Validity of water objection queried

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33252, 15 June 1973, Page 16

Validity of water objection queried

The validity of a Waimairi County Council objection to Mr W. D. Mottram taking water from a well to irrigate his orchard at 64 Prestons Road was challenged by his lawyer, Mr E. B. E. Taylor, at a North Canterbury Catchment Board water tribunal hearing on Wednesday. The council contended that Mr Mottram should take his water from the county main in Prestons Road, but, said Mr Taylor, the evidence had shown that Mr Mottram’s well would have no effect on the council’s wells, and would be a negligible risk in polluting the underground strata from which the council supply is drawn. Mr Mottram told the tribunal that he wanted to sink a 6in well on his property to ground-irrigate his orchard. He intended later to use this supply for overhead spray equipment to give protection from sun-scald of the fruit, for irrigation, and for frost protection. At present, he said, he used 500 smoke pots for frost protection, and they contributed to pollution which the spray system would eliminate. While the well would give him an ample supply, the council could not guarantee a minimum pressure. He had to have a permanent, reliable pressure.

Mr Mottram said that the supply from the mains would involve him in capital expense of $1920, and $2OO a year in water charges. His well scheme would cost $1287. Mr Tavlor said that the Clean < Air Bill, which could apply from, April 1 next, required smoke-pot users to apply for permits. Their; use could be refused, as detri-' mental to human health. It was obvious that the legislation sought to eliminate the old system. Mr H. R. Sampson, a director of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers’ Federation said that fruitgrowers on the edge of the city would be under pressure to do away with smoke pots. The council’s concern was for the protection of the underground water from which it drew its public water supply, said the council’s waterworks engineer iMr R, E. Young). The proposed well would be a potential source of contamination. When ft was pointed out that ' Mr Mottram’s water would come from a higher sVatum. Mr Young; agreed that this would consider, ably lessen the pollution risk.,, He agreed that the well would'l have no effect on the council 1 wells, two miles away. Mr Young said that at the 1 full 250 gallons a minute needed for the overhead sprays, the. mains water pressure would fall from 551 b to 451 b. “Why, then, do you say you < can’t guarantee a minimum pres- ’ sure? ’ asked Mr Taylor.

I Mr Young: “The pressure does [fluctuate.” He said that the [sprinklers would work on the mains pressure, and that costs on the two schemes would be com- ! parable. j Mr Taylor said that the counI ell’s objections had been answered—the supply would not I be affected in volume by Mr Mot- ; tram’s well, and the chances of were so negligible as : to carry no weight. He referred to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board decision in the de Spa case, where the board held that there were no grounds for a general policy by a council to deny people the right to take water from wells when there was a public supply available. “The crux of the matter is: Can the county supply be continuous and at a satisfactory pressure,” he said. “It is at least doubtful. I am at a loss to understand why the council is objecting in this case when it did not object to well rights being granted to two orchardists at Harewood.” The tribunal, which comprised Mr P J. McAloon (a solicitor, chairman) Mr R. F. Stead (a member of the board) and Mr W. D. Turner (chairman of the Canterbury Fruitgrowers’ Federation) wfP make a recommendation to the board.