ONSLOW BOROUGH ELECTIONS.

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 90, 16 April 1917, Page 2

ONSLOW BOROUGH ELECTIONS.

THE WATER SUPPLY QUESTION. MEETING AT NGAIO. '. PTTHE opening meeting of the three -*- Onslow Borough Councillors opposed to the catchment -water scheme was .held in the Methodist Schoolroom, Ngaio, .. "j evening. There was a large attendance of electors. Mr. J. E. Fitzgerald occupied the chair. If was explained by Councillor W. Appleton that he and his colleagues ■ desired a water supply. They wanted both water and drainage, but they considered that the catchment area purchased by the Borough Council would not give the necessary water. They were therefore opposed to it. ' Moreover, ' the scheme suggested by the advocates of the catchment area did not provide for drainage. This was just as necessary as the water. That they were not alone in this opinion was proved, contended Councillor Appleton, by the fact that the ratepayers had already rejected the scheme on two occasions. The fact, too, that he and his colleagues had been placed at the head of the poll in the previous election was tantamount to a defeat of the catchment proposal. The conditions in regard to the catchment area were now worse than ever, and there was less water in the creek to-day than ever before. It had been suggested that,the engineer's report was favourable, to the scheme. But on closer analysis this was found to be incorrect. The number of people to be provided for in the report was 3000, whereas the council had unanimously decided that 5000 at least should be the number. This was on the basis that.Onslow would increase to 5000 during the next eight years. It wag impossible with 1 the present catchment area to provide for that requirement in regard to water alone. Councillor A. E. Budd stated that the reasons why Councillors Appleton, Bowden, Dale, and himself opposed the scheme were : "(I)* The supply is inadequate; (2) drainage is not included; (3) the scheme is vnot worth the cost; (4) the compensation to riparian owners makes the cost prohibitive; (5) the time is not opportune;' (6) a better scheme can be evolved by amalgamation with the city." ' Councillor Budd showed that 25 gallons per head, allowed to the residents of Onslow in Mr. Fulton's report to tho Onslow Borough Council was too small an allowance, and quoted Mr. C. C. Crump (Mayor of Onslow) as having favoured 40 gallons'. 'He also said that Messrs. Clappcott, Rounthwaite, vand Mestayer, civil engineers, had stated in their reports to the council that they had calculated upon making that allowance, and, further, that Mr. Pulton had made provision for 40 gallons per head for the residents of Eastbourne in his report to that body. lm a statement of the rainfall, Councillor Budd showed that for the nine months from August' to April, inclusive, ,in'the years 1914 and 1915, there would haW been a shortage of twenty-eight million.. gallons and twenty-four million gallons respectively, thus indicating the failure of the scheme in a dry,year. Dealing with the reservoirs, he explained that more than half the population depend upon the upper dam, of. 150,000 gallons' capacity, whilst less than half the population would draw from the lower dam of five million gallons.. Councillor Budd stressed the fact that the proposed water scheme did not provide for drainage, and, as an alternative proposal'he. urged-the desirability of approaching the City Council for amalgamation when the time was opportune, after the war and things had become normal. He quoted figures to show that, after, providing foi) reticulation, pumping,, etc., it would' be, practicable to provide a supply, of 40 gallons per head for a population of_ 5000 paoplo, by, amalgamation with the city, for a smaller cost than the proposed scheme from the catchment area, which the engineer in his report stated could provide 25 gallons per head for a population of 3000. Councillor Dale dealt with the history of the catchment area. He pointed out that Dimock and Co. had objected to any interference with their water rights in 1907, before the council spent sixpence on the purchase of the catchment 1 area. Yet that area was purchased without the council having any legal opinion as to the rights of riparian owners. In v 1909 a poll on the scheme was taken, but was, fortunately, thrown out by the ratepayers. ' In 1913 the opinion of ". the council's solicitors was obtained. It distinguished the two classes of claimants— any person whose land is bounded by the stream being a claimant—householders and business people. With regard to the former, it said : "As each, owner would have to pay his share of the cost of the water-works,, and also for the water supplied, we should think that the Court would in each- case applied for allow a moderate amount." With regard to the business premises, Mr. Levi was of the opinion' that Dimock and Co. and the .Banks Meat Co. had not acquired a prescriptive right to the water, but that they and all other business premises on the stream had those rights, "which exist naturally. in every case of a riparian proprietor, and from the mere fact of the existence of the stream." Mr. Myers was asked privately to give an opinion. He said : "It seems to me that the matter 'depends, not upon the question of prescription at all, but upon the ordinary rights of riparian proprietors. If the Borough. Council constructs a dam higher up and restricts the flow of the stream, then surely the lower proprietors are entitled to compensation. '■ Finally, Mr.' Martin's opinion was obtained. The short effect of it was that the compensation payable to the Dimock and Banks. Companies must be based upon their rights as ordinary owners who carry on factory businesses but have not acquired a prescriptive right. -The speaker said this made it perfectly clear that the borough would have to pay solid.compensation to these companies, and also to any other riparian owners lower down. When the chairman asked for questions they came in plenty. Mr. Darvall asked Mr. Dale whether he was not aware . that ' the compensation payable would be a nominal amount. Mr. Dale referred the question to Mr. Lynneberg, a strong supporter of the scheme, who said he was very much in doubt whether the compensation would be nominal. In reply to Mr. Morris. Mr.. Budd stated that the water used in Roseneath last year was 33.2 gallons per head pej day. Mi". Morris-asked Mr. Budd whether he was aware that the Orongororigo stream at present would not supply Ngaio. The Chairman explained that at the present time the flow was six million gallons per day. ' A vote of thanks to the speakers, proposed by' the chairman, was carried by ncclomation.