BORING OF WELLS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 February 1933, Page 2

BORING OF WELLS

OBJECTION TO AUCKLAND BILL BOROUGH COUNCIL SEEKS CONTROL Describing the proposals as affecting Christchurch in a vital way, Mr A. C. Bretherton brought before the Council of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce a Bill promoted by the Boroughs of One Tree Hill and Onehunga, Auckland, (reports the “Pess”). The Bill is designed to empower the councils of the two boroughs to make by-laws prohibiting or controlling the boring or sinking of wells, and for the protection of sources of water supply. Mr Bretherton said that though the Bill was promoted by the Auckland boroughs, it contained principles that vitally affected Christchurch. It not only interfered with private property rights, but also it augmented the boroughs’ income from sales of water, suggesting to | other bodies a similar means of increas(ing revenue. The prohibition of private persons from boring wells in their own properties would be a serious matter in Christchurch, with its artesian watersupply. ■‘it s a more important matter than it looks, and in Auckland a fighting fund of £SOO has been put up to fight the Bill,” said Mr H. S. E. Turner. “Various interests in Auckland are quite convinced that it is an attempt to nobble the private water supplies of factories. We should ask the Associated Chambers of Commerce to oppose the Bill until something much more reasonable is proposed.” Mr W. Machin: “Do you think the New Zealand Parliament is likely to pass any Bill for the suppression of bores.” (Laughter.)

The president (Mr W. T. Bottrell) said almost every factory in Christchurch had its own water supply, and it would be a very serious matter for them.

The question was referred to the Associated Chambers of Commerce.