WATER SUPPLY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 227, 24 September 1932, Page 7

WATER SUPPLY.

THE CITY'S POLICY. SUBURBAN CRITICISM. We have received the following letter from Mr. S. Gray:— I am not as much impressed by Mr. Grey Campbell's reply on the sources of the city's water supply as he may expi!"t. He sums up his conclusions under six headings. (1) That the Waitakeres were selected as the source because of the consensus of engineering opinion, to which I might reply that the choice of the Waitakere stream may have been justified at the time, but that when further growth of the city took place it was a mistake to go on to Nihotupu. It was already evident that it would be inadequate for requirements. (2) That the Waitakere supply • called for the least capital cost, and could be taken in easy i stages, and entailed the smallest cost Ito the consumer. The cost of Nihotupu development has so far been less than going to the lower Waikato, but as this development will later be scrapped, it cannot be called an economical method. It will scarcely be contended that water is cheap in Auckland either to those in the city or those outside. (3) That lower Nihotupu should be the development and that after that a proper survey should be made of where next t6 go. This is the crux of the question. If the proper survey decides on Waikato, further development at Nihotupu is superfluous. If it decides on Hunua and spends three millions on the project, it is but a matter of time before that also is superfluous. (4) That water had been obtained at the lowest possible price from the development which has taken place. This may be true, but the development has been in the wrong direction. (5) That definite agreements must be made with local bodies before further capital expenditure is undertaken. The local bodies are unlikely to make such agreements, as they desire a Water Board. The day of tied houses is over. Mr. Grey Campbell overlooks" one or two things. He says nothing of the restrictions on supply that have taksn place. The argument for the Waitakeres is that the area is the property of the city council, which still entertains hopes of making' money out of water. They have not done so recently, although they made large sums in the past. It is doubtful if they will do so in the futur», but if the lower Nihotupu dam is buiit and the water pumped we shall all pay dearly for it. By going to the Waikato, an unlimited supply can be had. It must be pumped and filtered, which is done to Waitakere water. The cost of lower Nihotupu is estimated to be £490,000. The. cost of lower Waikato is estimated at £750,000. Mr. Grey Campbell has an estimate from his own engineers of a larger amount, and though t he deplores that engineers are fallible, he thinks his own cannot be wrong. The city have thought more of money than of water in their policy, and the time has passed for further profits. At present the cost of water to the city's reservoirs is quoted as 5.84 pence per 1000 gallons. If the city will join with the other local bodies in the formation of a board, water cou'd be obtained for 6d per 1000 gallons; The interest on money spent in the Waitakeres must be added to this, which is why no more money should be spent there. Mr. Grey Campbell has ignorea what I said about the manner in which the. water account of the city is kept It is a matter which should be looked into.