CITY WATER SUPPLY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20623, 12 August 1932, Page 18

CITY WATER SUPPLY.

i-o t'ii: EDiioE or tub press. c r . With reference to the letter in 'I hk Pr.r.s* signed by "Still a Victim." ihc statements made suggest his iden:itr with a ratepayer -who has persistently been using excess water over -he past four years and persistently stating that he has not done so. On the assumption that this identification is correct, I submit the following facts. The consumption figures are:— Reading. Consumption. 'March, 1&32 436,000 69,000 Sept., 1931 367,000 11,000 March, 1931 356,000 69,000 Sept 1930 287,000 17,000 March, 1930 270,000 52,000 Sept 1929 215.000 12,000 March, 1929 206,000 45,000 Sept, 192S 158.000 3,000

The ratepayer has complained throughout that tlio meter was inaccurate, but refused to pay the cost of a test. Finally, in order to satisfy him, after he had been very troublesome to all concerned, a free test of the meter was made. This test was arranged, and the ratepayer notified of the date, but he refused" to attend, although he :>.grecd to recognise the test if the meter proved wrong and refused to do to if the meter proved correct. The meter registered 6" per cent, slow in favour of the consumer, and he was notified accordingly. The consumption of 250 gallons per day for four persons is perhaps heavy; but it is the Mimmer consumption only which is large, the winter consumption being small. On June 20* th this ratepayer paid part of his 1931 account and part of his 1932 account, no mention being made of the fact that any further payment would be made. As he had proved so intractable, he was notified on July 7th that unless the full account was paid his water supply would be cut off, which he acknowledged, giving some absurd theories of the possibility of meter inaccuracies. This waß again replied to, and the ratepayer informed on July 11th that unless the account was paid on July 16th the water would be cut off, as apparently he was deterbined not to pay. This letter was not acknowledged, *nd the water was cut off on July 19th. The ratepayer then wrote stating that the Town Clerk had promised the water would not be cut off, which was absolutely incorrect. Tho account was finally paid on July 23rd, and the water supply reconnected, on the same day, the usual reconnexion fee of 2s 6d being remitted in this particular case. Regarding the official statement that "the meter" was a mystery to all officers, this is incorrect. The actual wording of a letter written by his Worship the Mayor, and often quoted by the ratepayer, was that "the matter" was a mystery to the officers concerned. —Yours, etc., JOHN W. BEANLAND, Chairman, Works Committee, Christchurch, City Council. August 11th, 1932.

to irb sjixoa or the rsEss. Sir,—l have just been reading a letter in Taa PbeSs', written by another water rat© victim, whose water supply has been cut off. It seems almost incredible in this City, with its unlimited water supply, that a citizen should be treated in this manner. It would be interesting to hear the Council's explanation. What power had they to make this law, and when was it passed? What action bhould the health authorities take iu this, and similar cases? These questions are important, and bhould be answered and not evaded by those in authority. The correspondence «:n this water grievance has extended ever a year, and it is time the Council realised the injustice of this tax. Cr. Evans deserves the thanks of the community for again bringing the matter up at the last City Council meeting. lie recognises that the dissatisfaction among the water meter victims can no longer be ignored. Until every ratepayer has a meter, or until every meter now in use is scrapped, let the general water rate be amended to cover the expenses of the department and pievent this iniquitous exploitation. W r e water rate victims are a scattered clan, and our individual efforts may prove unavailing. Therfore, I would suggest that the Mayor call a public meeting in the Council Chamber and perhaps mir united effort will prove how serious this matter is.—Yours, etc., ANOTHER VICTIM. August 10th. 1932.