CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 952, 9 February 1911, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor). Sir. —As I see that the last Weekly Piess gives illustrations and descriptions of a water supply tor the township of Ashburton, on the same lines as I proposed for Foxton. and Mr Climie afterwards recommended, as the best scheme for the Borough Council to adopt, it would be as well to compare notes as to the difference in the estimates of the cost of .these three schemes. When I first wrote I thought it could be done for less than £7OOO, Mr Climie estimated the cost at over ,£IO,OOO, but the Ashburton scheme has cost over .£15,000. They have a much larger population than ours, but their high pressure tank is but half the | size of the one recommended by j Mr Climie, and about the same as I I said in my last letter viz., 50,000 gallons which ismore than sufficient for our daily consumption for many years to come. Of course, the | difference in the estimates of the extent of the reticulation or service pipes may account for some of the difference in the amounts, but as the pipes are comparatively small it would not amount to many thousands. It would, therefore, be as well to compare notes in case we install a pumping water supply like Christchurch and Ashburton. As I think, that although Shannon is now moving very energetically in the way of trying to get the Government to survey the two streams suitable for the storage of. water for electrical energy, that if an artesian well was put down under the Ferry Hill, and it gave a good supply of good water, that the local scheme would be far the best and cheapest. The following is the main difference in the cost of the three estimates : In the first place I judged the cost of the 50.000 gallon tank I proposed to erect on the Ferry Hill 50ft high, from seeing the 30,000 gallon tank | 30ft high at Kereru. made of wood 20 years ago. Mr Climie recommended a 100,000 gallon tank rooft high, and estimated the cost of storage tank, engine house, etc., at ,£2,500. But Ashburton has expended very many thousands on a tank, the same height, only 58.000 gallons. Now, where is the difference ? Of course, if a 50,000 gallons tank was placed on a 50ft stand it would not cost very much, the difference is absurd, although their figures may be approximately correct I contend that the tank I propose would cost far less than either of those proposed. This is a part description of the Ashburton tank which may be read in the full text of the Press viz., “The tank which is of steel has a holding capacity of 58,400 gallons. It weighs seven tons, the total weight of the framework of the tower is 70 tons, and there is a layer of 90 tons of concrete with a layer of steel on top, total 1 (>7 tons.” I would ask at what cost per ton ? As regards the engines it seems to me that they have gone to a very considerable expense, but that must be left to the engineer, as it is a question of whether they want the whole lot of the daily service pumped in one hour or in eight hours. As regards ourselves, were we to use 30,000 gallons daily, a pump and engine that would do that in less than three hours would be quite expensive enough for us, and had we not unfortunately given the gas away an electric light plant would have paid half the running cost it the same engineer was employed. Therefore, £2OO or over a year has been lost to the town if a pumping system of water supply is considered a vital necessity. Apologising for so much intrusion on your valuable space.—l am, etc., Aquarius. P.S.—ln America they advertise tanks and stands up to 80,000 gallons 100 feet high. These might be lighter and cheaper, but ust as durable.