PUPUKE-WAIRAU.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 84, 9 April 1940, Page 11

PUPUKE-WAIRAU.

north shore water.

board dissatisfied.

more information sought.

Dissatisfaction with various features of the experts" report on a future water supply for the four Xorth Shore boroughs was expressed at a meeting of the Xorth Shore Water Board last evening, and it was decided to invite the experts, Mr. Hugh Vickerman. engineer, and Mr. T. L. Ward, public accountant, both of Wellington, to meet the board and deal with points on ich further information was required. It was also decided to obtain the views oi the Health Department on the findings set out in the report. Mr. H. F. W. Meikle, chairman of the board, presided.

A recommendation that a PupukeVVairau scheme be adopted for the cupply of the boroughs concerned was the conclusion reached in the report, after comparing this scheme with a supplv from the Auckland Citv Council's sources in the Waitakere Ranges. Treatment measures were proposed to purify the water from Lake Pupuke and the Wairau Stream, and the report s-tated tliat on a basis of relative cost** the sources on the Xorth Shore would provide a much cheaper supply than the \\ aitakeres. At the same time, however, the experts stated that, although they estimated a Pupuke-Wairau scheme would meet the requirements of the boroughs for a great many years, it was desirable tliat, u as an aid to it>s most advantageous operation, as well as to provide data for framing a long range policy," all other suitable water supply sources situated within a reasonable distance northwards should be investigated as soon as possible.

Prejudice Against Local Water. "Dissatisfaction -with the water supplied on the North Shore is so widespread and has continued for so long that many residents have come to believe it must always be unfit for drinking purposes and have installed water tanks to meet such requirements,'' concluded the report. '"This popular prejudice against the local water, which at times is admittedly justifiable, has unfortunately been encouraged by propaganda and controversy to such an extent that public confidence in the lake as a source of supply oppears to have been seriously undermined and will not be easily restored. Wc realise that under these circumstances it may be found imj>ossib]e to obtain immediately adequate public support for the proposal we have recommended. Though we are convinced that adoption of this in full is the most advisable course, we, nevertheless, because of the position, suggest for the board's consideration the immediate installation of a complete filtration plant, which would ensure treatment of the water supplied to the two largest boroughs, Devonport and Takapuna, and •without much difficulty, also to Northcote. It would not be very costly and is a work that would appear to be well within the present powers of the board to undertake. But if this course is adopted, we would stress that the various boroughs should be requested to take urgent steps to improve the condition of their reticulation pipes with a view to removing several causes of dissatisfaction resulting really from their old and dirty condition, but now wrongfully ascribed to the source of supply. If this were done we think it would go a long way towards restoring public confidence, and by so doing assist in the ultimate adoption of the complete proposal."

Estimated Supplies. Commenting earlier in their report on the need of looking northwards, the experts said very extensive development of close settlement was bound to occur along the seaboard, even as far as Waiwera. It was suggested that any watersheds available in the vicinity should bo acquired.

The experts estimated that the catchment area of the lake and its adjacent slopes, together amounting to 455 acres, ■would yield 200.000,000 gallons of wate." annually, and the Wairau catchment area, of 1200 acres, 570,000,000 gallons, making a total of 770,000,000 gallons annually. On a consumption of 40 gallons a head daily, this would serve the combined districts for the next 40 years, based on an estimated increase in population from 24,000 to-day to 53,400 for the four boroughs in 1980.

Comparison of Costs. Comparing the cost of water under the two proposals investigated, the experts stated, tha-t they estimated the difference in favour of the Pupuke-Wairau scheme at nearly 3d for every 1000 gallons at the commencement and not less than (id & 1000 gallons in 1975. Also, there was the advantage that, as a result of progressive decreases in costs there would be a saving rising to between £15,000 and £20,000 35 years hence, the aggregate estimated saving being some hundreds of thousands of pounds. Further, at the end of the period, the Water Board would be the owner of "numerous valuable assets," and would be in a position to incur any necessary heavy capital expenditure without recourse to a loan. They estimated that by 1983 a reserve fund of £48,000 could be built up.

Report "a Bombshell." "The report is a bombshell and contentious from beginning to end," said Mr. J. Guiniven, Mayor of Takapuna. "It is disappointing in the engineer's lack of vision and grasp of detail, and in the reliance placed on tentative estimates which could be cut to pieces."

Mr. Guiniven recalled that Dr. Hughes, of the Health Department, had declared that the water in the lake was polluted by filth, and building in the vicinity would have to be restricted. Compensation to property owners would involve a far larger sum than was allowed for in the report. The experts had made no allowance for the cost of acquiring watersheds to the northwards, if these were available. The estimates of costs, watershed run-offs and population increases revealed a serious lack of knowledge of local conditions, and the scheme was totally inadequate to meet the future requirements of the boroughs and the bays beyond. "Disappointment to Thousands." "If the recommendation is adopted it will mean the end of North Shore cooperation in an Auckland metropolitan water scheme," said Mr. H. M. Wills, of Takapuna. "That would be a big disappointment to many thousands of people.''

Mr. Wills criticised the estimates, and declared that the basis on which costs had been calculated was unsound at many points. He stated that the majority of the people on the North Shore would willingly pay an extra 10/ a year for water if they could obtain an adequate, guaranteed supply.

In a criticism of the estimates of costs, Mr. E. Aldridge said the greatest weakness in the report was the failure of the experts to provide for any difference in administrative costs between a North Shore scheme and a stand-by plant for a supply from Auckland city. They had allowed £250 a year under both headings, but if the PupukeWairau scheme were adopted it would be necessary, to set up a complete engineering and office organisation costing some thousands a year. On a number of points the ligures were obviously "loaded" against an Auckland city scheme.

Mr. Meiklo, who said there was sufficient water available on the Xorth Shore to augment the lake supply, recognised that there were aspects of the report which demanded further consideration. His original motion that the report Ik* adopted and the scheme be proceeded with lapsed for want of a seconder.

It was decided that, after the board had met the experts, the members of the four borough councils be called together in conference to hear the engineer's replies to questions which would be submitted to him.