The Water Schemes.

Progress, Volume VI, Issue 2, 1 December 1910, Page 465

The Water Schemes.

The water schemes have not., to use a French expression, fallen into the water.. On the contrary, they have been the. subject of the liveliest discussion since they first saw the light. As we pointed out last month, the Public "Works Statement 'gave us a further, and, indeed, up-to-date version of the Government position in relation to the schemes announced by, the Prime Minister. That Statement was accompanied by two reports—one by Mr. Birkes, a well-known electric engineer of the Dominion, the other by Mr. Holmes, the engineer-in-chief of the Dominion. These being in. great detail proved one thing very conclusively, namely, that the Government had not gone into the matter in the blindfold manner special to those who advocate wild cat schemes. The public saw that at all .events they had expert evidence behind them in some quantity. . . ■ " '.

The next point to come out was that the Government had decided to concentrate for the present so far as construction goes, on two schemes, viz.: the Hutt scheme and the Lake Coleridge," The reports in .detail about these two we publish in another page this morning, and they will be found interesting reading. Both have been attacked by at least one outside electric engineer, who finds fault more particularly with the figures employed, by Mr. Birks. This is a controversy of course entirely for professional men to settle as best they can. The Government.engineers have had their say in elaborate detail,. and Mr. Black has replied in some detail likewise and. with a good deal of generalising of an order rather more fierce than one expects to find in a cold scientific treatise. Be that as it may, Mr. Black has as much right to his opinion as has Mr Berks. Between them, they will' ho 'doubt 'thresh the subject out presently to 'the public satisfaction. But one remark;, of Mr. Black can not be allowed to pass.* He has stated in his first letter, addressed to the "Evening Post, that the Government have now abandoned all their schemes but two, and the inference is plain that this is the result pf the attacks by Mr. Black and the ptheif

V.\ .• -.-- -' ' ' '■■ ; •_' '- "" critics. But the fact is that the Government has abandoned nothing for the simple reason that it had nothing to abandon.- The nine schemes; never were taken up. They were simply, announced as likely to be taken up when further information had been obtained, and for the purpose of obtaining it the Prime Minister asked for £60,000 for "survey purposes." as he put it. He added, that two of the schemes would most likely be the first to be put in hand. The others were, as any man of the most moderate common-sense could see, on the face of the statements made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, put forward as possibilities governed by various contingencies, most of which were at the time not as certain as might be desired. As it was stated, so it has come to pass. Two of the schemes have materialised and the rest are still in the stage of preliminary survey as they were announced to be. This is a very different, position from "abandoned all the schemes but two in obedience to criticism." Criticism to be effective must be above all things just. As to .the. difference between the Government engineers and their critics, that is a matter of which we shall hear more presently,■ and plenty more: the more the better- we say. But in one respect the Government engineers have not had justice done to them. The critics have all ignored that part of their reports which deals ■ with the nitrates and the other manufactures which are expected to absorb all the power that is not applied for. That is a factor of safety least that is the claim made on its behalf. To ignore it is neither good judgment nor fair argument. If we are to reject the theory of the nitrates, then we ought to have chapter and verse against the chapter and verse of the Government engineers. At present candour compels us to the suspicion that the absence of criticism in this respect is proof of inability to meet the case of the other side. Until the case is met the public will be. perfectly right to conclude that the nitrates are a very sufficient factor of safety. The case for them is stated elsewhere.