Ellesmere to raise loan for Southbridge water supply

Press, 29 April 1981, Page 12

Ellesmere to raise loan for Southbridge water supply

The Ellesmere County Council has decided to raise a $120,000 loan for a pressurised water supply system for the Southbridge township. The chairman of the Southbridge Community Council (Cr D. H. Goulden) told a meeting of the County Council that the $120,000 scheme would provide enough water for a population of 650.; The present population of South-, bridge was about 540 ahdnt ' was not expected to increase quickly, although the scheme was designed so that it could be expanded if necessary. Cr Goulden said that the scheme made use of some existing wells which were deep enough , to meet health regulations, and . included a reservoir as a back-up. The system would cost $5OO a year to run, plus electricity charges. It would work out to about s2o'a year for every household. Cr Goulden said that it was hoped householders would make a '‘once only” capital contribution to the cost of the scheme. Those who could not afford the capital cost, which would be about $6OO, would contribute to the repayment of the loan. It was hoped that as many people as possible would make the capital contribution, because that would reduce the amount of loan money needed. However, the council had to apply for the full $120,000 even if it was no.t all uplifted. The Southbridge Community Council agreed that residents would have to pay for their capital contributions in full before the loan was raised. After the meeting, Cr Goulden said that he hoped work on the water system would start within the next

The meeting also passed a recommendation from the Southbridge Community Council that a circular explaining the scheme be prepared and distributed to rresidents. '. - - Rolleston water The -council approved proposals to improve the Rolleston-; township water supply. . After; ’ Health Department subsidies, the council’s share of the cost would be almost ■528,000. ; The meeting decided to include $30,000 in this year’s estimates to pay for the work. The money would be a loan ‘.from council funds, which would be repaid by Rolleston ratepayers with 10 per cent interest over the next five years. “■ : .The county engineer (Mr R. J.~Anderson) reported’that general maintenance, power charges, and loan., Repayments would $12,514 a year. Propertyowners would have to pay $5O a year until the loan was repaid, plus any increases in costs. ■' • Property .’ owners would have to pay $5O a year for j their water rates, plus any , increases in costs, until the loan was paid off in five’ , years. The county chairman (Mr i W. E. Walker) said that the - c $lB increase in water ( charges was very cheap for the improvement in water t supply, but the water rate of r $32 had already been set for this year, and the higher t figure would have to be j introduced next .year. t Mr Walker said that ? Rolleston residents had a i! very cheap water supply. If c the system was improved it f' could be expanded when *' needed.

Fish screen The council disagrees with the North Canterbury Catchment Board over the need to install a fish screen on the lower Te Pirita water-race. intake. The council has had a long-running argument with the board over the need for the fish screens at the two Te Pirita water, race intakes. In 1979 it paid $21,000 to install a fish screen at the upper intake. However,- the meeting received a letter, from the board reminding the council that to comply with the conditions of its water right the council had to have fish screens at both intakes. Mr Anderson told .the meeting that the disagreement was over a point of law. The county solicitor said that the county had an existing water right which did not require the second screen, provided the water rights for both'-intakes were not ex-' ercised at the same time. He. said that all the water going into the stock water race from the intake at present went through the fish screen. The only time when both intakes were used was when three local farmers drew water from the race for irrigation. The upper intake, which had a fish screen, provided, all the water needed by the council. It was only when water was used for irrigation that the lower intake was needed to keep supplies up. He said that it was “unfortunate” the Acclimatisation Society had visited the site to take measurements last year on a day when the upper intake had been closed so it could be widened, and allwater was going through the lower intake. Cr N. A. Osbournes said

that the council was suffei ing because the Acclimatiss tion Society had put pressur on the North Canterbur Catchment Board. ? Mr Walker said that th council was the “meat in thi sandwich.” As far as he wa -concerned the council ha< “played the game.” He said that the boan forgot that the farmers wh< . used water for irrigatior were separate from the council. The water race'sup plied stock with water over t big part of the county, whicl was more important than irrigation. The meeting agreed to write to the North Canterbury Catchment Board saying that it should get a legal opinion. It also agreed to examine an alternative water-race system. Training costs Council staff were “hot” about a Government decision that local authorities had to meet the total costs of wastewater operators attending the Trentham Training School by 1983, said the county clerk (Mr G. R. Singleton). The meeting was told that the five-week course, which cost the council $4OO earlier this year, would cost $6OO from April 1, $BOO next year, and $lOOO by 1983. Mr Singleton said that the Government should subsidise the courses. The move meant small authorities would have to pay for training for operators who would later transfer on promotion to bigger authorities or Government departments. The meeting decided to ask the New Zealand Counties Association to have the present system retained.

• r - Promotion grant The council decided to make an interim grant to the y Canterbury Promotion Council for the next year of 20c per head of population in the county. d The Promotion Council had asked for a grant of 23c _ d a head, which was 15 per [0 cent higher than last year. However, the meeting passed a finance committee recommendation that the council a should make the interim , h grant, which would be reconsidered if other councils in the area paid the full amount. The committee had been told that only six councils d had met the full amount requested last year, and nine e had paid nothing. Noxious plants The council hopes to em- >, ploy six local people through the Labour Department’s Project Employment Prof gramme to help control'noxious plants in the area. , A meeting of the district ’ noxious plants committee ' had been told that nodding thistle had been found on properties that had never t been infected before. i The meeting decided that • council staff should investii gate whether, funds would be , available to employ six workers through the P.E.P. scheme from May.