CORRESPONDENCE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1934, 6 May 1880, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

The following letter appeared in this morning’s issue of the “ Press ” :

TO THE BDITOB OP THE PBEBS. Sib, —Will you allow me a short space to reply generally on some of the various objections which have been raised to the water schemes now before the ratepayers, and more especially to those directed against the alternative scheme proposed by Mr Blackwell ? First, the public meeting called to discuss the subject adopted a resolution “ recommending the Council to direct their attention to a scheme of water supply for flushing purposes only,” and Mr Ollivier, in hisspeech on the drainage question, distinctly stated that the only method by which the side channels can be cleaned is by the use of water under pressure , to be applied by hose streams, and he went on to state that when the water supply under pressure was ready to hand for this flushing purpose it could also be utilised as a fire extinction supply. Now, Sir, if this point be admitted, it will, I think, be seen at once that the ratepayers can hardly adopt a scheme which will cost them less than that proposed by Mr Blackwell, because it is manifest that if the channels are to be flushed by hose streams under pressure, the reticulation of the city is a matter of necessity. Now we know, from the opinion of several engineers, that the cost of reticulation will be about £50,000. Then, to obtain water under pressure in these reticulating pipes, the cheapest scheme yet proposed is to pump into them by means of the water power of the Avon, Mr Blackwell’ estimate for the turbine pumps on the river, with all necessary connections, is £4OOO, or say £54,000 for the pumps and reticulation only. This would give ample flushing power, with river water only, and if this were all that was needed, there could be a reduction in the estimate by not using such large pipes to reticulate as Mr Blackwell proposes, but still to carry out the scheme effectively it would cost close upon £50,000, which would necessitate a rate of about 3Jd in the £, which rate would have to be borne during the whole time for which the loan is raised, and no reduction could be obtained on the total annual cost to the ratepayers, except perhaps a slight lessening of the street watering rate.

But if, on the other hand, the additional expenditure were incurred in the first instance to sink the artesian wells, and carry out the reservoir on the port hills, as proposed by Mr Blackwell, making the nominal rate of 5Jd instead of 3Jd, there would be additional advantages far more than commensurate with the additional 2d rate. For instance, as the main to the reservoir would be laid direct through the centre of Sydenham, it cannot be doubted but that borough would annually contribute not a little to the profit of the works by consuming a considerable amount of water. Then, again, the most sceptical opponent of the scheme must admit that, even if “ domestic and trade use” of the water is by no means general, still a large number of persons would use the water, and would be glad to pay for it in considerable quantities. I think you will find that, assuming a very moderate use of water for domestic and trade use, and also a very moderate consumption for Sydenham, that it is exceedingly improbable that if the scheme were carried out in its entirety that it would cost more to the ratepayers than the imperfect half-and-half scheme demanded by the public meeting, with this most important additional advantage, that it would provide an efficient fire extinction supply sufficient for very many years to come. Second—lt has been objected that because we have no guarantee that the insurance companies will reduce the premiums for fire insurance, we should therefore not consider that any reduction is likely to take place ; but on the other hand, we must remember that we have also no guarantee that the insurance companies will not raise their premiums very considerably if a water scheme be not at once carried out. Indeed, I have been informed, on what I believe to be credible authority, that the question has already been mooted by some of the members of the association. Be this as it may, there can be no question that the amount paid for fire premiums must bear a certain proportion to the risk run; and if the risk be greatly reduced, the natural result of competition will be that the premiums must be leas than they would be without such reduction in the risk.

But inasmuch as it has been stated openly in the Council, and also by the Superintendent of the Fire Brigade, that the present plant for fire extinction is not only deficient in quantity but also very seriously in need of a large expenditure for repairs, it seems that it will be necessary to expend considerable sums at once on the business of fire prevention. Those gentlemen however who are consistent with the feeling expressed at the public meeting should oppose this, as Mr Ollivier distinctly stated, amid the cheers of the meeting, that it was the business of the tiro insurance companies to provide for the extinction of fires. Mr Ollivier also stated that the best thing to do in case of a fire was to let it blaze, and then call upon the company for the amount insured for. I hope the majority of our citizens who have any consumable property will not practically endorse this opinion, by throwing out the present alternative water supply scheme, which offers so many advantages at such a email cost to the ratepayers. Yours, &c, Nelson K. Ohebeill.