“WATER MONOPOLY"

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 434, 16 August 1928, Page 13

“WATER MONOPOLY"

LOCAL BODIES OBJECT TO SUPPLY BILL CIRCULAR TO M.P.’S Believing that a board representative of the whole area is the only satisfactory method of dealing with the water supply, local bodies of Auckland are opposing the Water -Supply Bill. A circular sent to members of both Houses declares that the principle of the Bill confirms the City Council in the monopoly of the water supply for an area extending far outside the boundaries to which the city can reasonably hope to extend. This enables the City Council to impose its will upon the adjoining local bodies in a matter of vital necessity to them. “From a perusal of Clause 6 of the Bill it will be seen that the City Council is enabled to raise such sums as it may think fit, for the prosecution of any water supply scheme, whether for the supply of outside bodies or the city ratepayers,” states the circular. “Evidence was given before the recent Water Commission, showing that the expenditure contemplated in the proseerution of tlie water supplies from Mangatawhiri and Manga tangi amounted to £2,700,000. It will therefore be seen that this huge sum, together with the cost of any further schemes which the council may " decide to prosecute, may be raised and expended without the ratepayers having any opportunity whatever of expressing their views thereon. “AFFECTS ALL CONSUMERS” “It might be thought that this is an objection which affects only the ratepayers of the City of Auckland, but on reflection it will be seen that it directly affects the whole body of consumers. “The City Council has in the past prevented the suburban local bodies from obtaining a common water supply, and provided that its opposition is-'successfully eontimied IJie City Council will be enabled by tlie provisions of this Bill to compel the local bodies to purchase such water as they may require at its cost to the city, which will include interest and sinking fund, plus a reasonable profit. “The local bodies hold the view that all essential services such as electricity, water and transport, should not be operated by a particular local body where those services provide for the needs of a number of local bodies. There seems to be no good reason why a ratepayer of Mount Eden should pay more for his water supply so that a ratepayer of the city shall save on his rates, or conversely, why a ratepayer in the city should pay greater rates so that a ratepayer in Mount Eden may receive cheaper water.”