WAIKATO WATER SCHEME

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1015, 4 July 1930, Page 7

WAIKATO WATER SCHEME

CHEAP AND SAFE SUPPLY FOR AUCKLAND SUBURBAN BODIES ACTIVE In conference last evening, local body representatives of Auckland agreed to advance the interests of the project to supply Auckland with water from the Waikato. Steps are to be taken to have the Auckland Provincial Water Board Bill introduced during the present session of Parliament.

A COMMITTEE consisting of Messrs. ; ■*-*- E. IT. Potter, Mayor of Mount : Eden; L. E. Rhodes, Mayor of Mount j Albert; S. Donaldsdn, Mayor of Newmarket; C. F. Gardner, Mayor of New Lynn; Mr. J. W. Williamson, Mayor of Takapuna; and Mr. J. M. Melville, was set up to further the interests of the scheme. The Bill was withdrawn in 1927 because of the opposition of the Auckland City Council, and it was not presented last year because statutory notice had not been given. Mr. Potter, who presided at the conference last evening, pointed out that the advantages of the Waikato water scheme presented an immediate solution of the water problem for all time. The Water Board proposed would be in a position to assist districts which already had their own schemes, without involving local authorities in any additional capital expenditure. The supply from Taupo Moana and the Waikato River would bo for all time. Tho initial instalment of the Waikato scheme would be 15.000,000 gallons daily, delivered over an area from Mercer to the northern boroughs. It could be supplemented at any time. Tho cost would not be more than £700,000, and a firm price had already been received for pipeline delivered on tho ground. A. consumption of 3,000,000 gallons a day at Is for 1,000 gallons would yield revenue sufficient to meet all expenses, and, as consumption increased, the cost to the consumer would be reduced. That would bo because the supply was unlimited, and no construction of dams was needed. There was a huge catchment area of 1,000 square miles round Taupo Moana. The lake presented a safe supply, with the additional protection of filtration and chlorination.

POOLING OF REVENUE 1 The chairman added that he had been informed that the Waitakere ! Ranges scheme had cost €1,500,000. It would not be economic to allow further exploitation there; a water board would provide a solution. The Waikato and the Waitakere schemes combined would cost €2,200,000. At 7 per cent., interest and sinking fund on the Waitakere scheme absorbed €105,000 annually; similar charges on Waikato would take €52,000. Revenue from both schemes from 12,000,000 gallons at 9d a thousand would be £164,250, or from 14,000,000 at Sd. €170,300. The pooling of the revenue of both schemes would pay interest and sinking fund, and water could be sold to local bodies at the prices mentioned. Tho cheapness of the WaikatoTaupo project was evident in the j# - j duction of prices as the consumption j rose. Were 12,000,000 gallons to be i consumed, the price would be at 4*d i or 5d a thousand gallons. Expend!- , ture on tho scheme would be secured ! by a rate, to bo struck over the whole jof the proposed board’s area. “Such j rates are never collected,” the chairj man added. j For the Onehunga Borough Council, ; Mr. F. W. Mountjoy said lie believed I tho water board would eventually be formed, but the question was whether the time was opportune. Onehunga had a satisfactory water supply at present. [ “There is no reason why each district. should not continue to draw on its local supply, gradually becoming dependent on the board,” Mr. Botter said. . * : i • ' r L i > . , 1 . . ’ . • * . 1 ; ,

Mr. Rhodes thought action should be taken. If the City Council would not enter the scheme at present, other areas would be justified in proceeding Mr. A. A. Buckley, of Mount Albert, said Hamilton, Morrinsville, Te Awamutu and other Waikato towns could be supplied effectively were the Waikato tapped above Cambridge. In Mr! Potter’s view, it would be better to begin at Mercer, though it would be possible to tap at Cambridge in the future. No opposition was raised to the projeet. though the Onehunga representafives, in the absence of authority to j support the scheme from their council. | did not take part in the voting. Mr. Potter mentioned that an expert report to the City Council had said that water from the Mangatawhiri and the Mangatangi streams, tributaries of the Waikato, would cost £3.000,0Q0. but the board could obtain more water from the Waikato itself for €700,000. The new Huia dam in the Waitakeres had cost £700,000, and would give less water than the Waikato scheme. With a, dam, there was also the risk of shortage in dry weather.