THE FIRST PROPOSALS.

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 55, 13 September 1928, Page 8

THE FIRST PROPOSALS.

Councillor Hoggard, the county chairman, said that in view of the position reached by the board it was desirable that attention should be directed to the history of the projectv The scheme for a metropolitan water board was initiated by him in the early part of 1925. He discussed the matter then with Mr. Norwood, and wrote to him outlining a scheme. The salient I features of his scheme were:—(a) An independent board; (b) Hutt Biver water. "Mr. Norwood," continued Mr. Hoggard, "later approached the Government for a gift of certain reserves, and then called the local authorities together in furtherance of the project. This conference was held towards the end of Mr. Norwood's term of office. At this conference a sub-committee, consisting of the city solicitor, the Mayor of Eastbourne, and myself, was appointed to attend to the details of the scheme. The city solicitor did not consult me, and I do not think he consulted the Mayor of Eastbourne. "Later a visit of inspection was arranged to the Akatarawa. The Hutt County Council was not invited, although the Akatarawa is in the county. The papers were flooded with propaganda in favour of Akatarawa water. The Akatarawa has now been utterly discredited as a source of water supply, but an attempt was made to create in the public mind the belief that Wellington must look to the Akatarawa for its water supply. "The city solicitor drafted a Bill, still without consulting me. He telephoned me one day and asked for a description of the area in tlie Hutt County to be included in the water district. I asked him to let mo see the draft/Bill, and he said he had not finished drafting it. He never showed me the draft Bill. My first information concerning its contents was derived from the newspapers. I discovered then that the city solicitor had provided for a dummy board, and for the vesting in the City Council exclusively of all the important powers. "A DUMMY BOARD ONLY." "I attacked the form of the Bill, and also the propaganda for the purchase of lands in the Akatarawa Valley Conferences were held, but the City Council stood firm for a dummy board only. Unfortunately, the Hutt Valley authorities were not sufficiently united. However, certain concessions were agreed to by the City Council at the instance of the Hutt Valley authorities, notably the limitation of expenditure on side-lines, to £3000 per annum. That limitation, of course, was not> to apply to expenditure on water supply, as to which no limit was asked.for by the valley authorities. The limitations on the City Council's powers to purchase land were imposed, I believe, through the efforts of Messrs. Wilford, Praser, and Gordon Elliott. I was absent from New Zealand for a few weeks in October last, and rather lost track of the later stages of last year's controversy. "This year the City Council, in breach of the agreement it entered into concerning the £3000 limit, promoted an amendment increasing the limit to £7000. It also sought unlimited powers to purchase lands wherever situate. It is idle to suggest that the increased powers of purchase related only to cases here land was required for access or to avoid severance. The increased powers sought were entirely unrestricted. "The Hutt County Council and the Petone Borough Council both objectod to this year's amending Bill, aud it has been adversely reported on by the Local Bills Committee. It is interesting to note that on this occasion, also, the Hutt County Council was not supplied with a draft of the Bill. "On the hearing by the Local Bills Committee the City Solicitor disclosed the fact that it was the intention to

develop the Whakatikoi Stream in tlie first instance. As Mr. Troup has been advocating the Whakatikei for some time past, it does not surprise me to learn that a Whakatikei scheme has been cut and dried. It is noteworthy, however, that the City Solicitor should treat the Whaktikei scheme as definitely adopted when the matter has never been considered by the board. It emphasises what a mere dummy the board is. CONVINCED MAIN BIVEE BEST. '' Now, I have no faith in the Whakatikei scheme, and I have no faith in the City Council as a constructing authority. The Whakatikei is a tributary of the Hutt Kiver, and not a largo tributary at that. Its confluence with the Hutt Biver is at a low elevation. Its gradient is not considerable. It would bo necessary to go well up tho stream to get a sufficient head. A dam 178 feet high has been talked of —as high as the Los Angeles dam which burst recently. The locality is subject to earthquakes. "I am still of 6pinion that the mam Hutt scheme is the best. It would provide water of undoubted purity in great volume with an ample head, without the necessity of a large dam. My suggestion is an independent board, and a main river scheme. I am agreeable to the financial responsibility being shared equally between the city on the one hand and the other local authorities on the other. As the principle of the -scheme is to make it self-support-ing, the financial responsibility is only nominal. "My keenness for an independent board is due in large measure to the unsatisfactory conduct of the City Council as constructing authority for the local highways scheme, its exploitation of the local highways fund, and its high-handed actions throughout. On the engineering side my faith in the main river scheme is unshaken, but I am prepared to defer to the opinion of experts in whom I have confidence.' Mr. Hoggard concluded by stating that it was desirable that the opinion of an experienced outside engineer unconnected with any of the local bodies should be obtained on the whole watersupply question. Tho County Council is to consider the position further at its next meeting. '