Brook 700.000, Maitai (3) 4,500.000, 4.200.000, 1,500,000. Therefore if we accept the average flow of the Roding at 3.500,000 we must then take the Maitai figures as between 8,000,000 and'9,ooo.ooo gallons daily. Now as to the risk. First seepage. Whether a major or minor risk, a risk it undoubtedly is and acknowledged by all, including the engineers. Secondly, earthquake. Now we know Nelson lies on a fault line. Also to the best of our knowledge, no movements have taken place in that fault for nearly 100 years, so that according to geologists (end I don't want to appear as an alarmist), an upheaval may come at any time. Now our Mayor said in answer to a question that the Roding was not near the fault. Well a mile may not be near to a lame man, but we know to our sorrow that 130 miles is far too near to be to a real old man earthquake, as the Lyell upheaval'was. And with a thirteen feet uplift anywhere within a few miles of that tunnel what would happen? Even at so shallow a depth as our Cathedral foundations are. a definite earth crack 15inch wide could be seen.

Now, my point is this. Why take any risk at all, when, for £48,000 you can get nearly 9,000.000 gallons as against I £78,000 for 3,500,000 gallons. And rej member, our engineer has stated that in a major scheme, provision should be made for 50 years ahead. Another point —consumption of water per head of population is going up fast. Thirty years ago, 30 gallons per head was thought to be liberal; to-day we are told we need 130 gallons per head per day. A question I would like to ask is this: The country quota has been fixed at 600.000 gallons or approximately one fifth of 3,000,000. If the Roding during a drought should fall to 1.500,000 gallons how are the restrictions to be apportioned. (I have already pointed out that a dozen orchardists could absorb the whole country quota.—l am, etc., SEVEN BAR. Nelson, 3rd May. P-S. —Tahuna could be just as ecc • nomically and more liberally supplied from the Maitai. S.B. tTo Tlie Editor] Sir.—The price one has to pay for living in a so-calied democratic communiiy is indeed appalling! Why, one can't move, or try to put across even the most beneficial of measures, but there instantly arises a rank growth of balderdashers, prepared, like John Gilpin, to “dash through thick and thin.” All logic, oi reason, or argument is of course thrown to the four winds of heaven The supporters of the scheme alone posse..' the rudiments of reason, and wisdom will doubtless perish with them. That the supporters of the scheme have viewed these incursions with pained surprise and very grave displeasure is not surprising. The Nelson waterworks system dates back 69 years, to the year 1868 The mains were put down then, or most of them ana that they are now defective is to be expected. We have it. however, on high authority that it is due largely to these very defective mains that Nelson’s water supply is as good as it is to-day Well, why not put them out of action aitogeiher. We could then "shelve” the Roding scheme with a quiet conscience. The present water rate after 69 years’ working, is 4id in the Jt It is now proposed in one fell swoop to add to this rate 6!d in the £, a total of 10]jd. and very soon it will no doubt be a round shilling so as to save intricate calculation costs. Once put on, this rate will not be taken off. For two solid years the dam has been running over, as it is at this moment, and yet during that period serious shortages have taken place on the highei levels, etc. Under the conditions prevailing in the reticulation department to-day and for years past, the town would be short of water if the whole of the rivers and creeks of Nelson were turned on into our water supply Properly conserved and stored and reticulated there is abundance of water for all reasonable needs in the Brook street stream to-day and foi years ahead. During the last few days T have besn asking myself why go to the outlay of £lO when I can get all I want for 50s! Let's apply that principle to civic affairs. Why expend £90.000 on a risky and even dangerous adventure when we can get all we want for a third of that sum? It is to be sincerely hoped that rate-

payers will approach the polling booths on Thursday next only after very serious consideration and know quite well what they are voting for and also what they are voting against. In conclusion, if a little more attention had been paid to what critics wrote in "The Mail” at the time the drainage loan was on the tapes, it is quite possible that to-day we should not be faced with the probability of another £90.000 loan to to put this example of the work of experts into decent order. After all. the water problem is only one of our several pressing problems. — I am, etc. “OBSERVER.” Nelson, 4th May. (To The Editor] Sir,— Referring to my letter appearing in your issue of 3rd May, in calculating the minimum discharge we may expect from the Roding. by comparing it with what we already know as regards the Brook street area. I arrive at the figure of 2.239,000 gallons per day, on the assumption that the drainage area of the former was 15 square miles above the proposed intake and the latter 2.656. I have now taken out these drainage areas on my own account and find that of the Roding to be 14.4 square miles, the Brook street 3.723 square miles or 2383 acres, a ration of 3.87 to 1. Moreover the City Engineer told us recently that on 7th December 1933, things were so bad that we might only expect from 300.000 to 400,000 gallons per day from the Brook street source. Had I used this lower figure of 300.000 in my calculations, instead of the larger one of 400,000, and on the smaller drainage area of 14.4 square miles, and the larger area of Brook street, namely 3.723. I should have obtained the low discharge of 1,161,000 instead of 2.239.000 as all we may expect from the Roding, at a similar time of drought, as that of 7th December 1933, corresponding with a coefficient of discharge of .15 cusecs per square mile. I only mention this to show that the assumption that 31 million galllons per day as the minimum discharge that may be expected from the Roding, is altogether unwarranted, when calculated by compar'ng the two areas, and equally that an assumed coefficient of discharge of .41 cusecs per square mile, is far too large. I only mention this to show that the assumption that 31 million gallons per day as the minimum discharge that may be expected from the Roding, is altogether unwarranted, when calculated by comparing the two areas, and equally that an assumed coefficient of discharge of .41 cusecs per square mile, is far too large. We thus get an even lower figure than my own of U million gallons per day, as all we may expect as a minimum from the Roding. not calculated only on a coefficient of discharge basis, but by comparing the actual run off of one against the other. Possibly the City Engineer’s figure of 300.000 gallons per was too low an estimate. —I am, etc.,

H. G. FOSTER BARHAM. Nelson. 4th May. (Further letters will be found on other pages in this issue.)