The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-06-05

clusions which you have drawn from
| them, and which you urge US to ;, ac7
| conform to them. We cannot lawfully
enter into an arrangement binding our
selves in advance to vote for any par
elfuhar ed ba gd' speclhcsaticn q a@afa as e"eS'
PROVISIONAL SUPPLY.
"Pending the study of water sheds;
condemnation of the necessary land and
permanent works. we think that steps
should be taken at once to either acquire
the rights to Utilize as eroI,l proNlsloPal tbe Pa
auannock Aqueduct controlled, by the
East Jersey Water Company, through a
connection made at Belleyille by laying
pipe therefor across the Passaic river; or
as an alternative. that an efficient I'll
vile works and in connection Herewith
| that a moderate amount of the expenu-
ture, be incurred in the Improvement
so as to effect greater economy in its
sThe Pequannock. water could be de-
| Iivered under a greater pressure than that
now furnished by the pumping plant at
| Belleville, with not only consequent
1 but with the further advantage of an
| increased pressure and the delivery Of
the water At higher . elevation ,dodao in al al
Greenville sections of Jersey City which
receive their supply direct from Belle
I
| can we are assured also be readily at
| tanned under the Alternative plan men
| toned
| Of either of these plans will give our
| citizens adequate and prompt relief from
| the present water troubles while neither
of them would necessitate more than
! trifing net increase in the annual water
| account. provided the legislation, advo-
Gated by the municipal authorities of this
city and enacted during the session late
| ly closed placing it within the power or
| this city, as stated in your letter. TO OBJ
| tain control by condemnation of rights
| in water not now controlled by sister
municipalities, extends to the condemna-
ton of the surplus water Of the Peguans
which the East Jersey Water Co. re-
served to itself in the contract with the
'f THE JERSEY CITY PROPOSAL
Your Honor desires our views-'espec
| tally as to whether the. Jersey City Wa
| ter Co. for the sum OF sT,o0oo00 for the
| watershed from which they proposed t.
| take and store the water. offered, conld
| settle the water rights of other parties,
| that the citv could have the water sup
ply and also whether st was possible
to place an intake in the RoeRaWaE ea ti,st
| the river could be drawn upon in the
winter when the Morris Canal was not in
operation. and the stored water used in
| the summer so as to leave the canal
| and water powers the fiowage of the
river during that season.
| ''The answer to these questions IS wholly
outside of our power to determine. We
wish, however. to express and emph1a5slize is
the o2nGa nfo that no 6s eonfat Of sue
claimants of water rights and franchises
| for the use of water as would be, at
| thereon of the appropriation of the water
| in the manner suggested has been IN
vestigated and passed upon by i the EN- most 81
| the law, aided by scientific experts and
the researches OF. the geological survey
late Stree, and Water Board that that the the
city should not attemp[tt p[t to settle the the
conviction, and we are gratified to learn
| that you agree with us on this point;
vital Importance and lies at the founda-
| ton of the problem of water supply and
| therefore should be settled at the very
The letter then refers to the protest
of the Morris Canal Company against
| the water rights. of the canal without
permission and this protest also. in the
boards opinion was a serious objection
10 'As RIGHTS OF THE CITY.
Regarding the numerous DIFFICULTIES
| encountered in the formulation of the
water Specifications to which you refer,
| we are surprised TO learn that the pro-
vision incorporated therein at the sug-
US to protect the rights of the city IN
| any watershed which might be the sub
iect of a. contract: against the perils and
| pancy on the part of another munich
| pality or a water company, has been
pppsHieb prplpetieabe We are st RoWeSer how Of
| the opinion that this provision is of
great Importance and believe that citi-
city should have the right to all the
water which it would need by any
reasonable estimate during the life OF the
| o,1thnrized hv law amounting at the end
| Of the period to about 70000.000 gallons
per day # our past average growth CON
The gravamen. of your Honors com
municat.on, as far as It relates to TINS
Beard consists N atae tae mas has not
| kept pace with your own and that while
| you have. during your, official term.
draWn dawn for % the purpose of obtaining a
new '' water supply, they have with only Il
one exception fsiled to rsce5ye ia daVqranlds oa rd
and that even in that one case the Board
| Of Finance withheld its approval. The
thet taet in aoala this Instance inst also the PROPOSAL
was frst decisively rejected by. the Street
face fsasa x Of 20 an adverse opinion from the
Corporation Counsel and by the aid of
some occult influence. no SATISFACTORY St s;1,
was accepted. Our non-concurrence in
this procedure is made by you the % oc-
Gas'oa ing ne neratiVe and m unsatsfactory Dos
i'io EXPENSE OF EXPERTS
eve respectfully deny that a disposi-
ton has been evinced by the members
Of the Board of Finance to take a mega
tive position on the question. When,
in 1894. it first became Necessary to con-
slider specifications for new water sup
ply, resolution was unanimously
adopted by the Board of Finance 10 enl-
ploy experts. 1t was then ascertained
/ that there was no fund from which the
j Counsel gave Nor hat he fe9s
i pense could be betrayed from Ike water
account and It slt:s y alsis .hes 2 eeessary
I Commissioners to appropriate money for
that purpose. An effort was made to
engage the services Of such experts.
The two Boards could not arrive at an
agreement as to the selection of experts,
although an effort was made in that di-
rection and finally there was a division
of sentiment in regard to such appoint
ments between the members Of the
Board of Finance. consequently no ap-
rofnfrnepfS have haeu made IN to the