Objections To Water Authority

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31234, 5 December 1966, Page 16

Objections To Water Authority

The North Canterbury Catchment Board should be the authority to control underground water on a wider regional basis rather than have the power vested in the metropolitan councils, the district commissioner of works (Mr D. B. Dallas) told a meeting of the board.

The board decided to lodge an objection against the City Council’s decision to seek power to form a water control authority composed of the metropolitan councils, with one catchment board representative, and to discuss the issue, if required, with the council. A recommendation from the board's executive committee, that the council be told that the board favoured the establishment of any organisation for the effective control of underground water, and that the board should be represented on ! t, was not adopted

The committee’s chairman (Dr. W. R. Holmes) said the council had not acted until it was under the threat of the Water and Soil Conservation Bill, which had had the effect of spurring on the formation of the proposed authority. “We can’t say it would be a good or bad thing,” said Dr Holmes. “The committee’s recommendation says everything and at the same time, says nothing.” It seemed strange, said Mr Dallas, that the recommendation indicated no convictions held by the board. He would reword the recommendation to the effect that the board favoured effective control of underground water, and should be the body to do it. If the board failed to support the proposal, it was judging whether it was the competent authority, knowing that it had a complete lack of facilities to do the job, as compared with the councils, said Dr. Holmes.

“People round the table, probably in Wellington, will decide who is to do this job,” he said. “If they decide we do the job, we will take it on. but if otherwise, the board should be prepared to pay such part as is decided by other people.” “Somebody’s got to be forthright cn this,” said Mr Dallas. “It is unfortunate to doubt the board’s capacity to handle the job. We don’t want to have any more authorities within authorities. Control should not be by vested interests but through wide regional interests.”

Mr L. W. McCaskill said he agreed entirely that control should be the board’s job. The bill provided that where there

was no authority, the board should have it. It should be a board function to control water resources.

If the councils formed an authority, the board would be left with the outer areas where the water came from, said Mr A. T. Bell. In Ellesmere county, for example, there were complaints that when water was being pumped for irrigation, stock water supplies ceased. “There could well be conflict of interests with dual control,” he said. “We are going to have to find staff to administer the outside area anyhow.” When the secretary (Mr W. W. Brough) said that the board had until January 9 to lodge an objection to the council’s scheme, Mr Bell pointed out that the board had not decided to make objection. “Catchment boards are the only true and effective regional authorities in the country,” said Mr Dallas. “As such, this board should not be afraid to accept additional responsibilities.” Dr. Holmes said that although the council was 13 years late with its scheme, it might need reassurance that control was a function for a regional body like the board.

"Control of water is not a local body matter. It must be dealt with on a regional basis,” said Mr Dallas.

Any objection the board made might not be sufficient in what could become a major political issue, said Dr. Holmes. Mr Dallas then moved, and Mr Bell seconded, that the board make a formal objection. He could not support the motion because he felt the board was moulding its opinion on a bill that was still in the melting pot, said Mr J. M. Pickering. “The city lives and functions on underground water, and is justifiably concerned that its control might pass to another authority,” he said. “I think that when the bill becomes law, Christchurch, because of its special circumstances, will be given authority over its own water. “There will be a fair bit of political smoke before the catchment board can order the City Council and say where a man can punch a well.”

The motion was carried, and it was agreed that the board should ask the council for a discussion. “There’s a delightful arrogance about it. We’ll be given a seat, and the first we know of it is when we read it in the papers,” said Dr. Holmes.