WATER BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 283, 30 November 1933, Page 10

WATER BILL.

LOCAL BODIES' VIEWS. ONE TREE HILL HGSTILE. OFFER MADE BY COMPANY. '(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. E -idence by several suburban local bodies in opposition to the provisions of the Waikato Water Bill was tendered this morning before the Select Committee which is considering the measure. Questions concerning the future establishment of a metropolitan water board were again discussed. At 1 p.m. the committee adjourned until 10.15 a.m. on Wednesday. Tlie committee consists of Messrs. S. G. Smith, A. E. Ansell. and W. A. Bodkin (Government) and Messrs. P. Eraser and R, Semple (Opposition). i # One Tree Hill's Opposition. Strong objection to the hill was voiced on behalf of the One Tree Hill Borough Council by its Mayor, Mr. I. J. Goldstine, who maintained that the •water supply should be owned and eontrolled by the community, through the municipality. His borough had its own pure and adequate water supply, which could provide for domestic and industrial requirements for many years to come. The average pumping was 256,000 gallons a day and the domestic rate was 1/6 per thousand gallons, which was an absolutely inclusive charge. Trade rates varied, the average being 1/3. It was hoped to reduce the rate next year. The capital cost of works was £34,000, £24,000 of which was raised by loans. One Tree Hill supplied its own ratepayers only, and that strengthened its opposition 'to the proposal that the company should he empowered to negotiate and sell water to those ratepayers. The borough hoped the bill would never see the light of day on the Statute Book.

Without prejudicing his general objections, Mr. Goldstine expressed hostility to the erection of another reservoir on One Tree Hill, the historic associations of which the borough was determined to preserve. To supply water for the North Shore the company would require a reservoir on One Tree Hill. Ultimate Purchase. Dealing with the proposed authority for the ultimate purchase, of the company's undertaking by-a water board, Mi*. Goldstine contended that provision should be made for fixation of the purchase price by valuation, instead of by the capital cost, as suggested. In addition, the water board should, in the event of acquisition, have the benefit of any exchange-advantage the company received in obtaining finance from London. It was noticeable that although the promoters had said they were not interested in the financial return, apart from payment for specific services, the company was prepared to pay tlie expenses of local body. representatives who gave evidence. In reply to questions, Mr. Goldstine expressed the opinion that the company, by undercutting, could come into the district and "pick the eyes out of the supply" to industrial concerns. One Tree Hill would place no barrier in the way of a comprehensive scheme . for solving Auckland's water problem, but naturally it would ask to be excluded from it, because it had its own satisfactory supply. "Eleventh-hour Ofier" of 65.

Mr. Goldstine said he was not prepared to indicate what the water cost his ■borough. "Naturally, we are not selling, at a loss," he added. "It would be against my principles to do thaf." (Laughter.) One Tree Hill had received an eleventh-hour offer from the company to supply water at the rate of 6d per thousand gallops, on condition that the borough withdrew its opposition and supported the bill. "For what reason the price was. below'that; bffered the other local bodies I don*fc know," he said, "but they were offering lis the world if we supported the bill. The council considered the offer,. and reaffirmed its decision to oppose the bill, on the general principle of a public utility being controlled by the municipality." Mr. Fraser: Did the company ask you to support'the bill? Mr. Goldstine: Assuredly. Mr. Fraser: Did they offer the usual conditions—free railage, etc.? Mr. Goldstine: No/-'--He said he : understood the price offered to another local body was 5d per thousand gallons.

The Chairman: That is. hearsay. Mr. F raser: Probably some were offered it for nothing. Company's Offer. Mr. Northcroft put in correspondence from the promoters offering to supply water at 6d per 1000 gallons to One Tree Hill and take over the borough reservoir and pumping plant. Mr. Goldstine suggested that the council's letter of September 7 be read, stating they would be pleased to discuss proposals. He added that "there' was no reply till November 15, which gave no opportunity for consideration prior to the Select Committee meeting. Mr. Northcroft: Was it not a good offer to take over the plant and make a eupply at 6d?

Witness: There were too many "ifs" about it, and it would be too dangerous to leave the water supply affecting public health in the hands of this company. He definitely declined to inform counsel regarding the borough's net cost of water, though willing to submit the figure confidentially to the committee. Onehunga Wants "To be Left Alone." Mr. E. Morton, Mayor of Onehunga, stated that the Borough Council opposed the bill. It had had its own supply for 40 years, and it had one experience with a water board, which ca,used it to lose the One Tree Hill supply. Onehunga delivered water in Mount Ttoskill, and Ellerslie at 10d,: making a reasonable profit, which partially recouped it for its losses on unpaid rates from a large number of State Advances houses in the borough. If a water board took over the supply, Onehunga- could not treat its consumers so liberally, and it would be obliged to borrow £6000 for meters. "Everything is going along smoothly. We wish to be left alone," declared the witness. Questioned by the chairman, he stated that Onehunga had never supported a water board for the whole Auckland area. Witness was reminded: by.■■fev'H. M. Rogerson (counsel fo.r the local'hodiea supporting the bill) that Onehunga was represented at the 1928 conference of local bodies, which resolved that the only solution of the water problem was a water hoard-

Mr. S. Vella, deputy-Mayor of Onehunga, stated that the a vera ue cost of supply wa»' 12/41- annually. He made no apology over making a profit on sales to . outside authorities. Long experience proved that there was no need for anxiety over future supplies. If a competitive .supply became available at (id it was bound to prejudice the borough's relations with its existing customers.

Harbour Board's Attitude. i As a member of the Auckland Harbour Board, said Mr. Vella, lie could state that the only matters- submitted to it were technical questions relating: to the laying of a water main across the harbour. Members of the Harbour Board were against the bill. ■- ill'. Northeroft submitted that the witness' statement was 'quite incorrect regarding the board's official attitude. Answering Mr. Bodkin, witness said there was nothing unreasonable about other local bodies requiring a water board, but it involved a danger to Onehunga interests. Mr. Bodkin: You prefer to negotiate while you have power up your sleeve'! Witness: Yes. He informed Mr. Semple that he was unwilling to express an opinion as to whether -many boroughs had a legitimate grievance against the City Council. He would like to hear the other side. Mr. Semple: Will you agree there is room for legitimate grievance regarding the price and quality? Witness: In my private cauiaeit-v I would say " Yes." [Replying to questions by Mr. Eraser, Mr. Vella said the interests of the Harbour Board were confined to interference with the navigation of the harbours. It had ascertained that there would be ho interference, and for that reason its opposition to the bill was withdrawn. In his opinion, a majority of the individual members of the board were opposed to the bill.

Mr. Fraser: Did the board Poms to any decision to facilitate the passage of the bill? Vella: Not that I know of. Tlie matter was left to the solicitors to see that, the interests of the board were properly protected. Manukau County's Opposition. Opposing the passage. «f the bill, Mr. F. M. Waters, chairman of the Manukau County Council, said a measure dealing with a vital public necessity should be promoted only by the State or by the local authorities concerned. Under the bill the company would have power to compete with the county, and, a loss of consumers might result in the council's own -water supply scheme becoming uneconomic. The cost of the scheme was £60,000 and the profits from the sale of water were being utilised to reduce the special rate levied as security for the loan indebtedness. Additional I profits would be devoted subsequently [to reducing the price of water to the consumers.- The existing charges were i 1/9 per thousand gallons, with reductions for large consumers where contracts were entered into. "Keep An Open Mind." When the committee resumes on Wednesday tlie case for the Auckland City Council will be stated in detail. "Members have listened to a vitriolic attack on tli© City Council," said Mr. J. Stanton, Auckland -City solicitor, before the committee rose, "and • I ask members to keep an open mind until they hear the case the city has to state."

Mr. Fraser: Not "vitriolic": say, "Incisive."

Mr. Stanton-: I thought almost that I "vitriolic" was too weak a word. The Chairman: You don't need to ask us to keep an open mind. Mr. Stanton said the council had more than a complete answer to many points raised, and, in addition, it would supply information on questions which had not been referred to.