The Reservoir

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

THE RESERVOIR.

Mr. McElroy,¹ engineer in charge at Ridgewood and whom the Eagle referred to as its authority for pronouncing the Reservoir a sham, has favored our contemporary with a letter explanatory of his opinion of the structure. We have not space to insert it in full; yet after two careful perusals of it fall to grasp its meaning so as to be able to say whether or not he does condemn the structure.

First Mr. McElroy states that his opinion "seems to be misunderstood." Taken alone, this would imply that the Eagle's condemnation of the work was based on incorrect premises. This is confirmed by the explicit assertion of Mr. M. that the banks are "not thrown loosely." "In every direction which the water can take within the Reservoir it is met either by cement, masonry, or heavily puddled walls and floors." Every one approves, he says, of the workmanship of the walls. "There need be no apprehension of breaks or inundations from the Reservoir."

Did Mr. McElroy say no more than this, we should feel satisfied that the Eagle's reporter mistook his former remarks, and that he had added his engineering endorsement to the many already given of the soundness of the work. But he goes on to intimate what appears to be the direct contrary to the otherwise general tenor of his letter:

The difficulty is not in the workmanship, but in the lightness of the wall, which averages about 16 inches of small stone backing to it above this level. As the bed of this wall washes away, it has a tendency of course to settle back. In some cases we have set back sections by the maul, and built a new face. No sections of this wall have fallen from the banks into the reservoir, although the necessity of rebuilding it entire, as soon as the Western Division can be prepared for use, is understood and determined upon by the proper authorities.

Why there should be a necessity of rebuilding, if there be no apprehension of breaks? Never was Delphian oracle more vague than this opinion of Mr. McElroy.

At the close of his letter he intimates that "less than $25,000 will make the Reservoir as durable as can can ever be desirable." We should like to know why it was not made so at first; whether the fault lies with the contractors, or engineer, or commissioners; and who is to pay the $25,000? If the work has not been durably done, either Mr. McElroy has not overlooked it with sufficient diligence, or he has been overruled by his employers. If it has been so done, why spend the $25,000?

Meanwhile, will Ald. Backhouse² hurry up the appendix to his report, and name the sources of his information.

---