Norwich bulletin., 1910-12-28

when this recommendation came from the water board to the common coun cil, that the vote might be made intel ligently, the question was asked: What about other sites? Give us figures and data of different sources of supply ruled out of order. The question was approval or non-appro val of Jordan brook. Result as before stated.
 l would like to ask the water board and common council why they ap- proved Jordan brook above all other sites? Why they disregarded Civil Engineer Percy NJ. Blake's report, dat ed February 6. 1900, which says the stony brook and Trading Cove brook watersheds have been carefully sur veyed and examined and it has been found that those sources are the only ones which meet the conditions of the case and can be added 10 your pres- ent sources by d justifiable expendi- turei' And when further explaining about Trading Cove brook watershed and referring to & selected site for a dam says: "The elevation of over flow level at this point would be 230 feet above city base or about II feet below the dashboard overflow in Fair view reservoir, an elevation high enough to satisfactorily serve all the lower portions of the city"
 Living as I do. in the higher por- ton of the city, l would not consider this proposition. Again he writes: The stony brook watershed is an exceptionally good one. By raising Lefhngwell pond dam, now owned by the city, 22 feet, making area 65 1-2 acres, storage capacity 34O,0Qo,000 gal Ions, elevation 312 feet above city base or 68 feet above dashboard Fair view reservoir. The elevation of the Leffingweu basin is sufficient to sup ply by gravity at all times the high CT portions of the city, Jail hill and Lambs hill included
 Did those two august bodies of men read Civil Engineer Charles A. All ing's report which reads: Taking everything into consideration l am satisfied that Stony brook is certainly the most favorable location from which you can obtain an additional water supply Have they read Civil Engi- neer w. II. Richards report. which reads Stony brook offers the best and most available source for per manent additional supply in my opin- ion" Again have they read Civil En- gineers Chandler & Palmers report, which reads We recommend that Stony brook be adopted as an addi- tionaI source of supply for the fol lowing reasons:
 The character of the watershed.
 The quality of the water.
 tNEP~-Nt water.
 The quantity of water.
 The expense in proportion to the amount of water.
 Also did they take into considera- ton that there are eight mills to be settled with for water diverted on JOr- dan brook, while there is only one small mill on stony brook.
 Perhaps I am wrong in hinting that these officials have been negligent in their sworn duties: if so upon a full explanation l would willingly beg their pardon in open meeting.
 l believe that 1 represent a large proportion of the city when l say that We are exasperated beyond endurance You gentlemen-honored by being call ed to represent the city-get down to business, not party lines.
 If impossible to do so, explain why. The water board is being looked to, to investigate and lead the way.
 It is understood by many that you are guided by the common council, which is wrong. You should take the initiative The common council then approves or disaprroves your action. Then the city meeting acts.
 J. D. HAVILAND.
 Norwich, Dec. 27, 1910