OTOROHANGA AND POWER SCHEMES.

Waipa Post, Volume XXI, Issue 1301, 7 October 1922, Page 5

OTOROHANGA AND POWER SCHEMES.

Sir.—The report received by the Otorohanga County Council from the Te Kuiti Provisional Hydro-Electric Power Committee necessitates the earnest attention of every ratepayer in Otorohanga town and district. Their report, like their propaganda, appears to depend chiefly on inaccuracy, exaggeration, delusion, invention, fallacy, hypocracy and disparagement. The inaccuracy is that no provision has been made for the | inclusion of Otorohanga's contiguous districts in the present outer area, but it may be pointed out that every facility will be afforded to them if their ratepayers desire to join up. If Te Kuiti objects that need not concern us.

The exaggeration is. that Te Kuiti's present revenue, with the prospective (mythical) day load, will be sufficient to provide cheap electric power for the whole of the proposed new area, and the delusion that Te Kuiti would make a ofree gift of it to Otorohanga in any case.

The invention is that this outer area is in reai danger of having to shoulder Te Awamutu's burdens, and the fallacy is that a small, insufficient producing" plant can be of real value as an investment and that Te Kuiti can escape a rate where every other power district is rated. The hypocracy is that opposition will cause delay! Tbeirs is the real guilt, for power could have been almost within reach now but for their asinine folly. The disparagement referred to is the assertion that the Te Awamutu Power Board has been extravagant in expenditure, and its policy, and that its results and its prospects are failures. This at least we know—that as a board their ability is at least equal to any other similar body and their I integrity second to none anywhere. Their policy is planned to ensure the greatest possible future development of the area, and its present immature results are no indication of what its assured expansion and magnitude will be.

The framers of the report submit no real facts or arguments to support their recommendations. Their poverty of argument has driven them to dire extremes to find reasons to bolster up their fragile cause. They

evidently rely on the well known adage that even the most unlikely tales repeated frequently enough, and craftily enough, will eventually be accepted as reality itself. The present financial burdens of this district are such that the whole position must be very carefully considered before any increased financial responsibility h undertaken. Electric power development here would necessitate heavy borrowing at first and further cost for power, maintenance, etc. A new power district would require board members, staff, legal legal adviseis and other expensive paraphernalia, and however alluring this may seem to the ambitions of various individuals, it is quite unnecessary and contrary to the best interests of the district. Our share of the cost of working as an outer area would be considerably 'less than a similar share of the proposed new area.

The question of finance depends chiefly on the revenue in prospect, and the revenue depends almost wholly on the' actual production in the area. Since we must be associated with other districts in this matter we must make a brief comparison of the possible areas. Te Awamutu is a progressive district with great production and with every prospect of very much greater development, closer settlement and increased population immediately. Otorohanga has every similar natural advantage and if the present county boundary was extended our outer area would form a very compact district with complete community of interest with our northern neighbours. Unfortunately beyond our southern boundary line conditions alter. There is no prospect of similar development, and subdivision and increase of population. Long distances between consumers is fatal to economical hydro-electric development. A section of reticulation that would supply ,only one consumer in a sparsely populated area would supply several in Otorohanga in the near future. This explains Te Kuiti's objection to Te Awamutu's policy of reticulating every road—a policy that is a sound business proposition and necessary to the development of a closely settled district, but would be suicidal in a less fortunate area.

Otorohanga's representatives should have practically a free hand in deciding their own policy in connection with the Te Awamutu Board. Also the whole of Otorohanga's special loan would be spent within its own area, but as part of Te Kuiti's area the position would be different and no guarantee could be given as to where our share might be used. Very much more could be written about this matter, but for the present no report has been made by the delegates to a public meeting, and a ratepayers' roll fs being prepared for the proposed new area. Any wishes or opinions held by the ratepayers of ;.the outer area are being ignored and a Te Kuiti majority can easily outvote any local opposition. The ratepayers of Otorohanga town and district must 'thoroughly investigate the whole question immediately for themselves and by themselves without any foreign interference. If they fail to do so .the promoters of the Te Kuiti scheme, entrenched behind a ratepayers' roll, will snatch a verdict for Te Kuiti, benefit at Otorohanga's expense and without Otorohanga's consent before they realise what is going on. I am, etc., CONWAY GREY MURPHY. Otorohanga, / 3rd October, 1922.