THE WATER RATING QUESTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume xxii, Issue 6455, 27 December 1904, Page 3

THE WATER RATING QUESTION.

TO THJ'I EDITOR. Sir,—l have neither time nor inclination to enter into a lengthy correspondence on the water question, but in your issuo of the 21st inst, Mr Oliver, of Green?treet, writes wishing n;e to explain how 1 " would set aboat adjusting clviina^e charge so as to l:e equitable, also why it would not bo equitable and much simpler if we all paid an equal ra'e per acre." From conversation with farmers on small and large holdings since writing my first letter, T find thore »m few—in fuel I cannot call to inihd -ne—who wished to make any complaint ag»dnst the water rate, but snveral stated they wnuld bo pl-<a-ed ti pay more if better supplied. So with regard to charges there i 3 not tho adjustment required that at one tune I thought.pecessnry, and while ratepayers ire satisfied with the present system it would be advisable N let well alone. In reference to the acreage rate, it would bo very difficult to make it equitable. I know of farms npto4oo acres watered with only a few chains of race on one side, and others in the same looa'ifcy with a l'aca running down the centre, having every paddock well watered. Fur farms sa served it would be most unjust to charge an equal rute per acre. I c innot understand why Mr Oliver should be t»xe > 7-Jd per acre for water supply, seeing that the minimum charge is 7s 6<i, and the maximum 3d per acre.—T am, et"., Joseph Batty. Cairnbrae, Dee. 24th 1904.