Waihirere Water Scheme.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 139, 22 June 1901, Page 3

Waihirere Water Scheme.

To the Editor* Sib, — I was somewhat concerned about the leading article in your Thursday morning’s paper upon the above subject, counselling your readers that the question raised by me against the Waihirere water scheme had been set at rest by Mr Mestayer, and that the Council should at once proceed to lay the financial position before the public and deal with the financial aspect only. Now, I regard your journal as a decidedly progressive one, but I venture to doubt if it is a progressive policy for you to urge a leap of this kind, bised on such a flimsy answer as was telegraphed to your paper of our Mayor’s interview with Mr Mestayer. If the ratepayers are as easily satisfied upon this head as you appear to be, and are willing that their properties should be mortgaged for all time for a water scheme with an unknown bottom, then I say,

may the Lord help them, when the realise that they have water mains and dam with perhaps little or no water. Now, Mr Editor, there is a Mr, Mrs o Miss Whataupoko who says through you journal that “ I am one of the inos obstinate men he (or she) ever met ” be cause, among other reasons, “ I am set ting myself in direct opposition to ai: Engineer of the highest repute upon th< water supply question.” Now, as far as 1 am. aware, I have not had the pleasure ol an introduction to this lady or gentleman, and consequently have no means of telling whether or not he or she would be affected by a water rate, but I would like to let Mr, Mrs or Miss Whataupoko know that I would be affected by a water rate, and am desirous of having a good water supply, and to pay my share for it, but I am also desirous of knowing that when I am called upon to pay for a water scheme, I will be sure of getting water for my money, and that until the difficulty regarding the suitability of the ground to hold water behind a dam at Waihirere is

settled', I am afraid that I will have to remain under tho stigma of being 'obstinate. I do no not agroo that it is a case of my opinion being set against that of an able export. I say it is the question of the peculiar nature of our district (well known to those of us who choose to look into tho matter) against that of an expert who has no special knowledge of our district, except by a cursory inspection. If Mr Mestayer’s examination of Waihircre was as limited as it was of Mangaruoka, then I say ne did not examine the country or its foundation so as to bo able to give a reliable opinion upon the question raised by me; at tho same time, I quite] agree with Mr Meslayorthat my objectionwould apply to both schemes. It is well known that the general formation of the whole of this district is of a broken rubbly nature, through which water very freely percolates and disappears, and through this percolation and porousness of the soil the

whole of our hill country is liable to slips. If those who question this will remember the huge slip that came across the Wai-

mata road a few years ago from Mr O. Gray’s property—which, to a limited extent, exposed the formation of this particular locality to consist of large loose papa rocks and rubble, and further that it is on the same line of country and really only on the other side of this same hill which slipped, but a little nearer town, that it is proposed to build a dam to hold back a total of 250,000,000 gallons of water. Surely, then, it is open to grave doubt that if one side of this hill will slip then the other is also liable to do so, and if this is so, what would the result be if a similar slip occurred on the dam side of this country? Where would the dam be? Where would our water be ? But this is

really a second danger to the porous nature of tho soil inside tho dam, which, to

my mind, is still more dangerous, and this is borne out by tho small flow there is

going over the falls as compared to the greater flow below. I would like you to understand that I have raised tho question for no idle purpose, but with a desire to have tho matter considered on its merits, and not to be put aside by a more expression of opinion by an engineer. Was not tho Gisborne

breakwater put wliero it is upon engineer’s advice ? Is it any consolation to us today to know this when we realise that it is in the wrong place anil that-we have to pay ?—I am, etc., Douglas Lysnar. P.S.—I have sent the following telegram to Mr Townley, which speaks for itself: “ Hope you will bring back written reply from Mr Mestayer about question raised by me regarding Waihirere source, and ask him to state particularly what tests he has taken to sound the ground that is intended to be covered by water beyond the site selected for dam.”