The Waterworks Proposals.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11755, 4 October 1902, Page 2

The Waterworks Proposals.

COUNCILLOR BRIDGE IN REPLY TO

MR.-MEteU'AYER

To the Editor

Sir.—As ths Mayor has; handed' Mr. Mestayer's reply to*my ciiticiisrns to the Press, there can be nothing improper Jn my answering his letter through the same medium', instead of waifng for tilie Council meeting. Whether .the- "assumed discrepancies" have been "fuily and fairly dealt with" I will leave your leaders to judge. By the way, I wonder if that "head line" was inspired. Mr. Mestayer says: "The most important consideration wus to render the supply available at the least initial cost, and. so as to admit of future extension. 7' In this no doubt he is correct, but why does ue not provide for the sumo ab Aramoho as at Gentle Annie? If a supply of half a million a. day woujd suffice- ior present lcquiremsnts at the latter place, why will it not at the former, for I assume that there would be no more difficulty in duplicating in the one place than in the other. OAST IRON AND STEEL PIPES. Mr. Mestayer does not say why he -recommends cast iron pipes in 1901 and did net recommend spiral rivetted. Did he know about, them in 1901? I did not suggest that there vrould be more pressure on the pipes in the up-river .'.oheme than the Okehu. What I did say was that tha river reservoir would be 400 feet above river level there, and I did! not know-how, many mcrt-e fee* that would be above Wan-o-anui. Mr. Mestayer says «.bcufe4o feet, which would* make 440 feet, -What 1 wanted explained was why were east iron pipes recommended for one scheme and steel for tho other. COST OF PUMPING. Mr. Mestaycr, in referring to coft of pumping, accuses ma of unfairness (I fail to see axy unfa&rneffc? in the comparison, tot has he found any), and asks my authority for the quantity .pumped at Napier. * What is his authority? He has been "told" that the quantity pumped is li million gallons per week. I have been "told" that it is 900,000 per day. Which of us has the correct information f bmca then I have been "told" that recent tests made at the Napier waterworks chow that 450 000 gal" lens of water are used every 24 hours, 183,000 gallons of which are used between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 am., and that it is thought that there are a number of leaks in the water pipes. It will be remembered that I did not vouch fc* the accuracy of my information, but suggested that the Council should make official1- inquiries at Napier. The conflict in the above figures shows the necessity for obtaining, as I suggested, official information. POWER OF ENGINES. Jir. Mestayer dees n;ot tell us why he recommends a 120 horse-power oil engine for the up-river and a 210 horse-power steam engine for Aramoho. He gives us a lot of figures about the quantity of water pumped, fuel used, etc., but does net say the reason for the difference in power required. He tells us in his report of March, 1901, that an engine of 160 brake hoise-power would be required to pump Is milliros to Virginia, and the following year lie tells us that a steam engine of 210 horse-power (he dees! not s^ay-brake) would be required for 1 million at Aramoho. RESERVOIRS. In reference to the two reservoirs at Araanaho, it is Mr. Mestayer that is in error, nob I. If he will refer to- what I said he will find that I did include the cost of ens of them, in the £4000 ftir purchase of existing wells, ate, but I wanted to krow why, if £2500 was sufficient fur the up-river one, we shcnild want £8000 more for tba* at Aramoho. Ido not think the questirm. is altogether comparing the Okthu, up-river, and! Aramoho scheme,, but how we can get ths auxiliary supply ?t the least, cost to the Borough. COST PUMPING-MAIN. Mr. Mestayer says that I, in calling rj'/cE'tion to the fact ctf the pumping main at Ammcfao being estimated at £900 more than the river, emit to inquire the length of each. I asked for an explanation of tho difference in price, and he says there :H pi great difference in I!he length of each, and that is all the explanation he ■condescend-; to give. ARTESIAN SUPPLY. Mr. Me-itwei* disputed my statement that the aiikS;an flcivr at Aramoho is 6*o galons per nr-nuite. Has he measured, it? I think not. If bo, I have as much right to believe the inforanation that it has been measured and found to yield 640 per mmv.'to as to accept bis statement, mide from ob:.eivation, that it was lesfc. Now tint Mr. Mestayer's calculation? are baing discussed, it ni«i.y be as well to draw ycrar r.ittention to li::! estimate of the floating ppul-tion of Wangj,nui now and 20 years hence, which.will be found on page 3 of the report of 1901. He there takes the present nesting population . during the touri'.b season at Jisoo. I take- it that means the average throughout the summer, and 20 years hence that v it will be increased do 10,000. The town is as full at raco time as at any other time: in the rear, and I venture to say that the estimate of 25C0 -excels, the number who would bo .'toying over night in town and fov whcim provision would have to be made in the water supply, and greatly exceeds the orcf'nai'v floating population of the town at any ether time. I. am Aoiroy -tibrlt, from the tone of scma poitiuns*of Mr. Mestayer's letter, he sccaws to resent hh reports being criticised by one not pc^tses^ug- technical knowledge. I*-do not claim such knowledge, but I tlrirk I am hound i.-> a councillor to get all the information I can to enable me to wre that the ratepayers' money is properly hpxujt. and if I f.ee what appears to» be contradiction" or inaccuracies, to try and get them explained. I have no .hesitation in snyirci that I prefer a gravitation to a ■pum-p v.g scheme, provided the former can be obtained at an equal co-it or a reas/ou- : ,'fa co.yi in excess t^f the latter; but I am not satisfied yet that we could: not get ivu auxiliary supply vt a much less cost Ilian '£50,080 to £70,000. Why cannot wo iil'il use the Virginia Lake, with an auxiliary supply by help it, rather than put Virginia aside msrelv a« a st-tnd-by, an piaotrcally »o tio tiie expense of a rew water supply for the tdwn? We are expected to coins to a. decision from Mr. Mestayer's rcprats upon the cheapest and b?;:t way t> increase the water supply of the t'owi*. and therefore have a rijffot I 1 ei~i-m''ne those l-epc-rts and criticise the calculations so as1 to decide which of the proposed schemes is cheapest and best.— I am, etc., GEO. S. BRIDGE.