If those few members of the City Council who are either too ignorant or too obstinate to realise the gravity of the position with regard to the city’s water supply are hugging themselves with the comfortable conviction that all danger is over for the present season, we feel bound to warn them that this may prove a very dangerous delusion. If they will look back to the records of past dry seasons, they will find that in hardly any instance did the drought fairly break up before the latter part of June. This was notoriously the case at the time such very severe scarcity was experienced a few years ago, the first heavy rains not setting in until the last week in June.
It is, of course, quite possible that we may have copious rains at an earlier date, but it is necessary to point out that this cannot in the least be depended upon, and that in former years the period of greatest water scarcity has always been April and May. Therefore, recollecting that we may have three months to wait for the heavy rains, and that a considerable waste is still going on, it behoves the Council to face the situation boldly and resolutely.
Councillor Coombe at the last Council meeting derided as a mere “newspaper scare” all fears of shortness of water. It is difficult to understand that any man, presumably possessing his fair share of brains and common sense, should make such an exceedingly silly observation. It is equally difficult to understand how the ratepayers could entrust the representation of their interests to anyone who would treat with such culpable levity so serious a public question.
We can understand that representatives of this sort should feel very sore at the exposure of their shortcomings which is involved in the mere record of actual events. But, however disagreeable it may be to those whose negligence is exposed, the interests of the public have a much higher claim upon the duty of the press than any considerations of personal unpleasantness. Let Councillors do their duty, and then they need not fear the newspapers. It is the stinging self-consciousness of flagrant shortcomings that renders them so dreadfully sensitive to newspaper criticism.
As for this water supply question, we say distinctly that it is as yet only in its early stage. The special committee showed good sense in determining to secure capable professional assistance. The only possible reason for objecting to such assistance being procured would be the dread of awkward revelations. We have spoken out pretty plainly on this matter already, but we must speak still more plainly now, for it is all-important that the public attention should be thoroughly aroused.
We assert that there are the gravest doubts whether the Wainui-o-mata system of waterworks be not in several respects defective. The mistaken economy of substituting a well—only intermittently full—and a concrete race for continuous iron mains has already been adverted to. But how about the mains that extend from that well into town? How is it that these are constantly bursting and blowing-out joints, and so necessitating the perpetual and most irritating stoppages of the water supply before its source began to run short?
Is it at all certain that there is not an extensive leakage going on at many of those joints which have not blown out? When a regular “blow out” does take place, it is easily discovered and in time is remedied. But there may be a large insidious leakage going on from these weak joints at dozens of unsuspected points.
Again, is it certain that the mains are of sufficient strength to resist the pressure they are called on to sustain? Is it not a fact that they were procured for a much lower pressure, and that many of their burstings have been due to sheer inherent weakness? We have reason to believe that this is the case, and the question is of such serious import that it ought to be authoritatively answered.
And further, we should like to ask: On what grounds are we told that the leak in the sludge valve cannot be stopped without emptying the reservoir? We assert on very high authority that there are several methods which might have been advantageously employed. The valve might have been reached by the erection of a small coffer-dam and repairs effected. Or the leak might have been temporarily checked by the simple method of lowering on the upper side of the valve a weighted sheet, which the pressure of water would have held firmly against the valve.
We say at once that these are not our suggestions, but we make them on an authority which even those all-wise City Councillors—in their own conceit—who are so well satisfied with themselves and their own doings, would not dream of questioning. Those same Councillors were somewhat indiscreetly eager in rushing to the defence of the City Engineer, who was not accused of doing wrong. We remarked at the time that this extraordinary eagerness bore a very suspicious aspect, and seemed strongly to suggest that those Councillors themselves might have something to answer for.
This suspicion has been greatly strengthened by subsequent events. In the face of the fact that their Engineer’s report more than confirms all the worst that had been said or feared as to the condition of the water supply, they persist in treating the matter as a mere trifle wilfully exaggerated by the newspapers; they revile the press for doing its duty; they oppose with feverish anxiety every attempt to obtain a report by a competent independent engineer; and they most offensively and unwarrantably drag in the name of one particular engineer, and cast mud at him, evidently in the hope that he may be intimidated from undertaking the task if requested by the Committee to do so.
Such a course of action speaks for itself, and will be fully appreciated by every intelligent ratepayer. We maintain it is imperative that the public should know the true value and condition of these costly waterworks for which they have paid some £150,000, and that they should also be informed to whose negligence they owe the grievous loss and inconvenience and danger of the last few weeks.
Upon such questions only an expert can pronounce an opinion which will possess any practical value, and the ratepayers have a right to demand that such an opinion shall be obtained. We have had to censure the levity with which Councillor McKenzie treated the failure of the water supply; we are all the more glad to be able to commend the sound sense he displayed on this point. The remarks of Councillors Quick, Brandon, and Smith on the same side were also very sensible and to the point.
It is only fair also to Mr Loughrey to say that his last report appears perfectly candid and straightforward, and that whatever blame may or may not attach to him for the protracted disregard of the leaky condition of the waterworks, he is manifestly not responsible for the construction of the works, which was antecedent to his arrival.
It is not merely for the sake of fixing the blame on any particular individual that we so strenuously urge the necessity of a competent investigation, but in order that the true state of the case may be ascertained. The citizens have yet to learn the “whole truth” about the Wainui-o-mata waterworks. They learned one unwelcome truth as to the consequences of the recent negligence through the announcement made that, as the water supply is so defective, the Insurance Companies had decided for their own protection to increase the rates of insurance on the principal business blocks in the city.
This increase will be widely felt, and will be peculiarly unwelcome just now. The citizens are quite capable of appreciating the debt of gratitude they owe to those whose carelessness has brought on them this fresh impost in addition to all the evil results of the deficient water supply for which they have to pay so heavily. They have to thank the City Council for the self-defensive action of the Insurance Companies, for apart from the Council’s responsibility for seeing that their officers do their duty, the fact that several of the Councillors have persistently made light of the whole affair naturally caused the Insurance Companies to doubt the probability of matters being placed on a more satisfactory footing.
That it was through great neglect that the water ran so short is sufficiently shown by the fact that the Engineer with a couple of men and a bag or two of cement was able so speedily to effect the partial repairs which have given us the comparatively good supply we enjoy just at present. If this could be done then, why was it not done before, instead of waiting until so grave an emergency had arisen? That has still to be explained.
As for the source of the supply, the Wainui river, while it appears, according to Mr Higginson and Mr Marchant, to have been somewhat overrated as to its volume, and while evidently we cannot afford to part with any of it for motive power or to supply other places, it nevertheless is quite ample for the legitimate uses of this city for a long time to come, if only it receive fair play. This it has not had hitherto.
It may fairly be questioned whether the works were not, in certain respects, injudiciously planned, and whether they were faithfully executed in all their details. These are purely engineering questions, but, however they may be answered, there can be no doubt at all that the works have been recklessly allowed to go to ruin; and the ratepayers have a right to know who is responsible for that, as well as what can best be done to put them into a state of proper efficiency for the future.
