The Wanganui Chronicle "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1902. THE OKEHU WATER SUPPLY SCHEME.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11745, 23 September 1902, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1902. THE OKEHU WATER SUPPLY SCHEME.

We understand that the Borough Council will, at its meeting this evening, be asked to formally and finally adopt Mr Mestayer's proposals for obtainng a water supply from the Okenu Stream. -Assum T ing that this is done, and the Council lends its official approval to the scheme., it does not, of course, follow that the ratejpjayers will follow the lead of the gentlemen who represent them at the Countil table. Great as is the need for a satisfactory auxiliary water supply, we venture to say that the ratepayers will not accept the heavy financial responsibility entailed by the adoption of so costly a scheme until they have been thoroughly satisfied that no better and cheaper scheme is available. We do not think that, up to the present, the ratepayers have, been so satisfied. Itis true that the engineer's' reports have been placed before them, that the various schemes which have been suggested have been more or less fully discussed, and that, apparently, the proposal to obtain a gravitation sujpiply from Okelm is the best. We say "apparently" advisedly, because we are somewhat doubtful as to whether the Council has submitted the differentreports to as careful and critical an analysis as is warranted by the importance of the .subject and the magnitude of tiie- expenditure in-volv-ual, a gravitation sujijply is much to be preferred to one entailing an annual cost for pumping-. But if there is n vride difference between the cost of the two Fchemes; if, say, a satisfactory pumpixg sujpiply is available for £10,000, as against £70,000 for a gravitation supply, the burge>*es may, with reason, hesitate to approve the latter. We do not propose to discuss at length the rival merits of the artesian and Okehu schemes-. We have or

previous occasions pointed out and commented upon tdie veiy considerable difference in the cost- of the two schemes. All that we need add now is that in our Ojpinion the Council has not' given the artesian scheme the serious consideration which—by virtue of the extraordinary difference in the cost- alone —it is entitled to. Fifty or sixty thousand pounds means no trifling addition to our already sufficiently heavy muncipal indebtedness, and it is only fair to assume that every. Councillor realises the serious responsibility he individually accepts in recommending the adoption of so expensive a. work. Nevertheless, we think that Councillors as a body have shown a regrettable disposition to take too much for granted. Have thjey, for instance, been provided with, satisfactory proof as to Mr Mestayer's ability to advise the. reliably, on a waterworks scheme of the dimnesions of that now virtually approved? Have they tested by the simple process of comparison, the accuracy and consistency of the different reports submitted to them by Mr Mestayer? We make no reflection upon the professional ability and integrity of that gentleman; but clearly the' ratepayers have a right- to be satisfied that their representatives have been well advised. The natural assumption is that a comparison of the different reports such as we have suggested, would disclose nothing to the disadvantage of the engineer. If, however, any discrepancies M-ere unearthed, the Council would be in a position to shield itself from future blame by obtaining an explanation before—instead of after—the ratepayers' money has been sunk in a costly undertaking.