WATER DEMAND

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20107, 29 November 1939, Page 4

WATER DEMAND

TESTING OF SCHEMES POLICY OF COUNCIL REPLY TO CRITICISM MAYOR’S STATEMENT A reply (o criticism of the council’s policy in regard to water augmentation schemes was made by the Mayor, Mr. D. W. Coleman, M.P., at last night’s meeting of the council. ”In last Wednesday's Gisborne Herald there appeared a report of a meeting addressed by Mr. N. H. Bull dealing with our water supply and priticising the report of Messrs. Lancaster and Vickerman, especially that portion of the report dealing with a scheme to obtain water from the Waipaoa River,” the Mayor said. “It is not my intention to discuss this matter at length, as at present we have not decided which scheme we will place before the ratepayers. At the proper time I will place all the facts and figures before the ratepayers, and they can be assured that any scheme placed before them will be the best one.

“I can only assume that those responsible for trying to work up opposition at the present time are against any augmentation of our water supply. Previously the argument against the Waipaoa River was the unsuitability of the water. Now that we have demonstrated that the water can be made pure, they have shifted their argument to that of costs, and the claim is that Mr. Vickerman's figures are not correct.

"Having investigated the press report of Mr. Bull’s meeting, I can only say that to me the figures and statements made at the meeting have been twisted to suit the purpose of those responsible for the meeting and used, no doubt, with the view of misleading the public. Comparisons of Costs

"Comparisons have been made which are not comparable, an instance being that a source of supply capable of meeting a demand of over 2,100,000 gallons per day has been compared in cost with a supply capable of meeting a demand of only 1,400,000 gallons per day. To make comparisons of costs, supplies of equal capacity should be compared, and the method of reducing the cost to that of each 1000 gallons as done in Mr. Vickerman’s report should be adopted for comparisons. “Dealing again with the 500,000,000 gallon annual supply from Waingake, which Mr. Bull is so favourably impressed with, I point out that such a supply is only capable of meeting the lequirements of the borough until 1947, when it is anticipated this quantity of water will be necessary. “Wi’thin 10 years of that year augmentation from some other source of supply would be necessary, and following 1947, or, in Other words, eight years from now, restrictions such as are now necessary would have to be placed on the use of water during the summer months. Pipe Line Duplication “Another illustration of Mr. Bull’s ignorance of the position is his suggestion that £7500 could be saved by not duplicating the 111 miles of main supply line as suggested by Mr. Vickerman.

“This duplication is for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the supply line, and only a layman interfering with engineering problems would make such a suggestion, for if this duplication was not included in the scheme 500,000,000 gallons of water would be impounded at Waingake with a delivery pipe line of insufficient capacity to meet peak draw-offs.

“I will conclude by asking the ratepayers to suspend judgment in the meantime, and assure them the council is thoroughly testing out the schemes, and at the proper time we will place all our cards on the table and ask them to decide. The councillors as individuals and ratepayers are just as anxious as anyone else that the best water supply scheme is adopted.” Mr. Coleman said he did not intend to follow up any further argument on the subject, and would not enter into any newspaper or public controversy, for at the proper time the full facts would be placed before the ratepayers.