Board angry at water patch-up job

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 11, Issue 515, 7 December 1993, Page 1

Board angry at water patch-up job

Ohakune' s new water reservoir was not fitted with a new liner but was patched after it developed a leak recently. That news came as a surprise to not only the Waimarino Community Board at their meeting last Thursday, but also to the council's technical services director, Bruce Dobson. During discussion on the water- treatment plant problems, Mr Dobson had told the board that a new liner had been fitted. However after a recess, area manager Don Sattler said although a new liner had been taken onto the site, the leaks had in fact just been patched. He added that since then new leaks had developed. He apologised to the board and Mr Dobson for the delay in getting the information to them. He said he was only made aware of the new leaks a few hours before the meeting. The reservoir was to be drained the next day (Friday) and the leaks checked and repaired. Mr Dobson told the board that they believed the first leak started at a split in the liner. He said the water seeped out and softened the ground material around the inlet andoutlet pipes, allowing the liner to push its way out "like a bicycle tube out of a split tyre". Then the rush of water took "everything with it." Mr Dobson said they believe the manufacturer was liable for the repairs. The board agreed that the liner must be replaced and not just patched. "We do not want to see it (the repairs) become a cost to ratepayers," said board member John Compton. Filters Board chairman Colin Webb asked when the diatomaceous earth (DE) filters would be fixed. "What if they never get them right?" he asked. Mr Dobson said in his report that the DE filters were still not functioning correctly due to "incorrect settings on the pressure relief valves" which resulted in further minor damage. He said the contractors forgot to re-program the computer, which had earlier been adjusted to allow for the DE filters not being functional. Mr Dobson said even if the contractor's maintenance period had expired (due to run out in January 1994), they could still be called back to fix things that were not right. "I am really concerned that in 12 months' time we are still going to have problems," said Mr Webb. "If we've still got problems next year I am going to call for a second opinion, from a consultant engineer." Mr Dobson said the contractor had always honoured the contract and that he saw no reason why they would "walk away". He said the problems were mostly unconnected. He agreed with the board that the maintenance period should be extended.