WATER FOR SHIPPING

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 48, 26 February 1908, Page 3

WATER FOR SHIPPING

CITY COUNCIL AND HARBOUR BOARD. AN APPLICATION AND A REFUSAL. At thr meeting of the Harbour Board yesterday tne following letter from the board to the City Council was read :—: — "The attention of a committee of tho Wellington Harbour Board has been drawn to a. statement m the local press ■that your council have arranged to sell water to the Miramar Borough Council at the rate of 9d per thousand gallons, and I am directed to request that the. Wellington Harbour Board may bo placed on equally favourable terms, both as regards the water which it purchases for its owji use, and for - which it purchases for sale to the shipping. The committee desire- me to point out that any reduction made in the cost of water to b« supplied to shipping will be allowed to the shipping by a corresponding reduction in the rates charged to tho ships, and in connection with this matter, I am to point out to you that the. Admiral commanding the -lustralasian station has, through. His Excellency tho Governor, recently npproached the board, complaining of .the high rates charged for water at Wellington. Thf i-ates at present charged are based on an agreement entered into in 1892, and in the sixteen years since then, and terminating 30th September last, the board ha 3 paid the council the sum of £43,500 for water; the amount paid during last year naving been £4377 19s 2d. As t}*e total quantity purchased | was 23,080,250 gallons, the average price charged to the board per thousand gallons amounted to 3a 9£d.' The board paid tho council at the rate of Is per thousand gallons last year on 3,652,000 gallons (£lB2 12s), used for its own purposes' i'or hydraulic plant, offices, closets, etc., and 4d on 56.000 gallons (18s 8d) used for smithy blast, otc, or practically Is per thousand gallons on, the whole of the w.itui' used oy itself. For water paid to shipping the board paid the council on water fo'' men-of-war 2s per thousand gallons, 293.550 gallons, £29 17s 7d ; or water for shipping .it 5s per thousand gallons, 7.000,000 gtiUons, £1750; on water for shipping at* 4s per thousand gallons, 12,073.400 gallons, £2414 10s lid; or 19,372,250 gallons, £4194 8s 6d ; or -an average of nearly 4s 4d per thousand gallons. The committee is of opinion that tho board and the shipping ought not to be charged so high a rate if the 'council can afford to sell to tne suburban boroughs at 9d per thousand gallons. And I am instructed to point out that the revenue derived from the board -nould pay interest and sinking fund on a loan suilkient to instal an independent water supply. — (Signed) W. Ferguson." The City Council replied, regretting that it could not see its way to reduce ths price of water to the Wellington Harbour Board. COUNCIL'S ACTION CONDEMNED Hon. T. K. Macdonald thought the City Council had treated tho board in a very cavalier manner. Seeing how deeply the City Council was interested in the board's operations and in the success of the port, it would naturally be thought that the council would agree that the shipping should be supplied with water at a reasonable price. If Miramar Borough could bo supplied at 9d per thousand gallons, suroly' the shipping comiug to the port should be equally weff treated. He n?ed hardly point out that any reduction in the charge to the board would bg made to the shipping. Unless somo change was made in the attitude of the council, hs would move at tho proper time that unless 'the council saw its duty in this "matter much more clearly than it had done in the pant, they should adopt the suggestion of .Mi;. Ferguson and look about dnd see ■whether they could not get an independent water supply. As a" matter of fact thero would be many advantages in adopting that course. It wa3 a most irnpropor position for the City Cbuncil to take vp — that they should *be prepared to sell water at 9d per thousand gallons to outside people and yet charge a much higher price to their own port, which was so intimately identified with tho city. Ho trusted the Mayor, who was a member, of tho board, would induce the council to alter tho resolution it had conic to. .' THE MAYOR'S EXPLANATION. Kon. T. W. Hislop said ho was c6nsidering what ne should say when Mr. Mccdonald got up and delivered his extraordinary speech. If the debate was carried on in tho samo conciliatory manner the Harbour Board would probably have to look elsewhere for its watei 1 supply. The statement that the <-ouneil v;as supplying Miramar at 9d pur thousand gallons vas not- true. Tho council wajs going to supply Miramar -with water in about two years under certain conditions and at certain prioo, — that was to say, they were going to charge Miramar the same price for water that it wa3 costing the- council ; and they were going j to do that because they had cut out j Miramar which had an equal right with themselves to the water supply. If tho board wanted a reduction it should write to the council* and point out why it thought the present charge was too high. They had had no evidence from the shipping people that they were' chai god «i higher rate for water here than ct other ports. Hon T. X Macdonsld: Tharo is the Admiral's lettei. Hon. T. Hislop said the Admiral only visited the port occasionally and if an application was made for tho warships to be supplied free it would bo favour- ! <ibly considerd. If the board gave thi I council good reasons for a reduction in | the chirgcs, no doubt the council would »j re-consider the question, and the corporation authorities would not act in a tnanuor unfriendly to tho Harbour Boaid or to 'anybody ohc. • Mr. Jones eaid Mr. Alacdonald had put the caso for the shipping fo forcibly that he did not feel lucimod to acid anything to what he had .laid. Ihe charge for tho ships really amounted to 6s tc! j per thousand' gallons. Ho understood that Duncdio charged 2?, and there wn: one other port that did not charge more than 9d. # ' Mr. llarkncss drew attention to th< i fact that tho borough of Onslow was only charged 9d per thousand gallons - The. council must be making an cnor 1 mous profit if that charge was a fail one. He trustod the council would fa\» our.ably consider the board's appltcatioi for «i reduction. Hon. T. Hiflop s-aid tho Onslow Boro utrb did not ret its reticulation a 9cl. i Tho chairman said it aocmed rathe: i curious if the council could supply wate ! for hydraulic and banilaiy purposes a : Is why that should not' be an al!-ioun< rate. He would like to point out tha I the amount tho board paid the counci ■ a year for water — £4377 — was interest a • 5 per cent on some £80,000. Probabl; i the best course would be to adopt th . .Mayor's suggestion and send another let : j ter to the council asking it to modify it charge for water for ofnor than hy draulic and sanitary purposes. H moved accordingly.. The chairman f- resolution vns agreei to.