RICHMOND WATER SUPPLY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 17 April 1939, Page 8

RICHMOND WATER SUPPLY

LOAN PROPOSAL ON RODING RIVER SCHEME

REPORT PRESENTED TO THF. BOROUGH COUNCIL

At the last meeting; of the Richmond Borough Council a report was tabled by the Mayor (Mr A. R. TufTnell) dealing with the council’s proposal for participation in fhe Roding river water supply scheme, and for a loan of £5,000 for improving the borough’s existing reticulation.

Before giving his report the Mayor stressed the fact that during every dry period when restrictions had been necessary. ratepayers had persistently requested the council to take some drastic action to improve the water supply. “Former councils as well as the one now in office have investigated the matter,” he said, “and have found that the proposed Roding river scheme is the only one that will give an abundant supply at a reasonable cost. Many people considered that the capacity of the present reservoir should be increased. but investigations made show that the present dam will not stand increased pressure, and that the cost of a concrete dam would be prohibitive.” The report stated: — Richmond has for many years enjoyed the benefit of a good water supply due to the foresight of those who, ir. 1888. had the present reservoir constructed which has served the community well for the past 50 years. The need exists, however, and has existed for some years, for a sifiply adequate to meet the growing demands of the borough, and at the same time make full provision for the future. This position has never been more apparent than at the present moment, and it is with a view to meeting such circumstances as are now being experienced that the proposal under review is put forward, the opportunity being provided in the development of the Roding river scheme by the Nelson City Council. GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE It will be remembered that when the Government was approached for assistance in undertaking the Roding scheme a grant of £25,000 was made to enable the three outside districts (Tahunanui, Stoke and Richmond) to participated. Without this measure of relief these outside districts could not have come into the scheme, and in all probability the Nelson City Council would have adopted the Maitai scheme for its own requirements. Unfortunately the quantity of water (200,000 gallons per day) allocated to each of the outside local bodies is more than enough to meet present requirements, particularly in the case of Richmond with its existing supply. The time is not far distant, however, with the growing population, when the supply may not be more than adequate, for in addition to household and the usual residential consumption, n big demand is made to provide for stock purposes particurlaly during the summer and dry periods. LOAN PROPOSAL Considerable publicity has already been given to the Roding river water supply scheme, but it may be as well here to review the details which affect cur own district, and as far as possible make the position clear. In the arrangement to be entered into with the Nelson City Council provision is made for a supply of 200,000 gallons of water per day, for which payment will be made by annual charges amounting to £447 per annum. In addition to this Richmond will also have to enter into arrangement with the Waimea County | Council to share the reservoir to be J constructed at Poorman’s Valley and t the main pipe-lir.e from this reservoir j through Stoke to the Richmond boun- : nary at Champion road. The share of | the cost to be paid to the Waimea i County Council in this connection will amount in annual charges to approximately £309, making a total payment for the water supply of £756 per anRSPECULATION LOAN Within the borough itself, apart from the main pipe-line from Champion road to William street and from Champion road to the Richmond reservoir, improvements are necessary to carry the greater volume of water to be distributed, and to provide for further fire-plugs. ‘Some of the existing reticulation has been in use for 50 years, and in places is too small in size to serve further usefulness. For the purpose of carrying out this 1 work it is proposed to raise a loan of £5.000, as sanctioned by the Local 1 Government Loans Board. The charges on this loan for interest and sinking ■ fund payments will amount to £275 per ( annum, which amount must be included • with the total of the charges already * mentioned. REDUCTION IN FARMLAND RATES To meet the new position, and as far ,

jas possible to give relief to farmer* i and large landholders from ’a rating point of view, it is proposed to levy the ; water rate under two headings, namely: ( li On those properties to which water is supplied a graduated water , supply rate of 7 per cent, on the annual rateable value up to the first £IOO (£1668 capital value), and 1 j per cent, on such value over £IOO. j The effect of this is shown in an example given below. 1 The total water rate on propertie* j where water is supplied will amount to j a fraction under Isd in the pound on j the basis of capital valuation. On properties where water is not supplied the ; rate will be approximately Jd in the j pound. I On a property valued at £6OO the i water supply rate will amount to £3 15* j for up to 1000 gallons per day at a cost, jof 2Jd per household per day. In these circumstances water will still be really cheap. As an instance of the working of the proposed graduated water rate. On a uniform basis at 7 per cent, on a property valued at £2.500, a farmer would have to pay £lO 10s. Under the graduated schale, however, he would be charged 7 per cent, only on the first £1668 of his valuation (equal to £IOO annual value) which amounts to £7 and 1 per cent, or 10s on the remaining £332. a total of £7 10s, and a saving of £3. This, however is not the whole amount payable for the supply, as the special rate of Jd in the pound applicable uniformly to every ratepayer represents charges necessary to meet interest payments on existing loans in connection with the present supply as explained above. RATEPAYERS’ MEETING There are no doubt other points about which ratepayers will want information, and these the council is an- , xious to make perfectly clear. At a , 1 later date a meeting will be held for l ratepayers when such points will be . fully explained. On the motion of the Deputy-Mayor , (Councillor M. H. McGlashen) a hearty ; vote of thanks was accorded to the Mayor for his very comprehensive re- . port. The Mayor in thanking the coun- . cil stated that the Town Clerk had done [ a tremendous amount of work in connection with the proposed scheme, and [ to him the thanks of the council were . chiefly due. A point not made particularly clear ir that with the exception of a share in the cost of maintenance of the headworks pipeline the annual charges to ; the Nelson City Council and the Wai- • mea County Council will cease as from ‘ the date of the repayment of the loan ■ which is for a term of 35 years.