MONOWAI SCHEME

Southland Times, Issue 19522, 23 May 1922, Page 5

MONOWAI SCHEME

POWER BOARD’S DECISION MR THOMAS’S PROPOSAL APPROVED Waiting for the approval of the Public Works Department to the alternative schemes, the Power Board has had the works closed down during the put three months, but by its decision yesterday work will be pushed ahead at once on the “C” scheme proposed by the engineer (Mr Thomas). Plans of the /f C" scheme and the Number 2 scheme (proposed by Messrs Hay and Vickerman), both of them being modifications of the original scheme, were submitted to the Department which forwarded the following letter :—“Both schemes appear feasible and ample in capacity. The ultimate requirement of power in the Southland Power District on the basis of one h.p. each fivs head of population is about 12,000 h-p. This will be ample for many years to come and is as much as the Department considers that it is justified in anticipating in any of its own developments. The present power consumption in Canterbury and Dunedin is only one h.p. per ten Head of population supplied. Provision should be made in the initial works for developing either scheme to the full capacity of the available water supply, but the cheapest scheme capable of giving the above ultimate capacity of 12,000 h.p. of output is the correct one for development.” The Board chairman (Mr W. H inch ay) presented the following table showing the comparative estimated cost of the Number 2 Scheme and the “C" scheme taking into account monies already expended, interest and administrative charges, and other general expenses NO. 2 SCHEME. £ -Estimated cost of “No. 2 Scheme,” 6000 k.w. not including the Lake Monowai Control Works .. 250,000 Interest during Construction (including proportion of interest on monies already expended) £16,516; also proportion of administrative charges, £5OOO. 21,516 Cost of Raising Loan Monies (proportion) 7,525 Allowance for Claims by Contractors, stamping Debentures, etc. .. M 3,400 282,441 C» SCHFIME. Estimated Cost of “C Scheme,” 4000 k.w. including Lake Monowai Control Works 152,500 Interest during construction (including proportion of interest on monies already expended) £10,636; also proportion of administrative charges, £5OOO 15,636 Cost of raising Loan Monies (proportion) 7,525 Monies expended to March 81st, but already included in the above .. 18,712 Proportion of Commitment for Engineering Fees, stamping Debentures, eto. M M »« >• 5,000 199 373 The initial installation under the C scheme could be increased to 6000 k.w. for a further expenditure of £25,000. A somewhat ragged discussion followed the reading of the Department’s letter until Mr A. W. Rodger explained that when the scheme was first undertaken it was understood from Mr Parry that 20,000 h.p. would be the least the Department would allow the Board to generate. At that time he (Mr Rodger) had realised, as he still realised, that a steam plant was not practicable until it was possible to sell the coal by-products at a profit, thus reducing the cost of generation But the time when the by-products could be extracted on a payable basis was coming sooner than he expected, and he was prepared to say that 12,000 h.p. might serve Southland until that time came. Therefore, he considered that the Borland scheme, cheaper than any of the others, should meet the position. It would, for one thing, require no pipe line, and it would give ample power for a number of years, while it was capable of expansion by turning the Monowai into it Mr R. A. Anderson said that the members were amateurs and he thought it was too important a matter to ask them to aettie. He would like to see the Public Works engineer, Messrs Hay and Vickerman and their own engineer in consultation so that the problem would be properly threshed out If the Government were going to take over later all the schemes it should have some say in regard to the headworks. He considered that if a cheap scheme to meet the requirements of the district for some years were needed, the Borland was the one to be selected, while, if they desired a scheme that was to provide for the beat maximum development of the lake, No. 2 scheme should be adopted. Mr Hinchey did not think that the Department would look kindly on the Borland Scheme. The schemes known aa the "No. 2 Scheme” and the “C Scheme* provided for the total possible development of the lake and he thought that the Department was in favour of providing for the maximum development. As to the future scientific thought everywhere was in support of hydro development. Then, supposing they changed over to the Borland scheme, they would waste time which would probably represent as much as the saving on the scheme might be. The Hon. A. F. Hawke said he leaned towards Mr Thomas’s scheme, but he thought that something should be done on the lines suggested by Mr Anderson, as it was really too much to leave the selection to laymen. Mr E. Bowmar said that the Department had approved both schemes, and common sense indicated that the cheaper scheme should be approved. He moved : "That this meeting, having considered the two schemes approved by the Works Department, approves the C scheme.” Mr T. A. Buckingham seconded the motion.

The chairman agreed with Mr Bowmar*! sentiments. He would be prepared to carry the responsibility himself if posaible. Mr Bowmar : Hear, hear. Mr Fowler began to compare the Borland with the C scheme, but interrupted himself with the remark that to go back to the Borland scheme at that stage was sheer nonsense. Mr Bowmar : Stonewalling. The motion was then put and carried. Mr Rodger said he wished the scheme aO possible success. Mr Anderson : Mr Thomas will have the support of all the members. Personally, I only wanted to make sure. Mr Niven : I take it that we hare now reached finality in regard to the scheme! and that the work will be gone on with ? The chairman : Yes. The Government license to carry out the work was approved subject to the approval by the Board’s solicitor. Mr Hawke gave notice of motion annulling the previous resolution approving the No. 2 scheme, and Mr Bowmar moved that authority be given for work to proceed. His motion was carried.