CITY WATER SUPPLY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20648, 10 September 1932, Page 19

CITY WATER SUPPLY.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PRBS3. Sir,—May I again point out the apparent futility of an endeavour 1o conform to the ideas of our Water Supply find Works Committee. On August 4th I wrote to the chairman of the Water Supply and Works Committee as follows: I .have received a, final notice lequetiiag payment of the sum of At la lor the supply of water to my premised as above. 'i'lie notice states that the supply will be cut oil unless* the amount is paid immediately. J. respectfully beg to placo the following facta before your notice: Some years ago I applied for and obtained a water-meter for an "extraordinary suppiy." .It was not long belore I. found 1 coiijd not atford to pay lor same. Upon receipt from time to time of accounts for "extraordinary supply," I informed your council on numerous occasions that I was using the water for domestic and sanitary purposes, and I repeatedly asked for removal of the meter. I still have the meter, and despite the fact that I only use the water for domestic purposes I am still billed for "extra•ordirrary supply." My consumption of water for tho six months ended March 3lst, 1932, is shown as 24,000 gallons. My family consists or six persons; some are small children. You will, I am sure, readily agrm that a consumption of an average of Wi gallons per week or 123 gallons per day is not extravagant, but on the other hand shows an attempt to economise. I have trie<l to economise for the loßt three or four years; leaks have been jealously guarded against. My water supply has been partly turned off at the main (so that it does not "rush through") for the past two years. The supply merely tp'ckles, and is tantalising in that one cannot get quick service. On the ground that I am only using a "domestic supply," I respectfully apply to you for a credit for the full amount of my account, and again I formally apply to have the meter removed.

In reply I received a courteous note that the matter "has been referred to the Water Supply Committee Tor consideration, and a further reply will be sent." A further' reply was received from the Town Clerk under date August 10th, 1932, and reads as follows: — I have to acknowledge receipt ot your letter of the Ith instant with reference to your account for extraordinary water supply to premises situated. . . In reply, I have to inform you that on referring your letter to the water-rate collector lie reports as follows : Evor since this meter was installed m 1925, there has been u largo consumption of water on Mr 'a property. The total consumption lor the twclv* months ending March 21st of this y«ar was 16,000 gallons, being slightly below previous averages. It is not the policy of the council to removo meters when once they have been installed, especially where revenue has been derived. It can only bo suggested that it more care ia exercised in the use o£ water, the consumption will drop. If you deairo to challenge tho accuracy of tho meter it will bo necessary for you to deposit the sum of 10s. The meter will then be tested and if foxind to be registering correctly, tho deposit will be forfeited. If it is found to be registering incorrectly the deposit will bo refunded and an adjustment mado in tho account.

My bill for the half-year is only £1 Is—enough, though, in tliesE times. Some people pay nearly three figures and it is vet, to be proved how much of this money is actual profit. The principle of the matter, however, is the real bone of contention. As for challenging the accuracy of the meter, The Press has been kind enough to let 1110 state my views on that point often and clearly enough. However, once again will do no harm. I do accept tho council's record of my water consumption; I never even suggested that it was incorrect. On the other hand, I ask tho Water Committee to accept my statements in the same spirit. The reply leaves me wondering if perhaps I should cut the supply right out, as goodness knows we are now voluntarily receiving only a trickle, as already pointed out in my letter! The suggestion that "if more care is exercised in the use of water the consumption will drop" is not very helpful, as it is not practicable in any case. Until every consumer is metered the principle will be at stake. At present about 13,000 consumers have free access to our supply. The position is ludicrous in the extreme. Why! If only one consumer had free access tho principle would still be wrong. Despite the statement about rnv "large consumption" I still quite frankly .•'sk for more water for domestic purposes, and with every due respect to the water rate collector, I am afraid that until those 13,000 are linked up with the rest of us our statistics will be perhaps a little bit unreliable. I have since received a further notice from the collector's department, Town Clerk's office, Christchurch, dated September sth, 1932. It reads as follows: I have a°ain to draw your attention to the City Council's account against you for an extraordinary supply of water to your property. ... . , .. The amount owing 1a £1 Is, and as -Ue account is considerably overdue, I nave been instructed to ask for immediate payment, failing which tbe supply will be cut og on the Sth instant, and letjal proceeding instituted for .the recovery oi the amount outstanding.

The position now is that the council has another guinea, and I still continue to carry into effect the suggestion to "exercise more care." It appeals, though, that so long as the council "receives revenue" the anomaly may continue —Yours, etc., ORDINARY SUPPLY. September 9th, 1932.