RIVER IMPROVEMENT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18101, 17 June 1924, Page 11

RIVER IMPROVEMENT.

DRAINAGE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY.

COUNCIL CALLS CONFERENCE

The City Council last night discussed the question of river improvement, the subject being introduced by the following motion moved, pursuant to notice, by Cr. 0. W. B. Anderson: "That this Council urges the Christchurch Drainage Board to carry out an energetic policy in the improvement of the rivers Avon and Heathcote, both as regards the beds of each river and the abatement of pollution." Before Cr. Anderson proceeded 'with his speech, the Deputy-Mayor (Cr. A. McKellar) said that he would suggest that Cr. Anderson should alter the wording of his motion. As it then stood it made a reflection upon the Drainage Board. ' Cr. Anderson said he would allow the M-ording to stand. A reflection upon the Board would not do any harm. Cr. J. W. Beanland: It will create a good discussion. Cr. 0. W. B. Anderson said that he wished it to bo understood that he was not advocating improvements for any particular section, such as rowing. The cause of tho position was tlie Drainage Board's failure to deal with the matter in a comprehensive manner. At a conference of local bodies some of the delegates objected to the Board having control of the banks, but all were agreed on tho broad principle. The Board had placed a sum of money on its estimates for the work, but it had not spent any of it, and it was time they protested against suoli procrastination. The Drainage Board cleaned; out all its drains periodically with the exception of the two rivers. They stirred up the weeds, hut that was all. _ Various remedies had been put forward; chief [ of _ these were weirs, but there were objections to weirs. The speaker's opinion was that those, objections could be removed by digging down and taking out the mud instead of erecting weirs. Deeper water was wanted in both rivers, and he would say that thev could get greater depth by dredging. There was not less water, he claimed. If there were less, other springs could bo diverted into the rivers. Cr. Anderson went on to quote from Mr . H. F. Wigram'i book, "The Story of Christchurch," dealing with tho early history of the province in which reference was made, to the facilities offered for shipping entering the river. It would be conceded, he continued, that the water in tho river was deeper years ago, when small boats came far up the streams. To-day a small launch drawing 20 inches, stirred up the mud at ebb-tide. Tears ago swimming sports were held near the Stanmore bridge. He claimed that dredging could bo carried out. It had been said that if dredging we're done the water in the outer reaches would become a mere trickle, but it had to be remembered that the rivers were tidal rivers. About eight years ago Messrs Dobson, Cuthbert, and AVilliams submitted a report in which they said that dredging would improve tho rivers from every point of view. Supposing dredging did drain the upper reaches, they could keep up the level by weirs. By dredging they could lower the lowwater mark and improve the efficacy of the drains. The cost of the work was another objection to dredging. He submitted that in a river like tho Avon which had nothing but mud, it showed a woeful ignorance to talk of a Priestman grab dredge. . He would challenge Mr Dobson or Mr Cyrus Williams to contradict him when he said that such a dredge was unsuitable. He had made enquiries, and could say that the river Avon could bo dredged from tho Estuary to Stanmore bridge for £IO,OOO. He made the statement with a full sense of responsibility. Though the Board looked upon the two rivers as merely drains, the people looked upon them as assets, and if they could induce the Board to sec the question from that viewpoint they would have done much. If the Board were to retain control of the rivers it would have to come round to that way of thinking. What he -had said applied more particularly to the Avon, but in the matter of pollution tho Heathcote was worse off. The pollution of that river would not disappear until they evolved a method to dispose of the trade effluent which ran into it at the rate of a million gallons a day. It was not impossible to dispose of the nuisance. Islington and Fairfield were not served by river or sea, yet thoy got rid of their effluent. Ho questioned tho right of those industries to discharge effluent into the Heathcote. He knew they did not pass their raw effluent into the river, but, there was no doubt that the trade effluent had made tho river a disgrace and a menace to health. .Some years ago two plans were submitted for the disposal of trade effluent. The plans were pumping to the Estuary and pumping to the sewage farm. The cost of the former was a few yoars ago £18,500, and of the latter £34,000. Tho Mayor had made complimentary remarks upon Auckland's progress. If they wished to retain Christchurch's reputation as ,the most beautiful city, they would have to make the two rivers real assets. Cr. E. H. Andrews seconded the motion pro forma. He did not do so j because ho was opposed to it, but he .did not think they were going tho right wav about it. The Board was only concerned with the bed of the rivers. I The Council and tho people were concerned about the whole of the rivers. He would liko to see further discussion deferred until after Wednesday's meeting, to set up a River Conservancy Board. A Councillor: Another Board? Cr. Andrews: Yes; it is necessary in this instance. The river in the city was the best advertisement the city had. Cr. J. K. Archer: Why not the rivers? Cr. Andrews: Well, the Heathcote would have been if we had done anything with it. Visitors to the city at once admired the banks of the river in the centre of the city, but if the ! banks were laid out properly people would admire the banks from the mouth to tho eource. The city engineer had j told him that at the Radley bridge there had been found 27ft of silt in the Heathcote Bivcr. It was a wonder to him that the Heathcote was not a i hot-bed of disease. The Keserves Com- j mittee was helpless because the city had not the money, and if they did ' do anything the work would bo undone by the silt. A more comprehensive scheme was required—a Board with rating powers was necessary. That question was to be discussed on Wednesday night. They had played with the matter for years, and the time had arrived for something big to be done. The rivers were becoming a reproach instead of an asset. Cr. W. E. Leadley agreed with the need for improvement, but questioned the wording of the motion on the grounds of good taste. It was not a good thing for one local body to criticise another in such a way. He hoped Cr. Anderson would amend his motion. If ho would not, the speaker would move as an amendment that a sub-committee consisting of the Mayor

and Crs. McKellar, Anderson, Armstrong, Howard, and tho mover wait upon the Drainage Board and point out the necessity for improvement, and discuss ways and means with a special reference to the report submitted to the Board by Messrs Dobson, Cuthbert, and Williams. Cr. Leadley said he agreed with all Cr. Anderson had said about the rivers, but ho disagreed with tho suggestion made in some quarters that a Biver Board should be set up. He had never seen another city, in aM his travels, in which there were so many Boards and local bodies doing the work of the City Council. The Deputy-Mayor said that Cr. Leadley would have to move his amendment before he sat down if he wished to move it at all.

Cr. Leadley moved his amendment, which the Deputy-Mayor seconded pro •forma. ■ I Cr. F. R. Cooke gave notice of a further amendment. j Cr. J. W. Beanland said that he was 'interested in the question as a couni cillor and a member of ihe Drainage Board. In all the proposals which the Board had considered it had been prevented from going any further on account of the immense cost. The sowerage reticulation of some of the outside areas would mean imposing a heavy rate on ratepayers outside the sewer area. What the Board had todo first was to see that the whole of the city was properly drained and free of disease, Beautiftcation could come afterwards. He thought \ that Cr. Anderson's method oi going about the matter was going to appear antagonistic to the Board. Cr. Leadley 'a amendment was a little more decent. The Board i would gladlv receive a deputation, particularly if it could show ways and ' means of effecting improvement. Cr J. K. Archer supported the motion.' IHe considered that there was nothing in the contention that there was discourtesy in. one public body criticising another. ' I Cr. A. W. Beaven said that the crux of the whole question lay in the estuary, and if anything were to be.done, it should be done from the Shag Bock. Thev would have to move-in the direc- ! tion of coming to terms with the Lyt- ' telton Harbour Board or obtaining control of the estuary. The Drainage Board had done its duty in the past. _ Cr E. J. Howard said that the Drain- ! age Board was set up for one purpose—• to drain the city, not to beautify; it, He agreed with the motion, but said that the Board should look upon it as a discussion only, and not a criticism. The deepening of the river would improve the circulation of the subsoil water. _ Cr. Anderson, replying, said that the ' people would be willing to pay for river 1 Improvement, but "some of the council- ! lors would not give the ratepayers an opportunity to vote on the question. Tho amendment was lost on the voices. , , ~ _ Cr F. B. Cooke then moved a further amendment to the effect that the Council approach the Drainage Board and the Harbour Board, and invite them to appoint committees to confer with representatives of the Council and interested members of the public to consider ways and means of improving the rivers. The mover said that there were too many boards in Christchurch already. There wero many private genI tlcmen who took a pride in tho city, and they should be given tho opportunity to assist in evolving a scheme for the improvement of the rivers. They would be willing, ho thought, to assist the local bodies in raising moneys. Cr. H. T. Armstrong seconded the amendment. He said that the Drainage Board had done its duty, for it was not appointed to conserve tho beauty of the rivers. The Harbour Board was just as much to blame for neglect as the Drainage Board, and ho thought that Cr. Cooke's suggestion to bring the City Council and the other two bodies together a good one. Cr, Leadley supported the amendment. . The amendment was carried, the voting being as follows: —Ayes: Crs. Williams, Beanland, Beaven, Leadley, Howard, Cooke, and- Armstrong. Noes: Crs. McKellar, Andrews, O. W. B. Anderson, and Archer.