“OUR WATER SUPPLY.”

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18430, 14 March 1922, Page 9

“OUR WATER SUPPLY.”

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —A proposal to deal with our water supply is again before the Council, and a serious attempt is being made to carry a confirmation of certain proposals, made some little time back, through the newly constituted Council. Tlie proposal is to borrow some £85,000 to partly duplicate the present “Okehu” main, to raise the dam, and certain other works. The duplication of the main alone will cost some £32,000 of the sum asked. The proposal is probably one of the most important public works proposals yet placed before the town, as it has to deal witli our water supply and commits us to Okehu for many years to come. As far back as December, 1917, I brought a comprehensive motion before the Council in regard, to our water supply, and particularlyq asked that outside advice should be called in to confer with Mr Staveley, the advice to also I particularly deal with the Wanganui river source of supply. The motion was lost. The then Council refused to have any reports from anybody. it was not until June, 1919, that I succeeded, after great opposition, in getting a motion through the Council to have a report brought down dealing with the question, but the Council again refused to have any outside advice, but allowed a report to be prepared by Mr Staveley. It was not until May of 1920, that Mr Staveley’s report was placed on the table—nearly a year after the motion was carried, or nearly three and a half years from the time 1 first brought my motion before the Council. Mr Staveley’s report was then referred to the “Works Committee,” and from here, a period of six months elapsed before I could extricate it, when it was returned “ no recommendation to make.” It was then not until the last Council was elected, that a motion was passed to expend the proposed £85,000. This is the manner the, “Mackay” Council dealt with the important "question of our water supply. What, 1 ask, was the expenditure of 100 guineas on an outside opinion compared with the importance of the question to our town ? The position to-day is, that the Council are committed to a scheme to expend this £85,000 in “tinkering” with the Okehu supply, without the confirmatory opinion of outside advice, and without having before them all the data and estimates of what it would cost to bring in the YVanganui river supply. Mr Staveley’s report is largely based on a 20-year-old report of Mr Mestayer. No doubt a very able report at the time, but conditions have altered, and what was a fairly satisfactory supply during the last 20 years is not satisfactory or adequate supply today or for the future of our town. Mr Mestayer said iu 1902 : “ Owing to the difficult character of the work in the bed of the creek (reference to dam) it will be necessary and advisable to construct the whole of the first section full size, which is likely to be required, which I have assumed at two million gallons per day. A 16in. main will carry rather nitre than that. For 111 miles, and in orderrto reduce the initial cost of the scheflF, I propose to use a 10inch main for this section, which will carry ra’dkir More -Ihan 1,000,000 gallons per day, sufficient to supply. 50 gallons per head to a population of 20,000 people.” Later, in his report. Mr Mestayer says: “If it should ever be necessary to enlarge the works so as

to render available the maximum supply of two million gallons per day, the cost of the’ extensions • will be about £36,31K) (this estimate, by the way, included the Alanghoropito tunnel, which we have paid for recently) as compared with the present proposal to expend £85,000.” However, the point 1 wish to make is that experience has demonstrated that our consumption is nearer 100 gallons per head of population per day instead of 50 gallons, as computed by Mr Mestayer, and all efforts at economy have tailed to reduce the consumption. Air Staveley says that in 1930 (eight years) with a population of 30,000, we shall be using 2.7 million gallons per day, and in 1940 (18 years) 4-5 million gallons per day, and that the former figures, 2.7 million gallons, represents the ultimate capacity of the Okehu supply provided the storage is increased to its greatest practical extent. These are Air Staveley s own words. Now the plain question that the ratepayers have to consider is whether they are prepared to grant further loan authority in these circumstances.

The position is that nothing cfin be increase the “ Okehu watershed supply ’ in volume. The storage of a few extra million gallons cannot be calculated to give the vital permanence to our supply that we want. The water itself is fa;; from satisfactory, especially for washing purposes, and this phase cf the question alone has a serious bearing on the question. The expenditure of so large a sum as £85,000 (probably £100,(XX) before it is finished) in augmenting a supply that cannot, by the highest calculation, be estimated to suffice our population in eight years from to-day, is surely playing with the question. In other words in 10 or 15 yeats we shall require to go to the Wanganui river or some other source, and our £lOO,OOO will be sunk in an abortive scheme. The proposal (without outside expert advice to guide us) if carried to a poll, is, to say the least, unjustifiable, and the ratepayers and the burgesses generally, will be well advised in the circumstances to turn any loan proposal down until a full and comprehensive report is obtained from experts in these matters. I. have suggested Mr Alorton (Wellington City Co incil engineer) who has recently returned from America, where he was sent to expressly examine into the question of water supply to cities. The £I<X),(XX) expended on an unlimited supply for the Wanganui river, may, and no doubt does, spell pumping —but the cdst is going to be largely reduced by the advent of electric power. On the other hand we are obtaining considerabde annual revenue from the sale of water, and this could be greatly increased by having a better article to sell, and an unlimited amount of it. On the other hand, we could probably dispose of the present Okehu scheme to Gonville and Castlecliff, and concentrate the proceeds, together with th? present loan, on the Wanganui river supply for the borough. In conclusion, T repeat we have no definite and reliable data indicating in detail, what the actual cost of the “Parakino” supply would be, and until this information is forthcoming, together with a full and comprehensive report from outside authorities to confirm the present proposal, the ratepayers would. I repeat, be well advised to turn the loan down until such information is forthcoming.—l am etc., I Q. H. BURNETT.