OUR WATER SUPPLY.

Southland Times, Issue 20208, 20 June 1927, Page 11

OUR WATER SUPPLY.

To the Editor. Sir,—In offering some observations on the letter of your correspondent “Persistent,” appearing in your issue of Tuesday, in which he deals clearly and trenchantly with the present very unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to the town’s water supply, I do not require to make any apologies. My fellow citizens, particularly those of an older generation, know that my interest in regard to our town’s water supply has been life-long. I was—l say it in all modesty—one of the fathers of the present scheme—the only oue left to-day. I was present at the initiation, full of faith that we had discovered an admirable source of water supply. I have retained that faith through all the intervening years, during which I watched and studied the operations carefully, and to-day after all these years I declare that I shall never lose faith in it until we instal a pump or pumps that will beat the water. Till that we shall never know how much water is really available for us to pump. Hitherto the water has beaten the pumps and any estimate as to the amount of water that could be raised before it became exhausted is mere guesswork. The letter by “Persistent” is by far the most important contribution which has been made to the discussion of this question for a long time and I would commend it to the very careful consideration of my fellow citizens as a document of the gravest importance to all of them. In it one will find a series of definite clear-cut statements, which are described as facts. I believe them to be facts, but I do not ask that “Persistent’s” or my word should be taken for that. But such an array of grave statements amounts to an impeachment of many things that have been done in connection with the waterworks and water supply. And that impeachment cannot be disregarded. The time has surely arrived now when a thorough investigation of the whole position should be conducted, by competent, qualified, and impartial authorities. The “facts” as set forth by “Persistent” will be found to be either correct or incorrect. If incorrect his case and that of the supporters of the present system will be badly damaged. If they are proved to be correct, the inevitable conclusion must be that the citizens have been persistently misled by those who could not but know better, but who for some reasons, understandable perhajjs but quite unjustifiable, suppressed the information available to them, or garbled it so much before presenting it to the public that, it was a mere travesty of the actual position of affairs. Without specifying the statements made by “Persistent” in his letter, I shall take them up seriatim and make comment upon them. First as to the water shortage in 1924, which as your correspondent says was due wholly to the inefficient state of the plant and not at all to the exhaustion of the water in the wells, let me recall a slight but. significant incident. On the evening when the result of the Dunsdale loan poll was being declared I was among those who awaited the declaration at the Town Hall. While there a man, a reputable and respected citizen, came to me and said he had just come through the waterworks reserve,—and the reservoirs were brimming and the pumps had been stopped. That proves that even before the poll was taken the plant had been put in order by Mr McCarthy and was capable of delivering more water than the town could use. But the fact was not known. Had it been published there would have been very little chance for the loan. Let us remember, too, that there has been no shortage since then. As to the costs of pumping the obvious way of ascertaining those is by reference to the town’s records, though I would suggest that such records be keenly scrutinised lest there be charges made against the waterworks which should not be there legitimately. I do not want to make uncharitable charges or aspersions but such peculiar things have been done in connection with our water supply that the scrutiny would have to be very close indeed. “Persistent” states quite correctly, that the pressure in the town mains is not limited by the height of the water tower, but solely by the capacities of the pumps, pumping to the tower or the town mains. Here I may recall past history. When it was originally agreed to adopt a pumping system, several schemes were suggested and the Holly scheme was eventually adopted and installed by the town engineer, Mr Halliday. Our population was then between 5000 and 6000. A well was sunk which would deliver sufficient water for a population of 10,000. The water was raised by pumps, which could pump into the tower or the mains, so that it should be available in abundance in case of fire. The pressure from the tower was only about 451bs, but if the water were pumped into the mains that pressure could be increased to lOOlbs. The advantage of the Holly system was that the water could be pumped to either the tower or into the mains if necessary. There was no danger of getting excessive pressure or breaking anything. That danger was provided against by a relief valve fitted for that purpose. As to the loss of head or pressure, I agree with “Persistent” as to the cause or causes therefor. Again I would recall that the reticulation of the town was intended to serve a population of 12,500 people, and it was and is ample for that number. But after 18 months or so the unfortunate discovery was made that the water contained iron in a soluble state and in practically all places or services in which a ball-cock supplied a cistern, it was found that the supply was gradually reduced and the water was discoloured. This was caused by leakage at the ballcock allowing carbonic acid gas to escape and the iron then changed from carbonate of iron to oxide of iron, which is, of course, insoluble. This insoluble oxide of iron attached itself to the interior of the pipes and gradually accumulated till the pipes were choked. There was an outcry from the people and many of them asked to be cut off. from the water supply. Certainly the water looked muddy and matters were in an unsatisfactory state. Then it was that Professor Black, of Dunedin. was called in. I discussed the question through and through with him, particularly on one occasion when we were marooned in a hut on Stewart Island and had ample time for discussion. He had recommended that the iron mains be lifted and replaced with earthenware ones. On our return to town, however, Lone day drew his attention to a street hydrant which had been leaking slightly for a long time. At a casual glance one would thing that oil had been spilt or was leaking there. The professor immediately said, “You’ve got the secret of it.” That oily appearance indicated that the carbonate of iron was being changed into oxide of iron, and immediately the change occurred the oxide became precipitated and adhered to the pipes. This discovery induced the professor to withdraw his recommendations as regards earthenware pipes and to advise instead that the water should be aerated. That was how aeration came. Mr Hanan was then Mayor and he was so impressed with the proposal that he called a public meeting to decide whether a poll should be taken on the question of building a precipitation tank. The poll was taken and the proposal was rejected. Still something had to be done, because the council was being inundated daily by requests from

ratepayers to be disconnected from the water supply service. The position was a serious one for the town. In the difficulty the Government was approached and offered to provide the labour—it was done by the prisoners in gaol—the council supplying cement and gravel. The council had no money at the time to pay for this, but it boldly took money that had been intended for the formation of footpaths and applied it to the purpose and that was how the first reservoir was put in. Then the water was supplied clear and free from the oxide of iron. Had there been plenty of precipitation tanks to serve the yearly increasing consumption there would have been no trouble with the incrustation of pipes. The trouble with such incrustation to-day must lie at the door of past councils who made no adequate provision to prevent or even to mitigate it. When “Persistent” declares in unequivocal language that although the motor of one pump has been out of action for four months no steps have been taken to provide a new one, I say in equally unequivocal langauage that a scandalous state of affairs is disclosed. It appears to me to be a criminal neglect of the public interest and safety. If a serious outbreak of fire took place, where should we be? I am quite in agreement as to the imperative necessity of providing a stand-by plant. The steam plant has been removed and it has not been replaced by anything else in spite of the repeated urgings of the waterworks engineer. I hear that the idea is that we shall presently be linked up with Waipori, whence power can be got if Monowai fails. But such connection may not be established for some time and in the meantime a breakdown may occur at any time. An oil engine such as, I believe, Mr McCarthy recommends, could be installed for about £l5OO, and if the connection with Waipori were made it could be resold without much loss. In any case the safety of the town and the surety of our water are worth paying for. When “Persistent” says that when the plant is lifting 1,000,000 gallons daily there is still about 65 feet of water left in No. 4 bore, he Is stating a fact which all who have taken a keen interest in our water supply have known all along. I, myself, have repeatedly pointed this out, and I think the ratepayers understand it now. When we have pumped the last drop our present plant can lift there is still a vast and unascertained amount of water left below. If the necessary plant be provided that extra water can be raised and our supply can be indefinitely increased, I have over and over and over again asked that the water bearing area should be thoroughly tested by getting a pump which would beat the water. It is the only possible way to test, the potentialities of the bores. As “Persistent” says the present plant cannot lower the water level further. Till we have pumps to beat the water we shall never know what our water reserve is. Another little bit. of history. In July, 1913, Mr John Barr, the representative of the firm which had supplied the boilers and engines, reported exhaustively on pumping and pumping costs, and strongly recommended that proper bore-hole pumps should be provided. He gave the running costs per 1000 gallons for plant run by electricity, steam, coal gas and producer gas so that, the council might adopt which it thought best. He would be prepared to supply and guarantee whichever was adopted. The council ignored it all. Mr Sturrock also strongly recommended that a producer-gas stand-by plant should be provided. It would, he declared, effect a large saving. That recommendation was also ignored, and this course of ignoring all such recommendations is continued to the present. My letter has run to an inordinate length and the half has not been told, but your space, sir, is not limitless and only the importance of the matter justifies so long a communication. I need not say that I am actuated by nothing but a desire to do my best for the town where I have spent a lifetime. I would not urge pumping if I thought gravitation better but surely it is not too much to ask that the present system should be tried out fairly and honestly before another is spoken of. I do not think the present system has been getting fairplay, and in the circumstances the best idea would be probably to hold an inquiry into the whole question by impartial and expert authorities—but let us be sure that they are both impartial and expert. We who support pumping are quite prepared to accept such an inquiry, and if those who oppose pumping are equally ready to welcome it there should not be much difficulty in instituting an investigation which would settle the much disputed question. I am, etc., JAMES STEWART. Bowmont street, June 17, 1927.