The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-11-04

location IN the LOISW QOo e--~ -
vide the additional storage required Ior E
10 million daily supply? AS lesuln IN
careful surveys the contractor -
a position to simply ask LOT peIi a5g;n-
to change the location of dam that orlgln-
ally rendered to a location on the
aBantap property. The reservoir tnerepy
created will possess the essential eiSin ~
of his original proposltlol, W. IN nil
lion daily supply will be secured ny siLu-
ply raising the dam and increasing irs
height of the dykes, thus doing away VIZ
any necessity for considering any seconu
reservoir. ,rr
In the specifications under Wnicn MI.
Flynn bid will be found the roioWlngs-
SIN case future exploration anu ooflnS
shall demonstrate that the suD-soli u aHy
of the storage reservoirs offered is unnt
for the construction of safe ana PRAGUE
able dams the contractor VII! pc ahoWsu
to furnish other reservoirs o. sHual the
and efficiency, and acceptable 20 tne
Engineer" +ha+
The contractor has definitely stated tnat
the original site offered rs not SUE
nracticable" and under the foregoing, ex-
tract from the specifications he clearly IS
to be allowed to furnish other storage OF
equal value and efficiency and acceplapie
to your engineer.
ers is. from an engineering nap
certainly of equal value ana emclSncy
with that originally rendered. In one re-
spect it is better in that a great plo-
portion of the water ~impounded is ABOVE
tba affl,lant pipe. and a less proportion
below it where its only funclion Is 10
act as a settling basin, hence the slorage
now rendered would certainly pe aecspe
able to your engineer. .na;aor
IT remains, therefore, only to CONSIDER
whether the acceptance of the suosttu-
juriously Jersey City's rights under the
The change in location could in no way
affect Jersey City, either for good OF paa,
SO long as water was bought by the
million gallons, not also in the event q
the purchase OF the plant; proVidel, II
should then be equipped with storage Ioa
a 10 million supply and the SECOND loV
millionl pipe line. For the price OF plant
so enlarged is defined in contract. Sc
cured by a $500 900 bond and iS connrmeo
In Mr.. Flynn's letter OF June % 1872. ~
fact, the only contingency possible whiGa
could affect Jersey City injurig1sly Woujn
be in case Jersey City purchased the. 60
million plant with 10 million water rights,
etc. Cby which Mr.. Flynn would be re-
leased from his obligation to Increase the
caDacity to 10 million gallons daily for the
price stated in his PROPOSAL ana that
thereafter the enlargement OF the boonl
ton reservoir would entail a greater cost
than the enlargement at orlglnai ioca-
The contractor has made up, with great
detail, as close an approximation as pos
sibIe of the comparative cost of the en-
largement of the reservoir at the Two 10
cations. His result, as stated in his pres
emit communication, is that, at presenI
prices, the Banta reservoir would cost
about $53. 900 more to enlarge n It Wouiu
be to enlarge the original reservoir
Your engineer would state that all OF
the above details and figures have been
placed at his disposal for inspection and
verifcation, and that from such 1inspec-
ton and such verifcation as he has gone
into he has no. doubt out tnae Ihe uliler-
contractor are approximately correct, and
that the prices at which such difference
are computed are prices at Wnlcn the
work could not be performed. Ii the
probably enhanced cost of the increase
OF the Banta reservoir stood alone, "a
much closer inspection and veri1catton OF.
these estimates would be imperative with
a view. possibly to fixing a definite
amount to be allowed by the contractor
In ease Jersey City awaited of its option
to purchase the 50 million plant. But,
fortunately. all this is obviated- The
contractor now, as a result or a more
particular survey, proposes to further
amend his original proposal by construct
ing over two ~ miles OF additlonal ma
decreasing the pipe conduit go million
capacity by a like amount. There Is no
question but that this is a very great bet
torment even IL the works should never
be enlarged, but in case Jersey City
should enlarge the plant at its own cost
1t would require Just that much less
largement. The saving thereby effected
would amount, at present prices, to at
least twine the additional cost Of ~enlarg-
ing the Banta reservoir as compared with
the enlargement OF the reservoir at orig
inal location.
IN conclusion I would wish to con-
graduate your Board on the outcome of
what has appeared to many as a weari-
some waiting, a satisfactory way has
been found to overcome what appeared to
be grave complications, and a plan has
T nsrg1r 70 Which fbe o3rI II many fsn5 5eSpec 4fta IS t sus
foregoing, 1t is perhaps needless to add
that your engineer believes the best in
terests of the city would be served by
was granted for permission to change the
location Of the dam to the site accept
able to him on the Banta property as
coupled with his offer TO make the
outlined in his letter herewith. In a mat
ter of such Importance your engineer
desires to work in complete harmony with
your Board and therefore awaits advice
that such notice by him to the contractor
would meet the approval of your Hon
orabIe body before he would feel at
liberty to take any action whatever in the
Respectfully submitted.
(Signed) GARWOOD FERRIS,
Engineer In charge.
Brooklyn. N. Y, Oct. 7, 1893.
Garwood Ferris. ESQ, Supervising Engi-
neer, Jersey City, n. ].
Dear Sir-Since my letter to you of
June %. 1899. in reference to a change of
site for the dam, from the Kings1and site,
as proposed in the plans accompanying
my bids, to a site up stream on the lands
of John and Edward Banta. nv engineers
nave been engaged In making careful
surveys of the dam site therein proposed
and the reservoir site above, with most
gratifying results.
/ am now Ia position to present to you
absolute data as to the capacity of the
Banta site. and a close approximation of
the comparative cost and advantages of
the two sites. The results Of the surveys
show that no deviation from the original
plan of one storage reservoir. capable Of
being increased from q capacity equal to
a delivery of fifty million gallons to a
capacity equal to q delivery of seventy
million gallons per day upon the formula
made. as was feared at the time Of my
last communicatiop and referred 70 there
in the Longwood Valley will not be re-
1 now propose a dam at the location
pointed out to you on the Banta prop
critics. where extensive excavations have
Observation-Disclosures 10 the "a tfsfacti0ua Of my