“Autocratic Proposal”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 415, 25 July 1928, Page 7

“Autocratic Proposal”

WATER SUPPLY BILL OPPOSED

Auckland Suburbs Unanimous

A UNANIMOUS resolution agreeing to the opposition of the Auckland Water Supply Bill which the Auckland City Council is submitting to Parliament was the outcome of a conference of delegates of Auckland local bodies held at the Mount Eden Borough Council Chambers last evening. Mr. E. H. Potter, Mayor of Mt. Eden, presided over an attendance of 33 delegates.

Reviewing the situation, Mr. Potter said that in June, 1924, the Health Department asked that a conference of local bodies be called to consider the question of water supply. The conference was called but the city was not represented. The' conference resolved that a report should be obtained, and Messrs. Rogers and Gray reported in March, 1925, on a supply from Lake Taupo and alternatively from Arapuni. Later they reported on a temporary supply from the Lower Waikato. The developments at Arapuni had made it possible to obtain a satisfactory supply which would he available not only for the city and suburbs, but also for the farming communities and the many settlements on the line of route. A Bill was prepared and submitted to the House. It was approved by the committee to which it was referred, but the city took active steps to oppose it, and induced a Labour member to move amendments to each clause. By this means the Bill was defeated, and the Government in 1927 appointed a commission to inquire into the question. The commission reported in favour of leaving the supply in the hands of the city, subject to a right for local bodies to demand arbitration on the price charged by the city for water. IN CITY’S HANDS The present Bill left the city as the responsible authority for the supply of water over an area from Henderson to Papatoetoe, and including portions of the Waitemata and Manukau Counties, and in the event of the city

failing or refusing to supply, the matter was to be referred to arbitration, although It was obvious that if they did not get the water to supply the arbitrator could not make them do so. It was for that conference to decide whether it was prepared to leave such a vital question as the supply of water in the hands of one-half of the population. Their experience in the past had not been encouraging. Last summer restrictions were imposed on the use of water before Christmas, although the previous winter was very wet. The same thing had often occurred before. There was no’certainty that there would not be a shortage next summer, and the right to arbitration on supply was useless if the city had not got the water to give. Auckland was still growing rapidly, said Mr. Potter, particularly in the outer areas, and the supply of water was a question of the utmost importance. The proposed Bill did not seem to him to promise any adequate service, and it left the decision in the hands of a council elected by half the Inhabitants of the area interested. Even the question of loans was taken out of the hands of the ratepayers. It was an autocratic and arbitrary proposal which he thought they should strongly oppose. DANGEROUS PROPOSAL Mr. S. Donaldson, Mayor of Newmarket, moved that the conference was still of the same opinion that a board representative of the whole area was 1 the only satisfactory method of deal-

Ing with the water supply question, and that the Bill should be opposed. His motion expressed the opinion that the proposal that loans for everything connected with the water supply should be taken out of the hands of ratepayers was dangerous and unconstitutional. and that the sources of supply to which the city was looking would result in making the price of water too high. He considered a report from an independent engineer should be obtained respecting the sources of supply to decide the most efficient and economical method of development.

Mr. P. Floyd, Mount Albert, who seconded the motion, said it was essential that the control of such a necessary commodity as water should be in the hands of all the local bodies dependent upon the supply. The mover and seconder agreed that the words “and that the present Bill he opposed,” be added. Tbe motion was carried unanimously. Mr. J. Melville, Mount Eden, said tbe next thing to do was to decide what method of opposing the Bill should he adopted. He thought it would be better if the question were not discussed in open council. The meeting then went into committee. A committee of six was appointed to make the necessary arrangements to oppose the Bill.