WATER SUPPLY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 229, 27 September 1930, Page 15

WATER SUPPLY.

CITY AND BOARD. REPLY BY MR. POTTER. ATTITUDE OF CHAMBER OF CAMMERCE. "Mr. Eutrican has made a further statement respecting the water, and i admit he makes me uneasy," writes Mr. E. H. Potter, Mayor of Mount Eden. "He says the cost of water at present is per 1000 gallons, and that the increase in price is due to expenditure on dams and filtration. There is the lower Nihotapu dam to be started very shortly. Then"there is the development in the Hu'nua ranges, which is to cost £3,000,000. "When this has been carried water will be a drink for the wealthy only. Those of moderate means will be unable to afford it. "Seriously, Mr. Entrican should admit that lila scheme is incapable of supplying the extended area that can be served from the Waikato source. The City Council have done remarkably well out of the water in the past; they cannot expect it to last for ever. In addition to the £437,000 transferred from water to the general account, there were unconsidered trifles like £3020 charged for interest on some unexplained object, and other smaller amounts. It is -- hope of continuing these profits that leads Mr. Entrican to make his desperate effort to block the bill. "I should like to say a few words on the discussion on the Water Bill in the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. L. A. Eady, an ex-City Councillor, says the city had a capital expenditure of £1,800,000, a burden that city ratepayers were carrying for the purpose of supplying water to 230,000 people. The population is wrong; the capital expenditure is not a burden on the city; even the amount is greater than that shown in the statement to March, 1929, the latest published. According to the Government Statistician the population of the Auckland urban area of April 1,1930, was 211,905. In the area are nine local bodies, with a population of 551.935, who do no draw water from the citv. The number, therefore, is not 230,000, but 159,970, a rather considerable difference. Ihe capital expenditure has not been a burden on city ratepayers. The interest has been paid by the water account and outside local bodies have contributed largely to it. After meeting'this charge for interest the water account has contributed £437,000 to the general account. It is business, not philanthropy, that has led to the expenditure on water. "Mr. Lunn thinks there should not be two authorities to cover the one area. Really, the Chamber of Commerce should acquaint themselves with the details of the proposals they criticise. The city supplv will come from the north; the board's supply from the south. The area which the proposed board will cover is much wider than that which the city supplies, and the water will be sold at cost price. I hope Mr. Lunn will not think it unbusinesslike not to make a profit."