HEATHCOTE RIVER.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14919, 18 March 1914, Page 5

HEATHCOTE RIVER.

QUESTION OF CONTROL

AMENDLNG ACT TO BT- OBTAINED

At the meeting of the Drainage Board last night a legal opinion was received from Messrs Garrick and Co., bearing on the question as to whether the Heathcote River was included in the Christchureh Drainage district. The.writers stated that they had carefully perused the aeries of enactments dealing with the Christchuxch Drainage District from the original Act of 1875 onwards. Under the original Act of 1875, first schedule, the Christchurch Drainage District was described as bounded, intor alia, "on the south by the south side of the Avon and Heathcote estuary, and the south side of the river Heathcote." The Amendment Act of 1880 constituting the Sydenham district, described that district as being bounded, inter alia, by tho '■southern side of the said rivor." Tho words "southern side of" were omitted for the first time in the Christchureh District Drainage Act Amendment, 1907. That was the Act whioh carried into effect the findings of the 1907 Commission set up to investigate the matters in dispute in reference to leases upvn the sewage and rural areas. The Act incorporating Commissioner Short's report was drafted without reference to" the Board or its solicitor, and they were unablo to say from what source the altered description was derived. As the principal Act of 1907 was a consolidating measure, and purported merely to collate without amending prior Acts, tho alteration made in tho j boundaries was manifestly a pure mistake. The Legislature, which by presumption of law did not make mistakes, had, at least in one subsequent Act, the District Drainage Act of 1911, j acted on tho assumption that the boun- i daries remained unaltered. That was the Act passed to carry into effect the findings of Commissioner Horrell as to contributions by adjacent districts to the cost of cleaning the river Heathcote. That Act treated the Heathcote River as still within the Board's district from the Lincoln road bridge downwards. Although tho alteration in boundaries affected by the omission of the words "southern side of from tho schedule was obviously a mistake, it was not one that a Court would feel itse'-f competent to correct. On the other hand, it was one wliich the Legislature itself would no doubt bo ready to correct by a short amending Act. A short Bill would effect the necessary amendment, acndl the solicitors foresaw no difficulty in procuring tho enactment if the Board deemed such a course advisable. Mr Otley said it was clear a mistake had'been made. Even the Government i had treated the Board as having control of the river for it allowed them to rate on the area beyond the river. Ho approved of the suggestion that tho Board should get the short Act passed. Ho did not think any other body would object. Ho moved that steps be taken to have tho amending Act introdnco_. Mr Richardson said the danger was that before the Act was passed the Heathcote Council might go ahead with their septic tank, and'instal it before tho Board could object. Mr Barlow said the Board conld order its removal afterwards. Mr Otley said that the Health De- ; partment "would in the meantime see to it that no improper effluent was allowed to run into the river to cover the j time until the Board reeained control. ; The motion was carried. j The Beckenham-Fisherton Burgesses* , Association protested against any septic task being allowed to drain into tho, HeathcSyte River or into any drain run- : ning to the river. It was resolved to reply pointing out < what the present position was re-rard-in_ the control of the Heathcote River.