ONSLOW WATER SCHEME

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2792, 9 June 1916, Page 9

ONSLOW WATER SCHEME

THE PROPOSAL REVIEWED

RIPARIAN RIGHTS DISCUSSED

A special meeting of the Onslow B>rough Council was heid on Wednesday, when there were present: the Mayor (Mr. C. C, Crump), Councillors J. 6. Smith, W, A. E. Budd, J. M. Dale, C. I _jwucji, 1. A. Browne, K. Brenton-Kule, W. C. Palmer, and J. C. Gardiner. The Mayor, before dealing with tile water scheme, reported that he had attended a meeting of the Hutt Hold Board. Tile estimated expenditure l'or the coming year was ,£5170, of which the. council had to pay (i per cent. This meant tli'at .£3lO, plus .£l3l for the past year, had to he found by the council.! Alter the deliberations, he had come to' the conclusion that the board was a dummy body. The council could only make suggestions to the board, which had to refer them to the City Council. This was not whai was intended: it was intended that the Onslow Borough Council should have a say in connection with the money spent on the road. It had been decided that'bicycles could run the full length of the road on the footpath. The road was practically a City Council streot, and all they could do was to make suggestions. Replying to Councillor Smith, tho Mayor said that the men employed on the road were City Council employees. , The council proceeded to deal with the' Onslow Borough water scheme and riparian rights in connection with Tyer's Creek. It was decided to deal with the mattor in open council. The Mayor moved: "That- the council agrees that thSi'e is no reason to fear any serious claim for compensation re riparian rights in connection with tho Onslow Borough water scheme, after reading the opinions of Messrs. Wilford and Levi and Mr. Martin." Councillor Brenton-Rule, seconded tho motion. Councillor Budd said he did not think tho legal men who gave the opinions would, agree with the statement embodied in the motion. The inference was all the other way. The opinion really pointed to the matter being decided in the Supreme Court. He thought the Mayor would have been well advised if he had asked a representative of the firms concerned to have accompanied him during ills conference with Mr. Martin. The Mayor said he had given the.parties mentioned every facility to attend the conference.

Councillor Budd cited the opinion of Mr. Martin, advising that the council should give people notice of its intention to take the water. If a company '• had spent thousands of pounds in establishing a business, no court would allow it to bo closed without compensation:- If the council was going' on with the scheme, it would be advisable to come to'some arrangement with the firms claiming riparian rights, in order to keep the compensation as low as possible. He had no doult that the claim did exist.' Councillor Dale complained that the Mayor had not spoken in support of the motion. The Mayor said ho took the full responsibility for making the statement. After further discussion, Councillor Appleton moved as an amendment: "That after reading ther. opinion of Mr; Martin, in regard to the- claims for compensation by Messrs. W. Dimock-and Co.,' Ltd., and other owners of; riparian rights, the council decides not to do anything for them in regard to the proposed water scheme.'' . \ Councillor Bowden seconded the motion. Councillor Budd said they should let tho ratepayers know what was the cost of the scheme, and put it fairly before them, so that they could consider whether tboy would get water from another source. The total cost might amount to iio,ooo, which was too expensive. ' ■ Councillor Appleton said that Mr. Martin, in his opinion, made it. quite' clear that the owners had riparian rights. If the opinion were placed before the ratspayers, the scheme would be rejected. On the amendment being put, it was rejected, Councillors Appleton, Budd, Dale, and "Bowden voting for it.

Councillor Bowden moved, as a further amendment: "That after considering the legal opinions, this council considers it advisable to add to the cost of tho proposed gravitation scheme 'the sum of £10,000 ,to cover probable, claims for riparian riglits and costs in connection with large manufacturing firms dependent upon tho water for their supply, independent o£ the general incapacity of- the scheme." Councillor Dale seconded the amendment, which, after some discussion, was rejected, the division being the same as before. , - Tho motion was then put and carried. •