Water and Drainage.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 29 January 1914, Page 4

Water and Drainage.

1 SUGGESTED TEJLUIS EUB, i COMB.LS'I.\'G WITH SHAxNAUxV , Recently the members of the , Eoxton Borough Council visited , Shannon aud met representatives ; there and discussed the advisability of the two towns combining in ; paying the cost oi the headworks J and main to Shannon oi : the pro- | posed water scheme from' the | Shannon hills. At that meeting J the Shannon representatives pas- ! sed a resolution asking the Eoxton Borough Council to state (1) what proportion of the cost of the | headworks and main to Shannon Shannon would be expected to . pay in the event of the two towns ; agreeing to combine in the matter, and (2) upon what terms Eoxton would be prepared to supply Shannon with water. A special meeting of the Borough Council was hold to consider this matter wh'on there were present: His Worship the Mayor (Mr Ci. H. Stiles) and Councillors Chrystall, Barber, Henderson, Freeman, Head, Green and Spiers. The Mayor said the matter was an important one ami should be carefully considered. hi arriving at a decision they wanted to be careful that the terms offered were reasonably just from the point of view of both sides. They did not want to mage them so easy that Shannon would benefit at the expense of Eoxton, nor too hard for Shannon to entertain. They had to recognise that they were dealing with a small community, with a population in the proposed water area of about 550, also they had to deal with, it from the point of view that any portion of the cost that Shannon would contribute was a direct benefit to Eoxton, as the cost of the scheme to Eoxton whether Shannon joined it or not would.be the same. If Shannon came in the cost of upkeep and management would be lessened as far as Eoxton was eon-' corned. Mr Suggate had supplied the following estimate of the cost of headworks ami main to Shannon: Shannon scheme alone --Cost of headworks and eightinch main to Shannon £5750. In the Eoxton or combined scheme if would bo necessary to take the main an additional mile up the stream and a nine inch instead of an eight inch main would be necessary, and the estimated cost of headworks and main to Shannon but the Shannon people considered that this was too high. ' The cost of the work would be £7800 irrespective of whether Shannon joined or not and any amount that Shannon agreed to contribute would be a direct gain to Eoxton. Another point was that in all fu.ture outlay and the cost of maintenance Shannon would pay half. Personally he would like to see an agreement arrived at whereby Shannon would combine on a basis of one-third of the cost to be j borne by them and two-thirds by Eoxton. That is Shannon to pay £2000 and Eoxton £'£5200. He considered this was a fair basis. Also if this arrangement were made Shannon would be entitled lo use one-third of the water and Eoxton two-thirds. His suggestion should appeal to Shannon very much. Eoxton would be dealing very fairly with them and j ii. they were serious in the matter I they would certainly consider it. j as it meant a saving to them on their own scheme of £-3250. The Mayor said that as far as a catchment area was concerned, if one were found necessary afterwards ( he considered that both towns should share equally m the cost. Referring to the suggestion to supply Shannon with water through a meter, the Mayor said lie was not very much taken with the idea, as he considered the. other

arrangement would be much better for both parties. Working on a population of 550 and allowI ing 40 gallons per unit per day would mean a consumption of 8,030,000 gallons per annum, which at sixpence per 1000 gallons would give an annual revenue of £200 15s. In supplying through a meter it would be absolutely essential that a minimum would have to be fixed and the above amount should be the minimum. Referring to the charge of sixpence per 1000 gallons, the Mayor said that Levin charged the Railway Department one shilling per thousand gallons. Some time since Levin offered to supply Foxton at the rate of sixpence per 1000 gallons, but it was considered too high, but the two cases were not parellel. In the Levin case Foxton would, in addition to their reticulation area, have had to lay down 14 miles of main, but in the Shannon the case the water would be supplied right into their reticulation area and outside of that they would have no mains to lay. Capitalising the estimated revenue from water supplied through a meter at seven per cent., it would total £2,850 or £250 more than the other scheme. If Shannon preferred to buy their water through a meter, then a matter for the council to consider would be whether they were prepared to set a fixed annual charge for what water they required, instead of fixing the price at per 1000 gallons, but that was a matter that could be discussed later if necessary. The whole question should be discussed from the point of view that they wanted to bring Shannon in rather than keep them out. Councillor Barber agreed that tke basis of one-third to two-thirds was a fair one. On thing that required to be made quite clear, however, was whether Foxton was to be limited to two-thirds of the water, and in the event of more than that proportion being required would they be charged for it. Councillor Chrystall said he would like to see an arrangement arrived at whereby Shannon would combine with Foxton, but he thought that to allow them in on a one-third basis was too low. He would prefer to see a basis of two thirds" to three-fifths, which he considered more equitable. Councillor Speirs said lu- would i like to work in -with Shannon, J and would be agreeable to the basis suggested by the Mayor. While he considered that a basis of twofifths or three-fifths would be more equitable, he did not think there would be any chance of Shannon agreeing to it, as there did not appear to be any general desire there for a water supply. He did not like the idea of supplying Shannon through a meter. So long as there was plenty of water it would be alright, but in a dry season it was just possible there would be a hitch. Councillor Green said that the suggested sharing of the cost of headworks and main to Shannon on a basis of one-tnird and twothirds would be*most satisfactory. It was decided on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Speirs, that this council, after careful consideration, agree that Shannon be allowed to share the cost of headworks ana main to Shannon in the ratio of one-third to two-thirds, but that the catchment ax-ea, if afterwards required, be paid for in equal shares. The cost of upkeep and all expenses incurred afterwards to be equally shared. In the event of a meter being installd, that the Council charge at the rate of sixpence per thousand gallons, and that a minimum revenue from such source be £2000 per annum. —Foxton Herald.