THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12592, 7 September 1906, Page 4

THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

PROPOSED SPECIAL LEGISLATION

THREE BILLS TO BE INTRODUCED

No fewer than three local bills affecting the" Christohurch Drainage Board, its constitution, aoid operatkms, are to bo introduced during the present session of Parliament. Two of tho Bills hare been formulated by the Board iteelf, and the third by the combined six local bodies controlling the districts around Christchurch. Of tho Bills promoted by the Drainage Board, the object of one is to empower the board to borrow, by way of special loan, at a rate not to exceed 4$ per cent., any«um up to £10,000, for the purpose of constructing drains, and extending. Adding to, and improving the existing drains in the Avon district, and for such, other works in the Avon dis-tj-ict as the Beard may decide upon. A special rate upon the rateable property in tho Avon district is proposed to be struck to provide for tho interest and sinking fund, and to servo as security for the Joan. The second Bill promoted by tho Board provides that -a bnre majority of votes of ratepayers, instead of the present tliree-flftlis .majority, shall bo sufficient to carry any loan proposal, that non-payment of rates shall mot disqualify* a «rate payer from voting at an election cr loan poll, and that each, local body responsible for the payment of drainage rates to the Board shall render monthly accounts of the rates collected. Tho foregoing measures are more or Ices of a formal character, and explain themselves. Tho third proposed Bill, however, is «i lengthy and very important one, for it alters* the constitution of tho Board itself, and defines the limits within which the Board shall have jurisdiction,and the nature of the jurisdiction to be exercised within those limits. This Bill lias been promoted by the Avon, Heathcote, Sprcydon, and Bacoarton Road Boards, and the New Brighton and Woolstoh Borough Councils, and is an attempt to remedy the grievances these bodies consider they have been labouring under in the past. The Bifll provides for the appointment of a Commission to enquire into a number of matters connected with the working of tho Board in tho pest-, including the method of rating, particulars as to rates levied in respect of interest and sinking fund on loane, the number and amounts of the loans now existing, and the proportion of interest and sinking fund contributed by the different portions of the district. An enquiry is also to be made concerning the total amount of moneys exponded by the Board since its incorporation in tho various portions of the district, and whether such expenditure benefited, end to what ex- j tent, any portion of the district other I than those in -which it was expended. The Bill also authorises the proposed Commission to investigate accounts as between tho Board and the various portions of the district, and 1 directs that the amount found to be due from or to the Board by the various portions of the district shall be a debt owing by or to the Board. Clauses are also inserted providing that notices of a proposal by the Board to construct new works shall be cent to the local authority within the limits of whese jurisdiction the -works are to be constructed, with, particulars as to cost, and rural districts power after obtaining tho consent of the ratepayers to require the Board to execute sewage works in such districts and to raise funds for so doing without further poll. The Bill also provides for the constitution of a new Drainage Board, to consist of eleven persons, five to be elected by the Christchurch City Council, one by t)he Borough of New Brighton, one by tho Borough of Woolston, and one each by Avon, Heathcote, Spreydon, and Riocarton Road Boards. Tho Christchurch City Council were invited by tho other local bodies to consider the Bill, and the Council referred the matter to a special sub-committee, which reported that the re-opening of questions already decided by the Board in tho exercise of its jurisdiction, could have little practical results The committee recommended that present Board should be abolisMJ, and that a new Board should be constituted, and ehould coneiet. of representatives to be elected by the local bodice in the proportion that the rateable value of the several districts bore to the sum of the rateable value of the -whole of the Drainage District. The sub-committee also reoommejuded that the, City Council should take over the powers and duties of the Board in connection with the sewage system and the city drains, while the otiher local bodlies ehould take over the powers and) duties of the Board in the districts under t'hedr jurisdiction. The City Council will ddscuss tihe report at a meeting to be held on Monday night. The Drainage Board! will, of course, oppose the Bill, but the chairman and members of the Board; desire to say nothing concerning it until tihe matter lias been discussed at tho next meeting of the Board on Tuesday week next. WHY THE BILL WAS PROMOTED.

A "Press" representative made en* quiriea into the history of the movement leaiing up to the promotion, of the Bill, and tho grounds of dissatisfaction, existing among the local bodies with the Drainage Board as at present constituted. Mr F.~ R. Corson, the ohairmani of the Heathoote Road Board, who has taken, a prominent part in: tho promotion of the Bill, made- a,/careful statement giving the information required-, whioTi, lie said, represented the views of all the/ local bodies interested.

"That the City Council representing tho sewage area on, the one'hand, and the several local authorities representing tho rural areas on tho other hand, each acting independently, should hare taken up thie question almost simultaneously," Mr Gorsoii eaid, "shows that the present system is not satisfactory to any of the local authorities, and if the opinion of the ratepayers generally may bo judged from the email amount of interest shown, in. tUte recent polling on drainage loan proposals, they arc as little satisfied as the 6ereral local bodies. "So far as the are concerned, our grievances are long-stand-ing, end though we do not blame the Drainage Board for the whole, tho position, being created principally by defective legislation, wo contend they are responsible for allowing it to continue and refusing to take any steps to remedy it, notwithstanding they had given en implied promise that this should be done.

'For some years the maximum rate which could be levied in, the eewage area did: not produce sufficient to provide interest oral sinking fund as required by statute* and about 1889, by mandamus of Supreme Court, the Board was ordered to eet aside the necessary sinking fund. This order could only be complied with by making an. increased rate in the rural areaa.

"Exactly what amount has been overpaid by the rural areas can be ascertained by commission ( of enquiry. The only definite information we have is given in. a y returns ordered by the House of Representatives in 1900, made at the instance of Mr G. W. Russell. This return is numbered H 31, Appendix to Journal of House of Representatives, 1900, Vol. 3, and shows loan expenditure and sinking fund accrued to 1899:—

Loan < Sinking Fund Expenditure. Accrued. £131.956 Sen-use Area. £16,303 £7*o Rural Sydenham. 41.902 £7,187 Kuril Avon. JE3,7<3 £6.2C3 Rural Heatboote. £i.dm XI,CGI Rural Hiccatton. £5,355

£Sl Kuril Spreydon. £1,116 This return ehowe that for a loan , expenditure of £'1-5,043, the rural areas

had, up to 1899, repaid in sinking fund alone £18.027. From that date they have Continued to pay interest and sinking fund on the original expenditure of £15,043, and for tho security of debenture-holders, under tho original Act,, are liable for these payments for another twenty years. Whether tho rural areas have been overcharged iatereelt in the same proportion, or •whether sinking fund contributed bj rural areas prior to 1889 has been a:l>eorbed in. the general account, we have yet to discover. Notwithstanding thia experience, the Bill promoted by the Drainage Board during tho session, of 1906, for power to borrow solely for sewerage works, actually provided that interest, etc., could bo paid out of any general revenue of tho Board, so that it would have been- possible for rural areas to be rated under the 1905 Act in addition to the original Act, but, fortunately, it was discovered in> time and amended. At thia time a deputation from rural areas waited upon the' Drainage Board and suggested that the amount paid by rural areas In excess of their fair proportion should be ascertained and added to the Bill, and refunded to those areas in works. The Board, whilst professing to recognise the justice cf the claim, feared that such a provision would imperil the Bill, and as it was a matter of urgency to complete the sewerage system, requested that the Bill in its amended farm should be allowed to pass, and the Board would later go into the matter of sinking fund with a view of granting relief. How that promise has been carried out, let their own records show. Nor is this a solitary instance. "The Drainage Board has power to order any local authority within the drainage district to strike any rate the Board may decide based presumably upon certain estimates which are treated practically as Drainage Board secrets, are never furnished to the local authority, and the reply to any request for particulars of expenditure is in effect 'come and get it yourself,' though it is, of course, couched in the politer way 'our books are open to inspection. . In. June last tho Drainage Board called a conference .of local bediea to consider - a suggestion of levying a lump sum on the several districts instead of making a drainage rate as at present. In reply to a question as to what attitude the Board would adopt if the local authorities dEd not agreo to the suggestion the chairman stated that it was only a suggestion and if not approved of, the Boaird would drop it, and jet in egite of this, although only on« delegate favoured/the suggestion, it is actually incorporated in tihe amending Bill promoted oy the Drainage Board and\to be presented , this session. Considering that the Board has apparently unlimited rating refuses to furnish information, and. can absolutely ignore the local authority for the district, it is high time an effort was made to hare the position altered./ "There are other ways in which, the rural areas consider Uhe present system of administration inequitable, but it would take too long to go fully into these now. 'In the matter of cost of administration it is thought a considerable saving could be effected. At a meeting of the 'City Council on the 9th of July. Councillor Alheon quoted figures *howing that every 20a spent in works cost -5 4Jd for adminietration, but in the.rural areas it would work out as high, as 4e, 4|d for every 20s spent in works. ' j "Some exception ie taken to the pro*! posal to alter the constitution of .- ; thjj£: Drainage Board to nomination from; the local bodies instead of election hy j ratepayers, as at present, and in spite of the democratic age what is there un- j reasonable about it having ngaril to the functions of the Board 1 P Make a comparison in this way. The City Council controls a certain area r that area ie divided into wards, . the wards elect representatives to the Council, but the Council nominates ite Works Committee and the members serve on that committee without any apparent lose fof eelf-reepedt. , > ■;,.•" The Drainage Board nae jurisdiction over * certain area, .that area is divided into districts which 'are practically the dastrieta of certain local authorities —the ratepayers of those dietrioto elect their representative* to those local b&dies. Why ahould those local bodies not elect their representatives to the Drainage Board, seeing that iho Board ie, in effect, only a Works Committee for the whole area? Then you will have a Board that ie directly in touch wi£li the requirements of the whole and through their respective lcjcal bodies, responsible to the ratepayers."