The Town Water Supply.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11746, 24 September 1902, Page 4

The Town Water Supply.

THE ENGINEER'S REPORT QUESTIONED. STARTLING COMPARISONS. SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES REQUIRING EXPANATION. IGNORED BY-THE COUNCIL. THE OKEHU SCHEME ADOPTED.

The matter of the proposed auxiliary water supply for the town was again before the Borough Council last evening/ At the conclusion of the ordinary busi ness, the Mayor read the report of the Water Supply Committee on the Okehts auxiliary water supply. The report was a? follows —Your committee report that they have considered the matter of acquiring an additional water supply for the town, and after an exhaustive inquiry into vai'ious matters, recommend the adoption of M 4 Mesfcayer's report on the Okehu scheme, but substituting a 12in. main for the lOin. in his report, also reducing the cost and size of the reservoir at Westmere. By substituting the 12in. for the lOin., the quantity of water available for consumption: is estimated at 1.760.000 gallons per day., whereas a lOin. would only give 1,000,000 The daily consumption now being ab6utf 600,000 gallons, we consider the lOin. woulc 1 not supply in the near future sufficient for the requirements of the town, and in view of Greater Wanganui being effected, the quantity would be inadequate, but if a 12m..* pipe was laid no further expenditure for an additional main would be required for man. years to come. By increasing the size to 12in. and reducing the cost of the reservoir the total outlay would be about equal. The question of Mr Mestayer's position and professional charges in connection with the work from the present date should bs ascertained and clearly denned in order that the Council may know their liability under this head. The committee recommend that all legal formalities for raising the loan, permission for way leaves for pipe track, acquirement of reservoir site at Westmee and head water shed at Okehu. be at once proceeded with. The Mayor observed that the report had not) been signed by Cr. Li niton or Or. Bridge, both of wronr were members of the committee. He said it was a most extraordinary (position. The Water Works Committee had been appointed to bring tip a report on the subject. Every point upon which there had been doubt had been submitted to Mr Mestayer. and after going exhaustively into all matters concerned with the scheme, a report had been unaiiimously drawn Uip by the committee. However, for reasons best knowjn to Cr.y. Bridge Mid Liffiton, they had refused to sigh the report. He was greatly surprised. If they had any doubt as to Mr Mestayer's advice they should have communicated with him (the, Mayor), and he would have been pleased to have held the report, back until the 'o;n----mittee could have again considered it. The Mayor then referred to the various schemes that had been investigated1, and stated that, after every one had been, discussed, the Okehu was decided upon as being the best. A great deal of troub'ie had been gone to in procuring an engineer to advise the Council, and after exhaustive inquiries Mr Mestayer had been selected. The Mayor referred to the high compliments that had been paid to Mr Mestayer as an engineer by the Wellington and Nelson Corporations, and stated that, in the face of the credentials held by Mr Mestayer, he personally was quite satisfied that they had procured; the best man. With reference to the artesian water supply, the Mayor said that Mb Mestayer had reported adversely upon it, and the speaker thought, in veiw of the contingencies which might arise- that the Council, as a public body, should not take the risk of adopting an artesian scheme. He moved the adoption of the report with diffidence, as he quite recognised that the Council was venturing on a great undertaking. Cr. Liffiton said he agreed that, if a gravitation scheme was adopted, the scheme submitted in the report of the Waterworks was the best, but he had not "signed the rejpprt as he had objections to j the gravitation scheme. He admitted that ; he deserved censure for not raising his voice earlier, but as the majority of the Council i was in favour of the scheme, he thought it ! would simply be waiting time to raise opposition. The Mayor retorted that he thought each member of the committee should stand by his report. If any Councillor objected to the scheme he should be prepared to bring forward a better.

Cr. Perrett seconded the motion. He, had considered all the schemes, and had; come to the conclusion that the Okehu was the best. He had every respect for Mr Mestayer as a .professional engineer. He -vvas quite satisfied that the Council knew enough of Mr Mestayer to pud the work in his hands.

Cr. Bridge said it was perhaps strange that he had not signed the report, but he would give reasons for not having done so; He was not feeling well, and, lest he should omit anything, he had reduced what he had to say to writing. He "then read as follows :

When the Council have to consider so important a matter as the 'proposed water scheme for the toAvn, and, one which involves so large a responsibility upon the ratepayers, every precaution should be exercised so that the" cheapest, as well as the best scheme, may be adopied. I fully recognise the care and thought that has been bestowed upon this, both before and since I have had the honour of having a seat at this table, but I think that there are several matters that should be brought specially under your notice, in oi-der that you may judge the value of the advice that has been given to the Council. Mr Mestayer. in his report of March, 1901, says we must have 1£ million gallons per day, that the sujplply main should be- able to' deliver one-half that quantity in from 6 to 8 hours; that would mean taking one half in eight hours. 2£ million gallons per day. I believe a. 15in. main is to be laid from Westmere to the town, but this will not cany 2£ million gallons per day. as a 16in pipe only carries a little more than that. The lOin pipe recommended more than once, in iplace of bringing I 3 millions—the quantity said to be required —will only bring in 1,150.000 gallons. There seems some discrepancy here. Mr Mestayer recommends cast iron mains, for the Wanganui scheme, and yet in a recentletter he says that at Beetaloo. the joints were constantly blowing out, and he would not use cast iron again under such pressure. In his report of .April, 1902, h« r-avs cash iron pipes are cut of the question. Did Mr Mestayer not.know anthing about the spiral rivetted pipes in 1901, or. it he did. why did he recommend cast iron? The Okehu is 1200 ft above Wanganui. The nver reservoir, would have been 400 ft above river level. I do not know how much that would mean above Wanganui. but I should say a considerable number of feet more, yet cast iron mains are recommended for the up river scheme, and absolutely condemned for Okehu. In estimating the cost of the Aramoho artesian supply, Mr Mestayer does not aippear to have reckoned quite fairly. Take, for instances the annual cost of pwping, which

he puts down as £3802 for one million pea? day. or £7604 for 2 millions. Yet, from information that I have indirectly from Napier, it costs there £750 per annum for 900.000 gallons., and they are not using tha most modern machinery. I give these figures for what they are worth. I cannot vouch for their accuracy, but I believe it would be. worth the Council's while to send one or two of its: members to Napier and &ei> the- information from official sources. Then ag-nn, Mr Mestayer provides for two rescTvohv. ut Aramoho ; one is included in £4000 for .purchase of existing wells, etc., and £10,500 is put down for the other. Are two reservoirs necessary, and, if so. why should the service reservoir cost. £10,----500? I have made the following comparison between Mr Mestaver's estimates for River. Aramoho.

£ £ Station, etc 2000 1700 Engine, etc 2500 6600 Pumping Main ;.. 1300 2200 Reservoir 2500 10,500 8300 21,000

The engine at Aramoho is 90 h.p. above the one recommended for. the river, and is calculated to cost over 2^ times as much. Why is this? Is the proposed service reservoir at Aramoho more than 400 ft above

the well ? I think not. and why should an

expensive steam plant be required for Aramoho, when an oil engine is recommended for the river, and reasons given why it is better But what staggers me as much as anything in comparing the different reports! is the difference in the cost of service reserviors. The up-river one, which presumably was considered by the engineer large enough, was to hold 1£ million gallons, and .cost £2500, while he estimates the one at Aramoho at £10.520. I understand that the reservoir up the river would have been on the top of a very high hill, known as Gentle Annie; there would have been a lot tffyexcavation, and haulage would have been' costly, while at Aramoho, I am informed (I have not seen the place), there is a natural basin, and that the grade on the hill is easy. If a. reservoid to hold 1£ millions was sufficient up the river, why should a larger one be required at Aramoho, and if one could be built on Gentle Annie for £2500,- why should over four times the money be required for one at Aramoho? The pumping main is £900 more at. Aramoho than up the river. There is another noticeable

feature in the reports. The engineer capitalises the cost of pumping at Ara- • moho. but does not say a word about that lin the up-river report.. I only mention ( this in passing, as it is quite fa.ir for him |to do so when contrasting Aramoho with f Okehu; but it is questionable whe--1 ther his estimate is not greatly in excess of what it would cost. .In the report :of ' April, 1902, the estimated flow from the 4in. pipe is put down at 400,000 galloki* per day. The flow fi\>m the 4in. pipe jat Aramoho has been measured, and it has been found to be 640 gallons per - minute, which equals 921,600 per day, or more than dquble the engineer's estimate. Has the utilisation of the artesian water been ; sufficiently considered? I have -"been only ft short time on the Water Works Committee, and aim willing to bear my share of any of the blame for any. laches in thia direction; but it is not too late to ■consider it now, as the Borough is. not yet committed to Okehu. I admit there are

objections to th& artesian supply, such as the annual cost of .pumping and the;risk

of earthquakes destroying the wells; but? these wells have been running satisfactorily in other parts1 of the colony, and we have always Virginia Lake to fall back on. Against these objections, have to be placed the enormous difference in the cost of th«

schemes, one of them involving an expen-

diture of £50,000 to £6O ; 00O. while the other would cost £8000 to £.10,000, with an annual outlay in addition of, at" the most, £750, and probably very much less. Besides this, the Okehu would involve the risk of the great pressure on a long length of piipies laid on a very uneven track. Thei;e is another matter that deserves consideration with regard to the x use-of the spiral rivetted pipes with bolted joints. The bolted joints are rigid, and although that would nob be an objection on a perfectly straight track on a plain, yet, a k s the track is very uneven, there would be much more difficulty, without using elbows, in getting round some of the sharp bends than there would be if they were leaded joints, which "give" at such points! I trust I have not wearied the Council, but the importance of the question is my excuse, and I move that the report be referred back to the Committee, with an instruction to report upon the artesian scheme, and a suggestion that one or more of the members should visit Napier and obtain first hand official information concerning cost, etc., of their water supply. I have omitted to mention that I noticed on examining the sample spiral rivetted japes in the Corporation yards that the heads of the rivets project, into the interior of the pipes. Would this not interfere with the flow of the water? The pipes would also need very careful handling, as the composition with which they are coated has chipped off in places, leaving the steel bare, with the resulib that if ipipes irere laid down in .that state it would be no time before they rusted through. It may be said, Why did I not menton these things at the meeting of the Water Works Committee? but I had assumed, perhaps, wrongly, that the Council was satisfied with the advice it was. getting, and it was not until the question was. raised at the last meeting of Committee that I compared the several reports. I am perhaps to< blame for not doing so before, but I think I should be more to blame if I did not bring them before the Council, now that I rave noticed them.

On Cr. Bridge concluding, some discussion arose as to the written statement being the property of the Council, the Mayor holding that it should be laid upon the table. '

Cr. Bridge contended that ty® was under no obligation to lay the statement on the, table, but he wa-s quite willing to lend it to the Council.

Cr. Bignelll thought! it was very unfair to .'Wring such a, surprise upon the Council. If each Councillor was to biding up a report on the matter, finality would never be reached.

Cr. Liffiton said there were1 great discrepancies between the artesian and river schemes., and he had doubts about the pipes and the quantity of water that would be supplied. There was a most extraordinary difference between the cost of .pumping as estimated by Mr Mestayer and that incurred in Napier. Still, these could not be discussed now.

Cts. Caiman, Hanson, Bell. Richardson, and Griffiths spoke strongly in favour of the Okehu scheme and Mr Mestayer, and1 condemned Cm Bridcre and Liffitoii for not/ having raised their objections previously. Cr. May was quite in accord with the motion, but after hearing Cr. Bridge's remarks, he was inclined to the opinion thati it would be advantageous to procure information re his figures.

After further discussion the motion was put and earned.

Cr. Bridge announced that, having tacitly agreed to the report, ho had decided that hie would sign it.