SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19891, 9 March 1928, Page 12

SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY.

Sir,—ln your article of March 7, you say that my statement that water fan be obtained as cheaply from Arapuni as from Mangatawhiri is designed to foster ul-m----formod prejudice. I must protest against any such imputation. The estimates for Arapuni are fully set out in the report made by Messrs. Rogers and Gray, in -ivhich they place the capital cost at under two millions for a supply of 15 million gallons per day. You quote as against this the figures given by the Water Commission. It may be that I do not take the reports of a" commission as seriously as you do, but I must point out that their figures are arrived at by taking tho cost of a 15-million gallon pipe and the consumption as 11 million gallons. Now 11 million gallons is the present consumption of the city and suburbs, and allows nothing for increase of : populat;on and nothing for the many outside districts looking to the Water Commission for tho board which would provide a supply for them. You say I should substantiate the estimate, which, of course, can only bo done by carrying out the work, although the intention of the board, if formed, was to obtain a report from a Homo engineer of experience on the best source of supply. Mr. Bush's estimates, in the same way, can only be substantiated by carrying out the work. He points out also that the estimate of quantity available, 23 million gallons, needs confirmation from extensive surveys and minute investigation. You have taken the figure as proved. You consider -that an increased quantity from Hunna would reduce the. cost, but that an increased quantity from Arapuni would not do so. Pumping is not such a serious item as to absorb all tho advantage to be had from using the full flow of tho pipe-line. It is also quite possible that a board, when it camo to deal with the matter, would consider that a pipe-liti6 to deliver 20 million gallons per day was necessary. There are many farming districts and some towns on tho route which may be glad to take water. They certainly would havo been glad a week ago. Tho suburbs stretching to tlje South are all in want of water and considering small schemes of their own. Neither the city nor the Water Commission have taken note of the growt v of . population. The commission began by saying that the growth in the future would not be so great as in the past, though they did not make it clear how they knew that. Any scheme, whether Mangatawhiri or Arapuni, will take time. In 1925 Mr. Bush reported to the council that Huia would be completed by 1928 and would provide for requirements up to 1940. In the face of this one loses faith in prophesying. The commission also said that to take water from Arapuni might reduce the flow below that required for power„which does not coincide with their estimate of 11 millions, for that represents but a fraction of 1 per cent. The Waikato can spare that. If Auckland is to consider a scheme of water supply, let it not be for two or three years ahead. The town is still growing and much of it is still without any water supply. The one argument for Mangatawhiri is that the city may thereby maintain their monopoly of supply. Such a monopoly is not justified, as I think you will admit, and if it is to result in our spending a largo tram we shall become a byword, throughout New Zealand. E. H. Potter*