WATER AND DRAINAGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 318, 20 January 1902, Page 3

WATER AND DRAINAGE.

WARNING TO RATEPAYERS

(To the Editor of the Times.) Sin,—Wo have carefully read hii Worship the Mayor’s letter in your last issue, irom which it may be inferred that the Council has decided upon the specific scheme, the heads of which he sets out in his letter being £’30,000 for water and a similar amount for drainage, and that the Council added to these sums £SOOO for contingencies. We, as two members of that Council, absolutely deny the inference that the Council has adopted the stated items as the basis for water and drainage schemes and that £SOOO was added for contingencies as stated. To make quite sure we have carefully looked over the minutes of the Council and examined the newspaper reports of the meetings and cannot find one single note to bear out His Worship the Mayor’s statement, and wo say positively that the Council have in no way discussed the items of the schemes, nor

yet decided upon any scheme, except as shown in the following resolution which was passed by the Council : “ That the Council proceed to obtain the consent of the electors to raise a loan of £75,000 either from the Government or elsewhere at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent, per annum for the following works: (a) High pressure water supply from Waihircrc, £35,000 ; (b) drainage system for borough, £30,000 ; (c) road formation and metalling, with Pututahi metal, Childers, Palmerston, and Aberdeen roads, and such other streets as may be decided upon.” Wo again say that the Council, as a Council, has not considered tho schemes

upon their merits, nor yet the details of them, except as shown above, and the fact that Waihirere is to be tho source for water, and that it was thought by a number of tho Councillors that it would be all right to do as Mr Mestayer recommended, and discharge the sewage untreated into tho rivers until the full scheme was carried out and completed, which may never be any more completed than the breakwater is, and we also feel confident that if the schemes are entered upon the Council will have to come back to the people for a further vote or else they will have to reduce the supply main for water from 12 to 8 inches, as suggested by Mr Mestayer, in which case we will lose tho high pressure of water for fire purposes, and will prevent the town from getting the expecte'd reduction in insurance. It will also prevent tho suburbs being supplied with water, and it would only be a question of time when the 8 inch main would be found insufficient for Gisborne alone.

His Worship the Mayor states that the allowance in the present scheme for reticulation of the water in the borough is £9,500. Mr Mestayer allowed £11,470 under this head, so somebody will have to go short or further money raised ; and we would warn the ratepayers not to depond upon the plan at Miller’s. In conclusion, wo would respectively ask tho ratepayers not to be misled by tho moralising of poople saying we want water and drainage, but, while realising that, look also at the practical side, and carefully weigh tho question from all bearings. We, as two of your representatives, have studied the chomes and gono carefully into all the points, with the result that we are convinced that they will be a failure, and that the Council cannot carry them out for anything like the amount they ask you to vote for now. We consider it our bounden duty to warn you of this, and having so warned you and dono our best to place the facts fully and fairly before you, we leavo it to you to cast your vote as each of you may think prudent. But wo ask you to be steadfast and to remember that you have a duty to your town and to your children, and do not let your children be able to say at some future date, “ Why did you not well weigh and consider your voto before saddling us with so heavy a load with so little bonefit?” —We are, etc., J. W. AVhinray. W. Douglas Lysnar.

P.S. —Since writing the above we have, with a largo number of others, visited Waihirere, and made a fair and impartial test of the quantity of water flowing at the present time, in the presence of some 25 or 30 people, and although we are all aware that this season has been an exceptional one for rain a 24in pipe took all the water that was flowing over the falls; even this quantity would not be available for our supply, as there is a branch creek which comes in immediately above the falls, and below the proposed dam. We also with tho others examined the nature of the ground at the proposed site of the dam beyond the falls, and found it very broken, porous, and friable, with any number of underground water courses, and a number of slips all round. There is a considerable amount of raupu at the head of the gully, over which the water will be backed by the dam. We also came on a party of natives who were eeling above the dam site, and had caught a number of eels there. One which we measured was 2ft gin long and thick. It would not take many of them to choke tho pipes and cause no small amount of trouble, saying nothing about the knowledge that our drinking water would soon be teeming with them. We feel it a duty incumbent upon us to make this statement in the interest and for the guidance of those who are being asked to record their votes for and against. We have also secured photos, showing the li°t and various points of the proposed works, which will be on view before the day of the poll for ths in-

formation of ratepayers. We can only trust that the ratepayers will carefully weigh these matters, when there is more than a reasonable doubt about their success, or better still, go and see the site for themselves. , __ _ _ J.W.W. and W.D.L.

iTo the Editor of the Times.)

Sir,—Judging by the efforts now being ina.de to influence the voting on Wednesday for or against, but parti, cularly for, it would appear as if it was not expected, with any confidence, that the voters are going to vote the schemes or the money. As a matter of fact there is no specific drainage scheme resolved on and to. be submitted, and the voters are asked to “trust” the Council. Should it surprise anyone if they did not vote the money ? Indeed I think it will prove that they possess common sense a quality, by the way, which has not been conspicuous in the deliberations of our young and vigorous Councillors. The failure to carry any scheme m the years that are past was simply, it must he assumed, that the people of Gisborne did not see the need especially for a drainage scheme and considered that the town might be kept clean and healthy by the simple plan of enforcing the Borough bye-laws, which are of the most stringent character but are ignored. That requires moral’ courage on the part of our Councillors, and it is a much cheaper display of municipal virtue to talk at large ' about expensive schemes than miietlv and determinedly to do their •j u i v as well as to compel all resi dents to do .theirs in the matter of keeping premises clean and lie; j uu \m No doubt the common sense oi the voters leads them to the same conclupas't 5 tTat SO they y wKof 'plaa upon L, present 6 stated sankary science. So I reckon, the voters will act on the motto, “Hasten slowly —IiD • Be " cause there is no urgent need «» * drainage scheme at anyrate , (-) cause ?! the bye-laws asi to, samtatio and water tankage are strictly en forced (if need be enlarged « moved) the little town ol Gisborne may be easily made one of the cleanliest and healthiest in New Zeal out at a comparatively small cost, i et ’Csidents remember that a large expend 1ture means not only high rates but also high rents, which they must pay. And (3) because municipalities, backed as they are by large wealth in real property, should be empowered bv law rto use tlieir own credit, in the shape of State monev repayable gradually, without interest, for necessary works, and should not be compelled as by law they are now, to borrow the credit of A, B„ or Cj at high interest foe the

purpose. It is time to make a stand for this, and to stop all costly improvements until the law is altered.— i am &c.,

W. SIEVWRIGIIT. Gisborne, January 18.

i (To the Editor of the Times.) 1 Sir. —I have read with much interest the numerous letters that have appeared in both Gisborne papers regarding the proposed Water and Drainage scheme wh'ich is at present agitating the minds of Gisborne residents. It seems to me in order to sift the wheat from the chaff and get the gist of all the correspondence it is necessary to sum up the various opinions as follows 1. That it is the general opinion of ratepayers and the residents of Gisborne generally that a water and drainage scheme is badly needed. 2. A thorough exploration of the district has only discovered two prac- I tical sources of supply (a) Waihirere, a waterfall somewhere in the vicinity of Ormond which comparatively few ratepayers have ever seen, and (b) The Waimata river. The points in favor of the Waihirere scheme are : (1) That it is the purest and therefore the best water of the two. (2) That owing to its elevation there would be a natural fall to carry the water throughout the town, while the Waimata water would all require to be pumped at considerable annual expense, as well as filtered through sand to purify it. (3) That if Waihirere will yield sufficient water to supply the town, and if a reservoir can he built that will hold the water, tfie Waihirere scheme is in every way the best. The points in favour of the Waimata scheme as opposed to the Waihirere scheme are 1. Thai it is utterly impossible to bu Id at a reasonable cost, a dam at Waihirere that will hold water in the manner proposed by Mr Mestaycr. 2. That the Waimata could be made pure by filtration through sand, and the supply would be practically unlimited, though there would be a heavy annual expense for pumping.

It will be .seen then that the only objection of any weight that has from first to last been brought against the Waihirere scheme, is that unless all the water that conies down the stream can be caught and held in a reservoir, until required during the day, the Waihirere supply will be inadequate for the wants of the town. Men of experience in dam-making in Poverty Bay

maintain that unless the entire dam or reservoir was made of concrete it would be 'impossible to make a dam in the manner Mr Mestayer suggests. Now surely this point can he proved beyond all doubt by experimenting at comparative small cost before we launch out into an expensive scheme that may prove a partial failure. If a dam cannot be built at a reasonable cost that will hold water, why attempt to go on with the work ? Will it not be better to vote, say, £201)0 or £3OOO for the purpose of experimenting at Waihirere rather than run a .considerable risk of wasting a much larger sum upon an unserviceable construction ? It must be borne in mind, however, that the Waihirere scheme, if adopted in the manner proposed by Mr Mestayer, could at most only be a partial failure, as the stream would certainly yield a very considerable supply of water the best part of the year, though there might be a shortage during the driest months of the year. And I presume, whether the 'Waimata water or Waihirere water is utilised, the same system of laying the pipes throughout the town will be required in either case. So that if the Wa'ihirere water is used and found insufficient, a further supply could probably be obtained from the Waimata at a comparatively small increased outlay.—l am, etc., C. P. W. LONGDILL.

(To the Editor of the Times.) Sir,—Mr Mestayer in his report provides 40 gallons per head per day for a population of 17 thousand ; that would require more than 248 million gallons for one year’s supply, and he has 378 million gallons to do it with, providing he impound and bottle every gallon that falls within the watershed, but if according to Mr Boylan, C.E., and some others of the best authority, it is only possible in most cases to depend upon delivering only ten per cent of the minimum rainfall, then Mr Mestayer would have less than 38 million gallons to fulfil his promise of supplying 248 millions, rather a serious element of doubt (Mr Whinray). And a still greater element of doubt is the fact that if the plans in the Town Council’s office are true copies of those sent to Mr Mestayer, no man living could gather the slightest idea from those plans as to how many million gallons a4O or a 60-foot dam would impound.—l am, &c. A. Y. ROSS.

(To the Editor of the Times.) Sik—l have heard a lot for and against water and drainage. If you will permit me to have a little say I would be thankful. In Saturday night’s paper people gave their opinions. I shall now give mine. The clergy I find are not ratepayers, so they don’t count in this matter. The Kev. Eothwell, I think, over-stepped the mark, and his say would have, in my mind, been better left unsaid. Dr Craig might also stand back, having no vote. A. F. Matthews has a short lease of the foreshore. I don’t think voters should put too much in what Major Winter has to say. Last, but not least, is John Townley ; not a bad chap, but too sure on Waihirere. I well remember the Mayor using tho fire engine hose to blow the rocks out of the river below the wbarf. One can hardly know where he will stop. If this question of water and drainage were left to owners of freeholds, to settle, things, in my mind, might be right, but for a five-sides winds or agents to want to tell me what amount I shall pay in rates, we must draw the line. W. D. Lysnar is a credit to the place, and should be thanked by all rightthinking people.—l am, etc., Young New Zealander.