LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2398, 2 March 1915, Page 9

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

ONSLOW WATER SUPPLY. BOROUGH SCHEME CRITICISED. Sir,—Before long the-ratepayers of the Onslow borough'are likely to be again afforded an. opportunity by the council of voting upon another water supply scheme. I trust therefore, in view of the importance of the question, you will allow me, as one of the opponents of the scheme, to criticise as briefly as possible its salient features. Our worthy Mayor (Mr. Crump) at the two meetings he held to discuss the scheme told us he based his reliance not upon the water supplied by the stream in the conservation area at Khandallah, but upon the' water supplied to the proposed reservoir by the average rainfall over the area conserved (about 135 acres). This rainfall, taking the average for the last 60 years for Wellington, he estimated at 45' inches per annum, and his contention was that, apart altogether from the stream, this, after allowing for waste by evaporation, seepage, and outflow, would be ample to keep filled l a reservoir _of some 3,000,000 gallons, : and provide for the needs of the borough tor some 15 or 20 years to come. My contention is, however, that the Mayor's figures are based upon a fallacy. What he should have told us was, not what the average, but rather what the minimum rainfall amounted to over a series of years. Take a season like the present, when very little rain has fallen since June last. Will Mr. Crump contend that there would now be sufficient water to satisfy all requirements? And if not, Burely the arguments of. the supporters of the water scheme so far as a sufficient' supply being maintained from. the' average rainfall fail in toto. In this respeot, Sir, perhaps you will allow me to quote an eltract from a recent article in the "Economist"- upon "The Present Status of Western Irrigation" (in the -United States), wlere- referring to the failure of several irrigation companies to _ meet their requirements owing to misconception as to the. water available, the writer says:—"On nearly' all these projects the, cost was underestimated and the quantity of available water over-estimated. On 6ome of these enterprises the engineers had made no measurements, and had do records of the run-off. They, surveyed l the stream's drainage area, estimated the average precipitation over the watershed, and x from these data'computed the run-off!"

TMb, Sir, is preoisely what our,council has done, and will, in like manner 1 contend, "fall in. ,} As for the stream itself, it may be taken (as indeed the Mayor 'takes it) as a negligible factor in' the water supply. If anyone doubts it, a visit to the locality will soon enlighten

Now,- a few words as to the cost of tne proposed work. His Worship estimated it at some £22,000, and told us /it would work out at about £1 ss. per annum upon an average value (unimproved) of £200. To this must bo added 10s. per annum for maintenance. A meter also is to be installed in each house at a cost of £3. Each household is to be allowed 20,000 gallons per annum, and above that will pay at the rate of Is. per 1000 gallons. Taking the average number of a household at six, the 20,000 gallons works out at about nine gallons per head per day. Now, Sir, the promoters of the water scheme do npt deny that a drainage soheme ■ follows of' necessity 'npon the heels, of. the water scheme. Is it, therefore exaggeration to say that there is barely enough water here for sanitation, and none at all for household purposes? The cost of a sanitation scheme will easily (considering the extent of country covered and its broken nature) run into Borne £10,000. But in addition before either water or drain pipes can be put down, I am informed, a thorough and comprehensive road grading scheme throughout the borough must' be carried out at a cost of at least £35,000. If therefore we carry this .water loan (which by the way is a misnomer considering 'it will not give us water) we are face to face with the following expenditure immediately, and consequent supply scheme £22,000, sanitation scheme £40,000, road grading £35,000,' ,or a gross total of some £97,000, to provide for interest and sinking fund on which a rate" of at least 6jd. in the £ of unimproved value would be necessary. And all this in addition to ■ the' present six separate rates, and at least three more prospective rates in connection with the Hutt Roadl And all this-for a population all told of some 1700 or 1800! Let the householder, too, remember in addition to ali this he will - be faced with the individual cost of the water meter (£3), and of . the water and drainage installations in his own house, say . £35 to £40. What provision has the council made for cases where it is impossible to find this amount at once? , Lastly, there is the question of compensation to owners of riparian rights. This question the Mayor and councillors nave persistently dodged, or at most endeavoured to evade it by the reading at the meetings of a legal opinion by the council's own lawyers asserting the improbability of the success in. a oourt of law'of any attempts to enforce'such rights. Such a denial carries little weight in my mind. 'We have only to call to mind a similar case between the Wellington Woollen tympany and the Petone Borough Council, 'where, in addition to heavy compensation, the Petone borough had to guarantee the right for all time to the company to the first usage of one million gallons.' Is it reasonable to suppose these other 'owners , of riparian rights will forgo their , claims to compensation?

Such, sir, _ is a brief and therefore necessarily imperfect summary of the case for the opposition to the present water scheme. Their contention is that the facts'and figures upon which the' council and its supporters have based their advocacy of the soheme .'are fallacious and misleading. That whether you consider tie supply from the rainfall over the area conserved, or the stream itself, tiio water is not there-or ever will be. How costly fhe scheme is in its entirety, carrying with it as ife-necessary concomitants the two schemes of road grading and sanitation I have endeavoured to show.'

All opponents of the present scheme are agreed that water and drainage must come in due course, when the population warrants it, and when tie council can come forward with a scheme winch will give us what it promises, and without a crushing burden of rates. Personally, I believe our .future lies rather in joining the City and pumping our water supply to a high level reservoir as Wadestown, Brooklyn, and other places have done.- We should at least lcnow we were getting some value for our money, which is more than any of us can say at present.—l am, etc., RATEPAYER.-. February 27, 1915. ' MANURE PIT NUISANCE AT LYALL. BAY RESERVE. Sir.—Some two or three months n.<ro

Sir, —Some two or three months ago tlie residents of Apu Orescent, Lyall Bay, wrote to the City Engineer, complaining that a huge heap of stable manure, stacked by order of the . City Council upon a corner of the Lyall Bay Reservo and Recreation Grounds, was creating a nuisance and smelling dread-, fully. It also brought in its train myriads of flies, which have disfigured the papers and inside paint work of at lea-st sis new homes reoently erected. The City Engineer, in reply, wrote curtly saying he would have it covered up. Ho did v not cover it up, and furthermore, has added to it reoently another hundred or two loads, and has a man busy there all day stacking and liosing it to make it settle solid. -Now, Sir, we, the residents concerned ,

who are suffering from this nuiaanoa, ask you to give this matter publicity. The council own, roughly, .200 acres of land in this reserve, yet in spite of the by-laws as to stable refuse nuisances, they persist in using the only corner of the . whole . reserve where houses adjoin for the stacking of this manure.. It was a noticeable fact, while the Expeditionary Forces were encamped on the reserve, that the manure .was promptly burnt twice weekly. Another serious aspect of the matter is danger of disease infection from tie flies. I trust, Sir, that by . publicity we shall have this nuisance abated, and cannot understand why, in the . first case,, it was not placed half a mile away in'a part of the reserve not near' habitations. . , •••'• A private person would be prosecuted for oreating this nuisance—why not the City Engineer's • Department P—l am, etc., H. J. T. HUME, For self, and residents of Apu . . Crescent. ■Wellington, February 26. . THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.

Sir, —Being only a visitor to this city I have some hesitation in asking of you the favour of a little space in your journal. Still, I.'trust my remarks may be 'worth the space. As it is my luck or misfortune to be almost constantly travelling I spend a considerable part of my spare time in the libraries of the towns and cities I visit, and V.ere let me say that .for civility and -attention I h&ve never met a better staff than' that of : the Wellington Public Library. But jvith regard to ..the contents of the shelves, I regret to, say I cannot be so complimentary. For instance, the books in the' reference department are with few exceptions at least ton'years ■out of date'; indeed, many are twenty years and more behind the times, notably Chambers's Encyclopaedia and many others. Well, Sir, you know what that means in this age.' Another, and perhaps greater defect, is the lighting. I'am bold to say from- actual obsefvation that the lighting is the worst in any library in any town in New Zealand or Australia. In all libraries' worthy' of the name the lights' are fowerful and hung, close to the tables. Tere they are feeble and hung close to the ceiling, and, to make matters worse, the lights, feeble aa they are, are naked electric lights which are positively injurious to the sight. It is almost unnecessary to say that almost all other libraries are illuminated by their .incandescent gas or frosted electric lights. Although I shall not have oocasion to use this library for at least eighteen months, I trust, for the sake of those. who frequent it, that- these; defects will be rectified long before .my return. Thanking you in anticipation.— I am, etc., - : • S. A. PALMER.