THE HYDRO-ELECTRIC LOAN.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 November 1921, Page 4

THE HYDRO-ELECTRIC LOAN.

The proposal to borrow the sum of £9OOO for increasing the size of the tunnel, fore-' bay, etc., and make a survey for additional water-power, is a most extraordinary one; yet the ratepayers who desire to see the hydraulic resources of the district

fully developed, the town progress, and industries established here, must accord it their support. The Mayor and a majority of the council have strongly opposed increasing the size of the tunnel to carrj' any additional water that may be turned into the Waiwakaiho or the Mangamahoe. They ignored the resolutions passed almost unanimously by the public meeting, which asked that a survey only be made, and the tunnel meantime be continued at the larger size, but instead decided to put before ratepayers a proposal to borrow £9OOO to carry out the work. Then, on second thoughts, the council decide to obtain a report upon the feasibility of the scheme from the Government hydro-electric expert, whose report, when it comes to hand, is entirely favorable, confirming the recommendations made by the consulting engineers and the actions of those who have supported them and the town manager. The council now “dunno where they are”, nor do many of the ratepayers. But this is clear: The council—or a section of them —are perfectly indifferent about the matter, and perhaps believe that in the confusion created by their inconsistent and illogical actions the proposal will be killed by the ratepayers at the poll, so endorsing i> their actions, notwithstanding the opinions of the various engineers. Otherwise the council last night, 1 when the matter came up for discussion, would have come right out, and in the light of the report of Mr. Kissell, given the ratepayers a lead in support of the proposal. Again, the council asks for authority to raise £9OOO, when it is known perfectly well that the whole cost will not be more than £6OOO. Of- course, the taking of a poll on the matter at this stage is an absurdity; it is, as we have before remarked, putting the cart before the horse. But since the council have chosen this tortuous course, there is no option but for ratepayers to support l the proposal—not that it will be necessary to raise all the money, but to ensure that the great mistake is not made of building a tunnel incapable of taking the whole of the water that later on may be obtained. Apart from the possibility of securing extra power, however, Mr. Kissell has shown that it is very good business to increase the size of the tunnel, for by so doing there will be a saving of 48-h.p. on a load of 6000 h.p., and 144-h.p. on a load of 9000-h.p. As the council made a clear profit of £9 per horse-power last year, the extra profit per annum would thus be £432 and £1296 respectively. Is it not very good business to spend £6OOO on increasing the size of the tunnel, etc., to earn this extra revenue? And is it not better to be sure than sorry? How many works —yes, even in New Plymouth—have after a period of years been found to be totally inadequate because of the lack of foresight and appreciation of the growth of the town or district displayed at the time they were planned or undertaken? Tens of thousands of pounds have thus been wasted. And we certainly should take no such risks with the development of hydro-electric resources that are the possession, not only of New Plymouth, 1 but of the whole district.