CHAIRMAN’S ADDRESS. XXI. 
was receiving from Botany during what may he almost 
called a water famine. 
Mr. Moriarty’s report had the effect of silencing the 
detractors of his scheme for the time, and the works were 
pushed on as rapidly as circumstances would permit, but 
the supporters of the Kenny Hill proposal, having modified 
it in order to reduce the estimate, by substituting one 44 
inch cast iron pipe for the two 36 inch pipes, and 
dispensing with the service reservoir, sought advantage of 
the fact that the works were taking a longer time to 
complete than was anticipated, and that the cost was 
exceeding the original estimate—owing principally to the 
difficulties met with in tunnelling, and the necessity for 
lining those in shale throughout—and as the drought still 
continued, and dependence on the Botany stream was 
considered to be very precarious, they again strongly 
urged the acceptance of the Kenny Hill scheme, which 
they guaranteed would bring in the water in two years’ 
less time than by the Prospect scheme, and at £200,000 
less cost. A strong movement was made in March, 1882, 
to reopen the question, without success. 
By December, 1882, work along the whole line of 
conduit, from Pheasant’s Nest to Guilford, was being 
actively proceeded with, and operations in connection 
with the construction of Prospect Dam had commenced 
under contract, the time for completion being July 31st, 
1887, it being considered that this important work should 
not be built too rapidly, as ample time should be allowed 
for settlement and consolidation of the bank. A line of © 
30 inch cast iron pipes, 1} miles long, was to be laid outside 
the Sam to connect the upper and lower canal. 
During the first part of 1883 some useful rain had fallen, 
the gauge at Botany having registered 315 inches in five 
months, which, together with some rain that had fallen 
