ALL TO PAY?

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1932, Page 12

ALL TO PAY?

WATER FOE DEPART-

MENTS

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

A proposal made by the Works Committee to the City Council last night that water meters should be installed in all departments of the council where, in the opinion of the City Engineer, sufficient water is used to justify the installation, and that each department should bo charged with the meter cost and a rate of Is per 1000 gallons of water used, raised differences of opinion as to the value of paper entries and paper balances. It was maintained by supporters of tho proposal that a complete check was essential before the Waterworks Department could establish the cost of giving supply.

Councillor J. Burns said that the charge would be-simply a paper charge, but the installation of meters would amount to some hundreds of pounds. The citizens would get no benefit whatever.

Councillor Forsyth said that it was not as small a matter as it might appear. The cost of a metor was about £3, but there was a shortage of water supply, and the proposals to meet it would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was known that wastage had been going on for years. The proposed step would put the whole thing on a proper footing. The question was constantly being raised as to why the water charges were what they were. If it were found that departments like the Reserves were responsible for the high charge, they should be debited with their share.

.Councillor Meadowcroft thought that before the clause were passed the Reserves Committee should discuss it. If the Water Department charged the Reserves Department for the water used, then it would be fair for the Eeserves Committee to charge for the use of tho land on which the reservoir stood.

Councillor Wallace said this was merely a step to put the Water Department on its own feet.

Councillor Gaudin considered the committee's suggestion futile.

Councillor Appleton spoke of charges with which the Water Department was saddled which it should not bear. The water rates in the city should be reduced, and if the reserves were costing too much,'it should be known that the reserves were making the rates high and not the Water Department. Councillor Bennett said that it might seem strange that tho only department which paid for water was the Milk Department. Although on the Works Committee, he felt a diffidence in passing this resolution. Each department might be debited for water, but to meter all departments seemed impossible. Councillor Forsyth said that the quantity of water used per head showed a great wastage, and this had a bearing on proposals for further supplies. Another clause in the report recommended that a readjustment should be made in the charge debited to the Waterworks Department each year on account of salaries. Councillor Forsyth suggested that that clause also should be referred back to the committee, for apparently the council preferred to treat the matter as a joke. ""Councillor H. A. Huggins said that the matter was not a joke in any sense. Many years ago the council fixed in a quite arbitrary manner a charge for salaries against the Waterworks Department of £20,000. Evidently that charge was fixed with some ulterior motive, for even to-day the approximate charge for salaries was only £12,000. The difference was very great, and the council should look into tho matter at once. Were the council to look about for means to prevent waste, there would be no need to look about for additional supplies for possibly a considerable time to come. ,

.Councillor Meadowcroft asked who t»&£ going to be asked to pay for water utedat a big city fire.

The Mayor remarked that that was another matter altogether. All that he hoped was that if there was another big fire the brigade would be able to use the water, and not have a repetition of what happened at the markets fire, where the water could not be used.

The matter was referred back to the committee.