4 Opening Address. 



during tlie debate supported these views. Some maintained tliat 

 the cost of the Upper JSTepean scheme had been greatly under- 

 estimated, and that the water, although originally pure from that 

 source, would become contaminated by the Wianamatta shales 

 which it had to traverse. On the other hand, it was maintained 

 that an effective dam on George's River would be a difi6.cult and 

 costly work ; that if the ordinary level of the w^ater was raised so 

 much as ten feet, valuable land near Liverpool would be flooded ; 

 that the length of time required for washing out the salt was 

 hypothetical ; that even after the salt water was displaced, the 

 quality of the \vater would never be equal to that from the Upper 

 Nepean ; and that a gravitation scheme was much more desirable 

 than a pumping scheme. There w^as much incidental discussion 

 on various other points, such as the rate of evaporation in this 

 country, and the quality of water desirable for a town supply. In 

 regard to the former, the weight of evidence seemed in favour of 

 allowing four or five feet per annum ; and in regard to the latter 

 it was agreed that while water could not be too pure and soft 

 for manufacturing purposes, yet for use as a beverage a moderate 

 propoi'tion of lime might be advantageous. 



Mr. Bell, City Engineer, in his paper on the Botany water- 

 shed, maintained that the Lachlan and Botany swamps were 

 capable of affording an ample supply of water to Sydney for 

 many years to come ; that the loss by evaporation and otherwise 

 had been greatly over-estimated by the Commissioners, and that 

 nearly the w^hole of the rainfall could be made available by the 

 construction of certain reservoirs. He was inclined to think that 

 when it became necessary to supplement the Botany supply 

 from some other source, the best place to go to for this purpose 

 would be the G-rose Eiver. This paper caused a renewal of the 

 discussion on the Upper ISTepean and George's Eiver schemes, 

 and on various points previously handled, such as loss by evapo- 

 ration, construction of dams, purity of water, and relative merits of 

 pumping and gravitation. On the whole, this prolonged debate on 

 the water supply, although useful in eliciting a variety of opinions 

 and in subjecting the various schemes to an ordeal of severe criti- 

 cism, yet added little to the facts as set forth in the Report of the 

 Sydney "Water Commission. It was admitted on all sides that 

 no better water could be brought to Sydney than what is at 



