CITY'S WATER SUPPLY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 224, 21 September 1932, Page 3

CITY'S WATER SUPPLY.

CHOICE OF WAITAKERES.

REPLY TO CRITICISM.

COMMISSION'S REPORT QUOTED.

Mr. G. Grey Campbell, chairman of the public services committee of the Auckland City Council—a committee which controls, among other activities, the water supply —replied this morning to criticism of his. address r.t the Chamber of Commerce on the city's water undertaking. "Mr. S. Gray, ex-town clerk of Mount Eden, was present at the addresses," said Mr. Campbell, "and I thought I had expressed myself with sufficient clearness as to leave no doubt as to my conclusions in regard to the past, present and future water supply of this city.

"Briefly, my conclusions were: —(1) That the Waitakeres had been chosen as the source of supply because of the consensus of engineering opinion; (2) that the obtaining of the supply from the Waitakeres entailed the lowest capital cost, and consequently the lowest cost to the consumer, and that development of this source had been done in easy stages, thus making financing easier; (3) that the next stage of development should be at Lower Nihotupu, because it was cheapest, but that after that step a proper survey should be made and estimates submitted of the cost of a supply from the Lower Waikato, as the cost of the Lower Waikato scheme would probably be in closer relationship to the cost of supply from other proposed sources; (4) that so far water had been obtained at the cheapest possible price from the development that has taken placc; (5) that before any further capital expenditure is undertaken it was necessary that a definite understanding and agreements with other local bodies should be entered into.

Question of Cost. "Mr. Gray in his comments says that I liacl doubts as to whether the next step should not be to go to the Waikato. Such doubt* were never expressed by me. Your other correspondent, Mr. S. Donaldson, Mayor of Newmarket, endeavours, in quoting from the water commission report, to make out that the commission reckoned that the City Council's cost for water to tlie outside bodies was too great. Mr. Donaldson has taken a few words out of their context, aiid in fairness should have quoted much more of the commission's remarks in this connection. The following is from the report, page 85:

" 'Had any evidence been otfered that Auckland City had at any time been endeavouring to drive a hard or unconscionable bargain with any of its purchasers, different considerations would arise, but the position appears to be that the price of 1/ was apparently originally iixed by agreement, and has so remained without any serious complaint. Under these circumstances, we do not think that we would be justified in finding that by reason of the price which it has charged, the city has been guilty of something which would entitle the local bodies promoting the creation of a water board to have the management of the city's water undertaking taken out of its hands.'

Not Cost Price. "On page 91 is the following: —'Upon the question of price, your commissioners express their considered opinion that the price should not be tile cost price, but should be such a price as, having regard to all the circumstances, will return to the city of Auckland a reasonable profit. In another part of this report your commissioners have given reasons for this conclusion.'

"Finally, their comment in regard to a water board is contained oil page 89: — 'To sum up our conclusions, we are of opinion that the creation of a water board, so faj- as the Auckland side of Auckland Harbour is concerned, would be most ill-advised and is unnecessary. It would not result in cheaper water to the local bodies outside Auckland city, but, on the contrary, would result in loss to the general body of the citizens of the Auckland urban area.'"