BOROUGH IMPROVEMENTS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 208, 10 February 1915, Page 3

BOROUGH IMPROVEMENTS.

; THE NEW INTAKE. ' FOWDERIIAM STREET BRIDGE. praise for the engineer. A\ T ALARMIST IN DEFENCE. At the meeting of the Borough Council on Monday night, the Mayor referred to the filet that at the previous meeting of the Council a report had been read from the engineer in reply to a statement made by Cr. Smith relative to alleged damage causwV to the newintake for the town water supply in consequence of the flood, no action being taken owing to the absence of Cr. Smith. In his report the engineer alluded to tile statement by Cr. Smith that several hundred pounds might be required to repair the effect of the recent flood at the intake, and the request that another engineer might be called in to report on the scheme. As he (the engineer) was responsible for the work, he emphatically protested against any obstacle being placed in the stream, lie was confident no danger would arise from a scour, and lie emphasised tlic fact that the whole sudccss of the scheme depended on the free flow of the water from the river into the intake.

The Mayor said the Council knew the history of the matter. He had expressed his pleasure at the work having been carried out in such a satisfactory manner. Cr. Smith, had, however, taken a different view. His Worship acquitted Cr. Smith of any intention to withhold information from the head of the Council, as no doubt the councillor had considered that as he liad communicated with the engineer that oflicer would have informed the Mayor. He pointed out, however, that the Mayor was entitled to have the information first hand and not to have it sprung on him at the Council table. Councillors had the opportunity of seeing the work since the Hood, and, no doubt, they were satisfied it was well carried out, except as to the material used inside the floodgate. He personally was satisfied that the engineer's work was thoroughly good, and that the Council could feel quite safe as to the result. Cr. Collis endorsed the Mayor's re- j marks. He understood that the Mayor | was more satisfied as to the success of | the work after seeing the river in flood i than he was before. (The Mayor: "That is so.") He suggested that in addition to placing on record the Council's appreciation of Mr. Skitrop's work, that a letter should be sent to him to that effect.

Cr. Healy said he was thoroughly satisfied with the work, and he considered that Cr. Smith had" been the means of the councillors going to the intake on a wild-goose chase. He was afraid that councillor had been led away by amateur engineers, but would probably not lo eg again. The Mayor moved: "That the Council. 'expresses its appreciation of the manner in which the Borough engineer has carried out the new intake works and the Powdcrham street bridge, and that a copy of this resolution he sent to the engineer." The motion was seconded by Cr. Collis.

Cr. Kibby complimented the engineer on the scheme, which he considered wag a lot better, safer, and more profitable than a weir across the river, as the Council had obtained a 10ft head of water instead of a four feet, with a possibility of two feet more. It might l>e that a few pounds would have to ho spent on the work, but he was not downhearted over that. With reference to the Powdcrham street bridge, the speaker pointed out that when the work was first started there was lots of talk, some being to the effect that the cost would ruin the people, while others contended it would bo cheaper to do it by contract. The previous Council had let a contract for the retaining wall, which had sunk and bulged. Mr. Skitrop's work, which had been done by day labor, only exceeded the estimate by £l7, and its cost worked out at 3s a foot, against the contract work with its cracks and bulges, at 7s. He considered that the whole staff deserved congratulation on the way the recently completed work had been carried out.

Cr. Sykes said he had seen three floods in the river since the intake work was finished., and he considered the engineer had done good work. Moreover, outside authorities were of the same opinion. Cr Smith remarked that if he was not confident he had a good case he would feel dejected. He had stated that unless some protective work (was done the Council would be involved in considerable outlay, and he was still satisfied that would be the case, and that was the view of another party. He had been out to the intake on several occasions, and was satisfied that something should be done to the intake. On Sunday week, ho went out to the intake with the Mayor, and thev found the race had scoured. He would like to have the engineer's report relative to that scour, for when it was read at the Works Committee meeting no councillor made any remark thereon.

The engineer's report was then read.' It stated there had been a scour on the lower side of the floodgate, and that the concrete floor was broken. The reason was that the wrong cement was used, it being of a kind that had not sufficiently hardened when the water w?.s turned on. The cost of repairs would be £S, and no further trouble wai likely. Cr. Smith considered he had satisfied tile Mayor that damage had been done and was likely to be done. His point was that it was quite impossible for the race to be scoured by water coming through the gate«. The scour must have taken place under the head, or when the gates were open. There must, he contended, be some protection for the race at the liaed.

Cr. Collis pointed out that Cr. Smith had shifted his ground, and was only dealing with the race and not with the head of the intake. The motion was then carried.