THE WATER QUESTION.

Southland Times, Issue 20172, 7 May 1927, Page 9

THE WATER QUESTION.

To the Editor.— Sir, —I have thought after Mr Gumbley’s scathing criticism of Mr R. T. Stewart that that gentleman’s teeth had been effectually drawn, but it seems that there are still a few stumps left. The discussion still goes on, but with a very chastened ’ Mr Stewart in the field. His colour trick ' or colour scheme, or whatever he likes to I call it, has been dropped like a hot chestnut ’ after Mr Gumbley’s denunciation of this 1 circus trick. Mr Stewart’s shuffling with regard to [ friction head loss is typical of the manner ! in which he has dealt with this question I from the first. Bot hhe and his brother, J. M., and also Councillor Cooper, have rc- I peatedly made the assertion that it will be i necessary to pump Dunsdale water from the ! reservoir to the town. Mr R. T. suggested i in his first interview in your journal dated I 23/4/27 that a report be obtained from a j qualified engineer upon the loss by friction on a pipe line the length of Dunsdale. Mr Gumbley accepted the challenge and wired to the leading civil engineers in the Dominion, all of whom corroborated his figures. How does Mr Stewart receive this indisputable confirmation of Mr Gumbley’s figures? Does he frankly admit he is wrong when confronted with the opinion of the city engineers of Auckland, Dunedin, Wellington, Wanganui and Palmerston North? Not he. When the evidence is against him he lacks the generosity to admit the point. Mr Stewart asked for the opinion of only one engineer and Mr Gumbley gave him five. On his second interview dated 30/4/27 he coolly ignores this overwhelming evidence in Mr Gumbley’s favour and has the audacity to repeat the statement with the remark that his figures have been checked by two authorities. Now, Mr Editor, this is no time for fooling over such an important ■ matter; either Mr Stewart should produce his authorities or forever stand condemned a trifler or worse. On April 30 Mr Stewart says ‘‘that he did not in his previous interview state that '.he systems he installed were municipal water supplies.” That is not true; furthermore it is a detestable wriggle and a deliberate distortion of facts. Let us quote Mr Stewart’s own j words in his article dated April 23 as fol- ■ lows:—Mr Gumbley said that they invari- I ably had the recommendations of laymen ■ with no experience of public water supply. Speaking for himself, Mr Stewart said that he had “had more experience of gravitation water supply than Mr Gumbley, he having handled quantities of water ranging from 720,000 gallons per hour downwards and pressures up to 3001bs per square inch.” ! Is that not quite definite that Mr Stewart j intended to convey the impression that he I was an authority on public water supply and ! knew more about it than Mr Gumbley? j Councillor Cooper made a similar statement when the water report was discussed by the Borough Council and the public of Invercargill would have been permitted to believe this had not Mr Stewart been driven against the wall and forced to eat his own words. Mr Stewart “has often,” he says, “split horizontally the cones of depression and 1 thereby obtained information not possessed j by Mr Gumbley or the authorities to whom Ihe referred.” Mr Gumbley’s authorities are the leaders of engineering in Britain and America. What a wonderful man Mr Stewart must be and what sublime modesty. What a pity that the information gained by Mr Stewart should not be available to the world. What an opportunity to confound the greatest authorities in the two hemispheres. Why should Mr Stewart selfishly keep to himself such valuable information when the world might be the richer thereby. Mr Stewart will pardon me if I seem sceptical with regard to his cone-splitting feat and ask for details. Surely it would not be too much trouble for Mr Stewart to submit a rough drawing showing how he accomplished this astounding feat of which the world’s greatest engineers remain in ignorance.

Another matter on which Mr Stewart has corkscrewed on is the porosity of water bearing material. Mr Gumbley states that it is determined by its voids and Mr Stewart says that it is determined by its fines. Does not Mr Stewart understand that fines also have voids down to infinity. Now, with regard to the water underground, Mr Stewart started this discussion with the optimistic assertion that we had “unlimited supplies.” When the opposition became critical he reduced this by a stroke of the pen and without any explanation to three million gallons. As the critics became still more critical the amount was still fur-

t.her reduced to two millions. At this figure he stuck hard and refused to move. No data given; no tests carried out. We are simply asked to believe Mr Stewart because he said so. Mr Stewart’s Dutch Auction method of calculating our water supply is reminiscent of the old nursery rhyme: Nine little, eight little, seven little nigger boys, etc. And quite worthy of the author of the coloured water scheme. With regard to “the velocity of approach” argument. This is important, as Mr Stewart’s recommendations to the Bor- | ough Council with regard to the reorganisa- i tion of our water system and involving' considerable expense are dependent on the falsity or otherwise of this theory. He still persists in stating “that it is the velocity of approach that determines whether pebbles are carried into the bore or not. Mr Gumbley corrected him in this by stating that the velocity of entry is the determ- . ining factor. Very well, then, we will for | the sake of argument say that Mr Stewart is right and see what a cul-de-sac he leads us into. The velocity or approach Is the speed of the water approaching the bore. From No. 4 Bore we are drawing, say, about half a million gallons per day. Mr Stewart’s scheme provides for a million gallons from the same bore or twice the present amount. Does he seriously ask us to believe that the one million gallons per day will flow at a slower rate than the haff-miffiou gallons?

I would ask the thoughtful section of Invercargill’s citizens to consider this last statement of Mr R. T. Stewart and they will then know what value we have received from his report for which we paid £125 for a two and a-half day’s visit, plus the £1,332 which we have paid in hard cash for a new bore which was to give us 20,000 gallons per hour and which under test can only supply an additional 6,000 gallons per hour. i In a later issue, Mr Editor, with your I kind permission, I intend to challenge the • figures presented by Mr R. T. Stewart in I his report to the council on the reorganisation of the Waterworks. Mr McCarthy’s figures will also come under review and I intend to insist as far as an ordinary citizen may that full data shall be presented before the members of the council commit us to the great expenditure involved.— I am, etc., | LEX.