Water rates

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33032, 27 September 1972, Page 14

Water rates

Sir, —I sympathise with "Dehydrated.” There are nine in my household and one wage-earner. I was billed $8.32 for excess water. My rate demand is for $ll5. Surely we pay enough for the city’s facilities. I presume we must not train children to wash, bathe, flush toilets, clean teeth, while our wives must refrain from laundering and we must not water the vegetable garden, to live within the city’s allowance. All households are not metered. Why? Some do not use or need their allowance. Why not give them a rebate? They pay for water they do not use, while large families must be encouraged to be dirty. It seems the council is determined to squeeze where it

hurts most, as they saw fit to reject a request that this account be remitted in spite of the recommendation of the Mayor. Anyone would think they made the water. —Yours, etc.,

AQUANOUGHT. September 6, 1972. [The Town Clerk of Christchurch (Mr M. B. Hayes) replies: “The total cost of operating the city waterworks and servicing loans is now almost slm per annum and this sum must come from ratepayers and occupiers. While by far the greater amount comes from fates, there is also an element of ‘the user pays,’ as there is a charge for water passing through the meter over and above the annual allowance which is based on the rates payable on the capital value of each property. About 96 per cent of connected properties are now metered and the 100 per cent mark should be reached within about a year. The council has no wish to deter people from using water but is interested in preventing waste, which adds to both capital and operating costs. Undetected leaks in service pipes and defective cisterns are often the cause of substantial accounts.”!