HARPER DIVERSION.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17111, 5 April 1921, Page 6

HARPER DIVERSION.

CITY COUNCIL'S SUPPORT. The City Council Inst night decided to support the Progress Leaguo. in tha mutter of securing the completion of the Harper river diversion works. Tha League wrote stating that the PubJU Works Department had decided to aba» don for the present the pemuujea* diversion of the Harper river into Lalttt Coleridge, and to place its entire d«. pendenco on the t(<nipornry flotv now taking place. The letter also stated that should a. serious, interruption to the flow occur, the whole industrial life of Canterbury would be threatened with complete strangulation. The Lcaim* felt it must enter n most emphatic, nro. test against any delay in the ostabfisfcincut of the electrical undertaking upon a sound and permanent basis. Ann would request the Council to support it. Any action taken in the matter to be by direct appeal to the Government. Cr. A. McKellar moved that tho request bo acceeded to. Cr. E. Lnngloy, who seconded the motion, said the Council should give everv possiblo support to the work of the League, especially in the matter of developing the Lake Coleridge sup. ply. Cr. .McKellar said he was much disappointed with the progress of the Harper diversion works. There was noth. ing done to ensure the water flowing in tho direction desired from tho rivet into tho lak'e. The level of the water iu the lake was only four feet above the lip leading to the tunnel. Cr. F. R. Cooko said lie desired to, move that the Council protest against the action of the Public Works Department in breaking its pledges to Christ. church in the matter of the immediate linking up of the Harper river with Lake Coleridge. The city was under a disadvantage in not being able to supply more power. Cr. McKellar said he did not think it fair to claim that tho Department had broken its pledges. What was objected to was the way in which tha work was being carried out. Cr. MeKellar's motion was carried, and it was decided to telegraph a copy to Mr Climie, who is nt present in Wellington. Cr. Cooko nt a later stage of th» meeting proposed a motion protesting against the temporary nature-of the Harper diversion as not betnc in *ccordance with the promise of the Min» ister of Public Works. Cr. Armstrong said nil tho Minister promised was to supply a certain power by such a time, fly supporting tha League's protest the Council was doing as much as it could. Cr. Cooke's motion was seconded by Cr. Sullivan and carried.

When the letter from tho Canterbury Progress League, asking support in the League's protest against the retrench* ment of work in the Lute Coleridge extension scheme, WM read at tho meeting of _ the Woolston' Borough Council last night,< it was unanimously resolved, on the motion of Cr. L. Hart, to support the . League in its protests. The mover Mid that any discontinuation, even for *n hour or* two, of tho electrical supply • was a serious loss to Christchurch. It was resolved to write to the Govern*. ment protesting against any retrenchment in the work of tho Harper nter diversion. „ At last night's meeting of the New Brighton Borough Council it was decided to heartilv endorse tho Canterbury Progress .League's action in urging the Government to carry ont tM proposed work of diverting the Harpef; river into Lako Coleridge, rather tMB placing entire dependence on the temporary flow now taking place. TM councillors wero unanimously of tM' opinion that tho proposed immediate diversion of the river was of vital lmportance to tho industrial life of UW- . terbury. ■