WATER SUPPLY.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXII, Issue 18, 25 February 1863, Page 3

WATER SUPPLY.

To the Editor or the 'Nelson Examinee.'

Sib — Believing you to be at all times willing to aid in the expression of public opinion upon all important matters, I have written this, with the request that you will find room for it in your columns. In to-day's impression is the report of the Commissioners upon the supply of water, upon reading which, I was much struck with that portion which suggests a rate of six per cent, per annum on the rental or value of all properties (within the prescribed boundaries), to be levied and raised to pay sufficient interest on the outlying capital. And, after adverting to the importance of a good supply of water in case of fire, the Commissioners proceed to calculate that the rate will not exceed an average of £2 Bs. upon each liouse, while some will be much lower; and that, they cay, will be partly met by a reduction in the rates of insurance.

Presuming that this report will never be adopted by the Council without the sanction of the people, it behoves them now to think well over the subject. Are we, iv this small community, ripe for such an immense outlay and heavy taxation ? lam inclined to think that, if no cheaper method can be found, this subject should be set aside until we have a considerable increase in our population.

I left England disgusted with taxation, and, although I find more here than some of our countrymen would submit to elsewhere, I do hope the public will never suffer such a heavy rate as this " six per cent." to be fastened on us. It seems to me that, instead of averaging £2 Bs. per house, in Hardy-street, Trafalgar-street, and Bridge-street, where rents are from £50 to £120, and even higher in some cases, this rate would amount to from £3 to £7 — a very pretty thing that for pure water. Then we are told insurance rates would be reduced. Perhaps co (query), but let us have a guarantee, and let U9 also know how much, and then ask ourselves the question, is it worth having P I am far from underrating the advantage of good water, and plenty of it. I have felt the disadvantage of impure water, but, except in extinguishing fires (and in -winter I believo tliei-o would be plenty for that), it is my opinion that if people would but go to as much expense as a half-year's rate would come to, and have their wells cleaned out, and, if required, sunk a little deeper, there would not be much lack ol pure water. I have within the last few days sunk a well, twenty feet deep, and have over a depth of six feet continual supply in this dry weather, too, and mine is not a singular case. I can refer to four others, and not in the same street either.

Sir, if I may be permitted to offer an opinion upon the best means for extinguishing a fire, I should say, set about forming an effective brigade. The utter absence of anything like a system was painfully manifested at Mr. Armstrong's, where the little engine was not got to work in less than half-an-hour. If the Insurance Companies would but guarantee to the public a reduction in the rates, I feel sure there could soon be found sufficient volunteers to form such a brigade as would be ten times more useful than the six per cent, water supply ; at all events, I think it only right the forming of a lire brigade should not be left exclusively to one class. As all would be liable to the same disaster, all should contribute in purse or person. Trusting, sir, some more able pen will take this matter up, and apologizing for trespassing so long on your space, I remain, &c, One who will not willingly be moee heavily taxed. Bridge-street, February 21.