Norwich bulletin., 1910-11-26
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Councilman HaviIand's View of Water
 Conditions.


 MT Editor: Now that our water supply is 50 limited, when disease ana unprotected property threaten us With disaster, isn't it high time for actlon
 This is no new condition. Some eight or nine years ago the court Of com mon council accepted and adopted the recommendation of the water commits sioners when they approved Of Pease brook. which the firm of Hill, Quick x Allen reported could be had with It's large watershed and abundant water for S300,000, and when Chandler s Palmer were sent to make a. more den- mite estimate of cost they figured the cost S655, 900, not including cost Of land. moving of cemeteries, changing highway and paying damages to SIX mills for water diverted from them, bringing total cost to say one million dollars.
 The majority of the council. feeling that they were not elected to spend that amount when the city had only appropriated $300,000, and feeling that they had been imposed upon by Hall. Quick & Allen by their making a against the wishes of the mayor, re- considered their former vote recon - mending Pease brook.
 This threw the matter again to the water board, who unanimously adopt ed the Stony brook project, which had
  gineers who had at different times been employed by the city to look the matter up.
 The city council approved the action of the water board. The mayor re- fused to sign the bonds and on the grounds that man has the right to change his mind withdrew from thinking it proper to spend one million dollars for additional water supply to recommending that it was only neces- sary to spend s75,000 on improving F'airview reservoir to make 1t ample for twenty-five years.
 Work was delayed on the action of the council by injunction proceedings and ascertainfng the judgment of the court until after another city election, when the citizens upheld the mayor. One hundred thousand dollars or more has been spent on Fairview reservoir and Meadow brook. We are in a worse condition than ever Whose fault?
 The citizens and the mayor seem to have erred. There is saying that "a man may be excused for being fooled by another once. but the second time there is no excuse"
 The responsibility for o1r present poor water supply is on one man. You pick him out!
 Personally I am willing to spend a million or even two million dollars, taking in both Pease brook and Gard hCi loASs II tf1dt aAIiOuhI IS IStcSSotl y to supply us with plenty of water, but I do not think 1t necessary.
 Chandler 6 Palmer and other engi neers have told us that reservoir al Stony brook. where the city now owns about 100 acres of land and water would give us water the same amount as Fairview. That being the cas and we have good authority for saying that it is, then the two reservoirs should supply a population Of 35, 900. I would use the Stony brook reservoir as a stepping stone to Gardner lake When we need still more water pipe line of about one and a half miles to Gard ner lake could be easily put in. Gard ner lake will be just where it is now when we want it, but I fear 1t will be many years before 1t will be necessary to tap it. The Stony brook proposi- ton can be built for about $500, 900, az per report of engineers.
 The saving to the city to the time when we hope to count 35. 900, at four per cent. simple interest on the diff ference estimated cost of Pease brook and Stony brook, would be $2S,0oo per year.
 Do we need and can we afford to spend one million dollars for additional water supply?
 Taxpayers. think 1t over This is nn matter to make political issue of It Is simple matter of business. The city Is the firm and we are the stock holders.
 ]. D. HAVTIAND.
 Norwich, Nov. g. 1910.