Questions and Answers.

Q. 1. Was the water marked A in your Schedule collected under your instructions? or has any evidence been submitted to you that that sample was collected in such a way as to ensure its being a fair sample from the small Upper Reservoir?

A. 1. No. Samples A B and C, as stated in my Report, were delivered in jars at the Laboratory. I made no enquiries, nor was any information offered as to the manner in which they were collected.

Q. 2. From your knowledge of the Upper Reservoir, as a settling basin to catch all impurities coming down the creek, would you state whether you think it possible to take a sample of water from there (without any intention of acting unfairly) which would not be a fair sample of the whole water in that Reservoir?

A. 2. Yes. Water taken from the Upper Reservoir, just within the margin where confervas are abundant and luxuriant, would probably contain fragments of these plants in undue proportion. On the other hand, water obtained well within the Reservoir, but collected in such a manner that the vessel receiving it was not plunged several inches under the surface, would probably contain an undue proportion of light floating particles—dust, flies, feathers, fragments of plants, &c. In either case, the water so collected would not be an average sample of the water in the Reservoir.

Q. 3. Am I right in saying that your remark, that "that water in its present condition was quite unfit for domestic use," referred solely to that particular sample, and not to the water in the Lower Reservoir which supplies the City, or to any of the samples gathered from any of the taps in town?

A. 3. Yes. The words of my Report are: "The sample from the Upper Reservoir shows low cellular growths, confervæ, desmids, diatoms, &c., in such abundance as to render that water in its present condition, in my opinion, quite unfit for domestic use." I wish it to be clearly understood that the water which I characterised as above was the water contained in the jar delivered at the Laboratory, and labelled as page 14 having been taken from the Upper Reservoir. I had not, before making my Report, inspected the Upper Reservoir, and could not therefore judge with any certainty whether the sample sent to the Laboratory fairly represented the average quality of that water. Since writing my Report, however, I visited the Reservoirs to-day, and in justice to the Water Company must say that sample A of my Report does not fairly represent the water at present in the Upper Reservoir.

Q. 4. In regard to your statement that "the water taken from the Corporation Offices tap, last week, contains 36 per cent, more organic matter than water taken from the same tap in last June," am I right in saying that you do not mean thereby that 36 per cent, of every gallon of water is organic matter, but that 36 per cent, of the organic matter it contained before, which was 1.40 grains per gallon, or .5 of a grain, represents the increase of organic matter?—or, to put it in another form, am I right in saying that the total increase of organic matter alluded to amounts to half a grain in the gallon of water?

A. 4. Yes. It will be seen on reference to column headed "Organic Matter" in my Report of 13th inst. that one gallon of water taken from the tap at the Corporation Offices in June last year yielded 1.4 grains of organic matter; and that one gallon from the same tap this month yielded 1.9 grains of organic matter. The increase of organic matter this month as compared with the quantity of organic matter present in the water last June is therefore half a grain per gallon. This, as stated in my Report, is an increase of 36 per cent, on the quantity observed in June last. The same column also shews for this month an increase of 2.73 grains of organic matter per gallon in the water from the Upper Reservoir. This is equal to an increase of 208 per cent, on the quantity found in last June. The Lower Reservoir shows an increase of .85 grains per gallon, which is equal to an increase of 68 per cent.

Q. 5. In characterising the increase of organic matter as "so large," am I right in saying that that is simply in proportion to the small amount formerly found in it, and does not refer to the actual amount in the water as compared with many other waters extensively used for domestic purposes?

A. 5. Yes. The words "so large an increase of organic matter" have reference solely to the results obtained from the Dunedin Company's water this month and in June last year. The increase of organic matter observed in the three samples already quoted—viz., 36 per cent., 68 per cent., and 208 per cent., otherwise £ grain, .68 grain, 2.73 grains per gallon respectively—is the chief ground of my opinion that the water "does not quite maintain the good character I was able to give it last June."

Q. 6. Am I right in saying that under the microscope you found the water supplied in Dunedin (Corporation and Laboratory taps) does not show organisms in greater variety nor in much greater proportion than in June last, when you reported that the water "did not contain organic forms in an unusual proportion, nor of such kind as to render the water unlit for dietetic purposes?"

A. 6. Yes.

Q. 7. Is there anything in your Report that should make any one give up the use of the water, as delivered at the taps in the City, for ordinary domestic purposes?

A. 7. No.

Q. 8. In any part of your Report, do you wish to convey anything more than that it is desirable to improve the water by filtration; and that if this were done it would rank for domestic purposes among the best waters supplied to any community?

A. 8. No.

Q. 9. Was there anything revealed in your analysis of June last to induce you to recommend that the water should be filtered, or that should have induced the Directors of the Company to go to that expense before this?

A. 9. No.

page 15

Q. 10. On the whole, and taking the water as supplied through the mains to the City, do you consider it, as to quality, within the limits of water extensively used for domestic purposes?

A. 10. Yes.

Q. 11. Am I right in saying that the average of all the samples of water analysed in June last shows that they contain .073 parts of Albuminoid Ammonia in one million parts of water, whilst Loch Katrine water contains .080 of the same, and that it is on the amount of this Albuminoid Ammonia that the goodness or badness of a water chiefly depends?

A. 11. Yes.