LOSS OF REVENUE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 174, 25 July 1928, Page 10

LOSS OF REVENUE.

BLOW TO TAKAPUNA.

UNPROFITABLE WATERSHED.

REIMBURSEMENT SUGGESTED. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.! WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Owing to restrictions imposed by the Health Department upon 200 acres of land in the watershed area of Lake Pupuke. the revised valuation of that area is £42.040, as against £80,310, and, as a result the Takapuna Borough Council has loe-t £1500 in revenue by one stroke of the pen. Mr. A. Harris (Waiteinata) brought this matter tinder notice in the House this afternoon, in the hope that some mean# might be discovered whereby Takapuna might be reimbursed. The borough, he said, was not asking for anything unreasonable. Water from Pupuke supplied all the North Shore boroughs. which contain about 22.000 people. Owing to an edict of the Healtn Department, lands within the watershed area could not now be subdivided for building purposes. Though some of this was the most valuable land in the borough, to-day it was not available even for grazing, for fear of polluting the water supply. The owners of this land had been paying high rates on highly-valued land, when for all practical purposes the land was valueless. The position was that Takapuna Borough Council was losing £1500 a year and more in rates for the benefit of other local bodies in the North Shore district. Some means would have to be found to reimburse the borough. Hon. J. A. Young: Why not a local bill promoted by the boroughs concerned. who could elect between themselves how the loss should be apportioned? Mr. Harris: I suggested that myself as it is a question of the four boroughs drawing water from the lake, agreeing to reimburse Takapuna Borough for the loss sustained. I understand that a conference has been held, but so far without any agreement being arrived at. This difficulty has arisen owing to the action of the Government, the Health Department having reduced the valuation from £80.310 to £42,640. Hon. A. D. McLeod: That was a value which ought never to have been put on the land. Mr. Harris: If that is so Takapuna is a great deal worse off, because that land would be the pick of the borough if £™ I 4™§» ««r« aUmmd on Jfe

Hon. Mr. McLeod: Would not Takapuna itself suffer from any impurity of the water? Mr. Harris: Yes, in common with the three other boroughs. Takapuna is, of course, vitally interested in the preservation of the purity of the water, but the others are equally interested. The Vvhole monetary loss falls on Takapuna simply because the watershed area is in that borough. Probably the suggestion made by the Minister of Healtn, that a local bill be introduced empowering the interested local bodies to contribute toward? making up the loss would meet the case.