32
Wednesday, February 24, 1971
It would be bad economic policy to encourage the growth of industries dependent on large consumption of water by pricing water unrealistically, leading to the need to invest yet more public capital in even more expensive supply schemes.
Trade and industry in general made a smaller contribution to water revenue by way of rates in proportion to water consumed than did domestic consumers.
Sir John said a factory using 500,000 gallons a day the Colony
——
already had some of those
$7/$8 million in public capital investment to give it its water supply
involved the Government in the outlay of about
alone.
He then proposed that the price per thousand gallons be increased
to $3 for domestic consumers, to $4 for trade and industry and for non-ocean-
going ships, to $7 for ocean-going ships, but remain unchanged at $5 for
the building industry.
"We do not believe that the domestic increase will cause any hardship,
nor that the commercial increase will inhibit industrial development except,
perhaps, of a kind which we cannot afford in any case," Sir John said.
"A six-member family in a resettlement estate at present incurs
an average bill of $4.50 a month. The increase will be $2.25 a month, assuming,
that is, they do not reduce consumption.
"As to industry, when the charge was increased to #2 in 1966, it
was estimated that for the dyeing and finishing industry (generally the
biggest industrial user) the increase was less than one per cent of the sales
value of finished cloth."
On that basis, the proposed increase would add substantially less
than two per cent, taking into account developments in the industry. He
commented that the generality of industry would be affected "very much less
than this."
/The proposed