WATER SUPPLY SCHEME

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4823, 22 April 1925, Page 3

WATER SUPPLY SCHEME

CLASSIFICATION OF AREA. DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL. A communication was received by the Hauraki Plains Council at its meeting on' Thursday from Mr E. F. Adams, water supply engineer, stating that in accordance with instructions he had proceeded to classify the water supply area and after careful consideration, and taking into account' the full circumstances of the area, had to classify the whole of it Class A, as “lands receiving or supposed to receive immediate or direct benefit.’’ Cr. Harris said that he, on his own behalf, and on behalf of the settlers near him, would enter, a protest against the classification of the whole of the land as “A.” There were two streams, one of which was proposed to be harnessed, touching the properties near his own. . Cr. McLoughlin said that .the settlers pumping water from any stream could also protest. He favoured the fla* rate./as if a'proportion was permitted to get the supply cheaper than, others the cost to those who* could not pump from streams would be . increased so as to make the cost prohibitive. Cr. Parfitt moved that th<j Council adapt the classification.submitted by Mr Adams. Seconded by Cr, McLoughlin. C r . Parfitt pointed out that the area was defined according to the result of a. referendum, and no adverse votes had been recorded from the area mentioned by Cr. Harris. For that reason he favoured the flat rate, ,as there was no doubt that the aettleis concrened would use the water supply for domestic purposes if not for stock. There was no doubt that if a difference in the classification was permitted about 90 per cent would be. classed “B,” and there would be practically no difference between the two rates. The matter was discussed at lengtn, Cr. Harris contending that if bne classification was adopted many settlers would vote against because they would not get a benefit equal to the amount of rates they would be called upon to pay. The rate was 5d in the

Ur. Hayward said he favoured the classification of the area. His experience had proved that the benefits of fresh water, had been exaggerated in many cases. He had voted against at the referendum, and was of the opinion that should he be included in the area reticulated he' would be out of pocket to the amount of the rate. He was sure that many farmers could not afford the rate.

Cr. Harris supported, and contended that if the council adopted the flat iaU’ the settlers would fight the matter in court/ In view of this it would he desirable not to lay the pipe lines along the roads which fronted settlers not desiring a supply, Many settlors, by reason of the unproductivity cf their land, could not afford to take the water.

Cr. Parfitt pointed put that until these lands became productive the inning need not be laid. As there was no doubt that these sections would in t’nie require the water, the area should not be cut. Until the mains were laid a nominal rate only could bn charged. .

The clerk pointed out that this was ;r question of charges for water, but did not affect the rating. He did not tlrnk it fair to strike a uniform rate over the whole area except as security f< r the loan. The water should be paid for by particular charges for water used, but there was no doubt that non-users should have to pay a nominal rate, ap the water was available if required. <;r. Harris advocated a non-cunsum-e's’ rate, as struck by the Thames Valley-Electric Power Board, and only l iving mains on roads that would be payable propositions, just as- the Power Board did. .

Cr. Hayward suggested canvassing the district and securing signatures to a definite obligation to take the water. When this was done the question of whether the supply scheme would be a paying proposition would be ascertained, and also the amount of the non-consumers’ rate would be .determined. If many did not take the water> smaller pipe lines could no utilised, but if too many, would not take a supply the burden on the rest would be oppressive. Cr. Hayward suggested that should the poll be successful the scheme be •that all ratepayers desirous of taking water be asked. to sign a guarantee for water, those ratepayers to oe charged at per head of.stock carried. Any ratepayer not desirous of taking water if available, would-be liable to a non-consumers’ rate, not to exceed ’ 2 .1 in the £. ; After the tea adjournment Cr. Parfitt said that members had discussed th? matter during the interval and had agreed to cut out certain areas and the mains therein and perhaps reduce the size- of the- main to the headworks. If-this was agreeable to the council the rest of the area could be classified “A.”- The area proposed to be cut out was the sections on both Hides, of the Waitakaruru-Maukoro canal and those between Pourua Road and the. canal .with the exception of those fronting the Waitakariir.u-Pipi-roa road.

Cr. McLoughlin pointed out that the objection of the settlers fronting the Piako River to the uniform clasdficatino would not be met.

... Cr.. Parfitt pointed out that these settlers had the right to appeal to the court. It was unlikely that so would’ object that the laying of. pipes woujd be jeopardised, as was thfe case of Uie r canal-bank area. • After, further discussion it was suggested that a charge for water be fixed at. 10s per grown beast and 5s for . young stock, the balance of the sum required for the annual interest, sinking fund, and maintenance,.etc., to be collected by a flat rate. Cr. Parfitt moved, and Cr. McLoughlin seconded : “That steps be taken to exclude from the Hauraki Plains West water area all that land west of -Ponnrna. Rond and south of the section fronting the Waitakarui u-Pipi-

roa road. » “That the Council adopt the classification by Mr Adams. “That the annual, revenue required to pay the maintenance and annual charges on the loan be raised first by way of water charges up to 8s per annum for grown beasts and half price for young stock, and a mutable charge for household and other supply : and, secondly, by way ol rate for the difference between the revenu obtained from the charge and the total annual revenue required.” Cr. Harris put up a strenuous argument to defer cutting out the area until lie had consulted the ratepayers. Cr., Parfitt pointed out that even if all the settlers desired to take water the mains would not be a paying proposition. On being put to the meeting Crs. Miller, McLoughlin, Nicholson, Parfitt, and Hayward voted for and Cr. Harris against. Cr. Hare did not vote. RIPARIAN RIGHTS. A further communication was received Jrom Mr Adams stating that he was of the opinion that the time had arrived to make a definite statement on the water availaole to the. riparian owners below the intended headworks after the. requirements of the water supply area shall have been salisfied. The areas fronting the'Waitakaruru stream below the intended headwarks and between there and the Mmgatarata stream confluence were ruru No. 1c No. 1 blocks vbgkjqcmf Crown land. Sections 28 and 29 on the south side of the stream had no frontage thereto, but would no doubt, with the other lands, use the stream in the absence of other supply. The lamks below- the Mangatarata confluence were furnished by this stream with an abundant summer supply, as the Mangatarata carried nearly as much water as the upper Waitakaruru. The Crown land referred to was for the most part very poor hill country, with a high proportion of unploughable area. They were quite unsuitable for close settlement,’ and it was unlikely that they would require more summer water than was to oe found in the soaks, gullies, and streams travelling them and discharging into the main stream below the intended headworks. Quite apart from this, however, it was evident that the upper Waitakaruru stream would provide the 300,000’ gallons, the 24-hour requirement of the H.auraki Plains West water supply area and still leave upwards of 200,000 gallons for the use of the lands in question. K wap decided to forward the letter to Hie Under-Secretary for Lands, as • reoveeted.