THE WATER SUPPLY OF SYDNEY, CVII. 
Mr. G. R. COWDERY made a few remarks on the financial 
aspect of the water supply of Sydney. 
Mr. R. T. McKay dealt with the general question of 
rainfall and ‘run off’ in the States of New South Wales 
and Victoria on the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Goulburn and 
Ovens rivers. 
Mr. KEELE in reply said—Mr. Norman Selfe made some 
remarks on the historical side of the water supply question. 
‘“‘There was much to be gleaned from the report of the Royal 
Commission of 1867. The truth of Mr. Moriarty’s contentions as 
to the necessity of a high level gravitation scheme was being 
proved by recent developments. He would like to know to what 
extent the estimate for the Prospect scheme was exceeded, and 
the reason for the excess cost ?” 
In reply I would like tosay that the principal reason for 
the excess cost was owing to the scheme being enlarged 
throughout, to convey 150 million gallons per day instead 
of 80 millions as originally designed; more brick lining was 
required in the tunnels than was at first thought necessary. 
Hudson’s temporary scheme, and the difficulties met with 
in connection with the Prospect dam construction also 
added considerably to the cost; the balance reservoir at 
Potts Hill was a necessary but expensive addition to the 
scheme. Mr. Selfe said— 
‘He had the highest personal respect for Mr. Moriarty, but it 
should be remembered that his case was an instance of the inability 
of a round peg to fit a square hole. The Government thrust 
responsibility upon him. He thought that none of the engineers 
composing the Royal Commission of 1867 were competent to get 
out a water supply.” 
In reply I would say, that the facts do not by any means 
bear out Mr. Selfe’s statements. The results of Mr. 
Moriarty’s life’s work have been a distinct gain and benefit 
to the public. The Prospect scheme was well conceived, 
