Opposition To Water Bill

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31249, 22 December 1966, Page 1

Opposition To Water Bill

Catchment boards were the bodies to do the work of the regional water boards proposed under the Water and Soil Conservation Bill, . said members of the Christchurch Drainage Board, at a special meeting yesterday to consider the form its opposition to the bill should take. The board agreed that its chairman (Mr F. R. Price) and Mr D. P. McLellan should present the board’s submis-

sions to the Parliamentary Land and Agriculture Committee,- which will hear evidence on the bill on February 7 and 8, and 21 to 23. At its ordinary meeting last week, the board agreed that its representations should emphasise the vague and indefinite nature of the bill, its doubts that such wide and comprehensive control of water was needed at this stage, and the fact that the

board deplored the attempt to remove the ultimate responsibility for water from local government to a central bureaucracy. Mr McLellan said at yesterday’s meeting that the Parliamentary committee might well consider the British Water Resources Act, 1963. This provided for a central advisory body and river authorities, the balance of power being with local bodies, rather than the other way round, as was proposed in the New Zealand bill. “If it is felt that more control is required over water, then the catchment boards are well placed to serve as regional authorities,” said Mr McLellan. “There is some difference of opinion, however.” The boards would serve instead of the creation of more ad hoc bodies, said Mr McLellan. He hoped local bodies could reach some unanimity on the question.

Mr J. D. Davidson described the bill as a clumsy attempt to institute a very necessary measure of control over

water, that would be in the national interest.

He thought local bodies now could do the job, without the cumbersome proposals of the bill. “I think it would be difficult for anybody to understand the bill. It’s a job for a Philadelphia lawyer,” he said. "The central authority could upset the board’s constitution, and as to rights of appeal, the authority would be judge, jury and executioner.” Mr Davidson said he did not think those who had drafted the bill had considered the board’s unique position. Some control was needed, but not in such an involved way. He wondered whether the measure had not been brought down because local bodies could not agree. Both Mr Davidson and Mr R. L. T. Sandford said they thought catchment boards should be the local authorities. “I can’t understand the bill, which is ambiguous and conflicting,” Mr Sandford said.

Mr McLellan said that existing legislation gave comprehensive powers for the control of water.

He spoke of the "pyramid of authority” in the bill, with the central authority having as chairman the Minister of Worts. That could mean that the Ministry of Works would have a very great influence on the authority's decisions. "The functions of the regional boards will be sub-

jected in some way to direction or control,” he said. After the board had decided that Messrs Price and McLellan should prepare submissions, and go to Wellington to support them, Mr Price said that as members had little time to study the bill, they should not hesitate to bring points to the notice of Mr McLellan or himself. “As it is, it will be hard in the time available to prepare effective submissions for they have to be lodged by mid-January. This leaves no time for research into the possible effects of some clauses,” said Mr Price.