AUCKLAND WATER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21934, 18 October 1934, Page 12

AUCKLAND WATER

REPORT AGAINST BILL ; ; 4 GOVERNMENT ACTION URGED A METROPOLITAN SCHEME / POWERS TO DRAINAGE BOARD / [BT TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL BXPOSTER! * / WELLINGTON. Wedawday The controversy which has raged between the Auckland City Council and suburban local bodies on the water supply question was revired in the House of Representatives to-day, when the Local Bills Committee reported on the Auckland Provincial Water Board Bill. After a long debate the following recommendations of the committee were tabled:—(l) That the bill be not allowed to proceed this year. (2) That legislation be introduced, by the Government providing for the creation of a Metropolitan Water Board to control th? supply of water for the city of Auckland and surrounding district, preferably by the appropriate enlargement of the powers of the Drainage Board created by the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Act, 19C«S. Meeting the Opposition Mr. H. G. E. Mason (Labour —Auckland Suburbs) said he was not altogether surprised at the committee's report. It had to be recognised that the promoters of the bill had made many concessions to meet the opposition of sundry local bodies, including the City Council. Although those objections were overcome, there was the further difficulty of constituting the rest of the area as a water board district and too many defections had since occurred. One could not but regret that that position had been created. At the same time, the problem would not be solved by allowing it to stand as it was, so in effect it would fall on the Government to take action in respect to the whole area. It was very difficult for local bodies to solve the problem in view of the divergence of opinions. In such circumstances, the Government should collaborate with local bodies with a view to solving the problem. Mr. A. Harris (Government —Waitemata) said the City Council had a monopoly of the water supply. So exacting were the council's conditions an£ so high was the price it imposed on other local bodies, and so excessive were the profits it made, that other local bodies approached Parliament to seek relief. ,■ Keith ShosQ Altitude He admitted that too many holes had been made in the area of the proposed water board district. Most North Shore bodies had withdrawn because they did not consider th» bill's provisions satisfactory. He was sure that nuts the Government took the matter xa hand, the trouble would continue in the future as it had for years past. He favoured a Metropolitan Water Board, upon which all consumers would be represented, / "After the one-sided statement by the member for Waitemata, I want to compliment the committee on the commonsenae nature of its report." said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. JT. Savage. "I agree with it. I don't accept the statement that the only sinner in the piece has been the Auckland City CoanciL I think, with the committee, that the solution of the dif-ik-tdty must come by action by the Government. Mr. Harris always seems to. take up some sort of sectional attitude. I don't say the City Council has always been right, but I can remember times when even Takapuna has been wrong." Mr. A. E. Ansel! (Government —Chalmers), a member of the committee, said : the chief reason influencing the com- i mittee in its recommendations was that the city could supply the whole of the metropolitan area with water from its present resources. No evidence was given to the committee that the proposed board could supply water at a cheaper price than that charged by the City CounciL So Profiteer in a On the figures, submitted to the committee. he could not s<»e that the City Council had been profiteering. It might have doae fairly well out of water in the past, but it was entitled i)o remuneration for'the expense of installing: its schemes. The council now Jtad 4,000,000 gallons of water daily, which it could not sell. The fault was n<ft all on the side of the City- Council. Here had been a tot of dissension and lack of diplomacy on the part of the suburban bodies. Mr. P. Eangstone (Labour' —Waimarino) said the City Council had incurred great expense in building reservoirs. and laying pipe-lines, and was naturally apprehensive about the formation of another body to control water. He felt it would not be fair to leave the* city "high and dry.'" Mr. S. G. Smith (Government —New Plymouth); said he was chairman of the committee which; heard evidence last year on the measure promoted by the private company which desired to supply water to bodies in the Auckland area. Members of that committee had had a unique opportunity to follow the position as between the city and its environs. He felt the position was improving. It was certainly muca better than it was some years ago, when a certain geutleman / in a high municipal position was autocratic enough to write letters to suburban bodies without consulting his own council first. Eventually the city and suburbs must adopt some scheme which would bring complete cooperation. The amalgamation of local bodies might hasten that. Mutual Goodwill Needed Mr. K- Semple (Labour —Wellington East), who was also a member of last year's committee, said there was certainly a problem to in Auckland, but the conflicting interests were so marked that it was essential to get mutual goodwill if co-operation were to be secured. He thought it would be best for the Government to take action. Mr. A. J. StaJlworthy (Independent— Eden) said he was rather sorry that the bill was not to be allowed to proceed. He could understand any reluctance* there nygbt b» on the Government's part to interfere in a local matter, The present Auckland supply was not capable of suppling the needs of the rural area between the Waikato River and the metropolitan boundary, and the water board scheiae visualised a much larger responsibility than did the City Council.

-Replying Mr. A. E. JuII (Government—AY aipawa), chairman, of the Local Bills Committed, said the position had been capably presented to the conpmitte# by ijoth sides. The committee did to increase the number of boards: for dealing, with on© aswct oi communal requirements* Water and draraage functioned under one board as Sydney and Melbourne, and as Auckland already had a draiaaxe- board foe the city and suburbs, he thought that body might also be entrusted with the control of the water .'supply. There seemed to be a tendency in Auckland to bare separate boards, lie hoped the Cio*et%me»t would accept the commit- . 3fc* o<% 3** ibm