The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1921. HYDRO-ELECTRICITY AGAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 September 1921, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1921. HYDRO-ELECTRICITY AGAIN.

The actions of the New Plymouth Borough Council over the hydropower question are hard to understand. Last week the council decided to ask the Government to send one of its electrical officers to report upon the possibilities of extra power being obtained. When the suggestion was made by the council’s consulting engineers in April last to have a survey made for the same purpose it w’as rejected, as have been subsequent requests by public deputations. The council, it would seem, approves of an electrical engineer’s examination but not the civil engineers’. Now, the former must necessarily depend upon the civil engineers for information and ■data on which to base his report, and as the consulting engineers can furnish nothing more than they have already made available to the council, what can be the practical use or the value of the electrical expert’s advice when it comes to hand? If the consulting engineers had first made the investigation, for authority for which they asked the council in vain, there would be some reason perhaps for securing outside electrical expert opinion, though to us it seems a matter entirely for civil and not electrical engineers. But supposing the electrical expert reports that he is satisfied from what he sees that the extra power can be economically developed, what then does the council propose to do about it? At once increase the size of the tunnel to accommodate the extra water, or instruct the engineers to make a survey and take out estimates? That, of course, would be the logical course, but the council is anything but logical in regard to this question, for it decided on Monday evening, at the instance of the Mayor, to go to the ratepayers for authority to raise a loan of £9OOO with which to make the survey and increase the size of the tunnel. Therefore, no matter whether the jleetrical expert’s opinion is fav-

orable or otherwise the poll takes place, and thereby delay will be caused. The council’s action is a striking illustration of the old adage of putting the cart before the horse. The ratepayers are to be asked to sanction a loan for a work the feasibility of which has yet to be determined. The recent public meeting, by an almost unanimous vote, asked the council to do two simple things—(l) make a survey to ascertain the extent of the additional power available in the upper reaches; (2) proceed with the concreting of the tunnel at the bigger size in anticipation of the extra power being found. But the council has chosen a course that will result in serious loss to the borough and in defeating the object of the resolutions passed by the public meet ing. It is expected the survey will take three months; the poll preliminaries five weeks —a delay of seventeen weeks. The Mayor on Monday denied that any delay would be occasioned by the proceedings, but at the very same meeting there was a report by the resident engineer complaining of the inconvenience already being caused by his not knowing the size at which the remainder of the tunnel is to be driven. The Mayor also said there was plenty of work to be gone on with outside the tunnel for a month, but to anyone who has visited the ground and understands the position, the governing, vital factor in the whole scheme is the tunnel. The outside work the Mayor speaks of is unessential, and can be done at any time without holding up the work, but pushing on with boring the tunnel is absolutely essential. In June last, when it was suggested to close down the works, the general manager reported the loss world be £19,000 per annum for interest on the money spent and the loss of earnings from the completed work over the working expenses. This comes to £365 per week. Ratepayers will thus see what delay means. Even a delay of a few weeks will run into four figures. With a due sense of our responsibility, we unhesitatingly declare there will be considerable delay as the result of the council’s present action. It cannot be avoided. Already there has been unnecessary delay. There will be a delay of another five weeks, and unless the tunnel is driven the extra width, after the poll of ratepayers (if it is favorable) there will be further delay whilst the survey is being undertaken, unless the concreting at the increased size is put in hand immediately. There is another feature that has to be boime in mind. It is the cost of timbering the tunnel. On Cr. Parkin’s showing, it costs 5s per foot to timber. Working from'three heads the rate of progress will be 300 feet per week. Eor every week’s delay, therefore, the cost will be £75; if for six weeks, £450; and if eighteen weeks, £1350. As we have said, this delay and expense can be avoided by going on with the tunnel at its present size (it has to be remembered that the first six chains is concreted at the larger si2e) and push on with the survey. Should the latter fail to reveal what the engineers anticipate—considerable further latent power—then the borough will not have sustained any material loss, there will be no delay in constructing the tunnel; and ratepayers will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have done everything in their power to find extra power. As for consulting the ratepayers, as the Mayor desires to do, that could still be done, but, as we have pointed out before, there is no necessity, for the council has the power to raise an additional 10 per cent on the loans, without counting on the proceeds of the sale of the land it will have to dispose of. The council, in adopting the policy it has, has assumed a grave responsibility, for it can only result in considerable harm and loss to the. borough, no matter what the electrical expert’s report or the ratepayers’ poll may be, harm and loss which the council can easily avoid.