WATER AND SEWERAGE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 131, 27 February 1929, Page 13

WATER AND SEWERAGE

NEED FOR EASTBOURNE AND DAY’S BAY

LOCAL BODIES OBJECT

“CANNOT CARRY BURDEN”

Pleading that their present financial burden was sufficiently heavy, the Eastbourne Borough Council and the Hutt County Council yesterday protested against the proposed issue against them by the Board of Health of requisitions to provide up-to-date waler and drainage systems for Eastbourne and Day’s Bay. It was claimed that there was a moral obligation on the Wellington City Council to provide the facilities, while it was also stated that an elective water board would solve the problems of Greater Wellington.

. The two local bodies concerned were enabled to present their case at a public inquiry, conducted yesterday by a committee appointed by the Board of Health, and comprising Mr. F. W. Mac Lean (chairman), and Dr. W. Young and Dr. M. H. Watt. The Hutt County Council was represented by Mr. D. R. Hoggard, while Mr. H. M. Jones presented the case for the Eastbourne Borough Council. Messrs. Ji. Tait and D. Scott watched proceedings on behalf of the Wellington City Council. The chairman said it was not for the Board of Health to say how the two bodies concerned were going to get out of the difficulty. Under the Health Act the Board had very large powers, but it had decided that before exercising those powers an inquiry should be held. The sub-committee appointed to conduct the inquiry would subsequently report to the board.

Pollution Alleged.

Dr. W. F. Findlay, medical officer of health, gave evidence that unsatisfactory sanitary conditions obtained at Eastbourne. At Day’s Bay, he said, a serious epidemic might be caused owing to the lack of a proper water system, while the creeks and beach were being polluted by sewage. Similar conditions existed in the eastern bays. Dr. B’indlay said that representations had been made to the local bodies concerned, but difficulties had been met with. Now, however, it was essential that something should be done. No doubt a water board was desirable, but that might take five years. At least temporary measures should be adopted. In answer to the chairman Dr. Findlay said the population of Eastbourne, according to the last Year Book, was 2000. but he could not say what was the actual number of people for whom the facilities would have to provide. Replying to Mr. Jones, Dr. Young said that he knew of no actual case where a notifiable disease had been caused by the insanitary conditions at Day s Bay. Mr. D. R. Hoggard (Hutt County Council) said that he was bound to agree to a certain extent with what Dr. Findlay had said. The speaker did not think the present water supply of the Hutt County Council would be adequate for a sewerage system. A loan proposal was placed before the ratepayers and sanctioned, but it had not been possible to carry out the work. So far as Day s Bay was concerned, he thought most ratepayers disliked the idea of septic tanks. The Hutt County Council considered it best to wait and co-operate with the Eastbourne Borough Council in a joint undertaking. It was felt it would be unwise to launch into a stop-gap scheme in view of the large water scheme under consideration with regard to the city. Continuing, Mr. Hoggard said there was actually only one stream at Day s Bay, which was seriously polluted, but if the outlet were kept clear the trouble should diminish. The schemes suggested would involve an expenditure of upwards of £lO,OOO, and that was far too great a burden. He quoted figures to show the levies made upon ratepayers. Replying to the chairman, Mr. Hoggard said the number of houses .at Day’s Bay was about 125, and the number of people residing there about 400 or 450. Visitors up to 3000 visited the bay on a public holiday. They were the people who would benefit most if sewerage and water systems were established, while they paid nothing. Mr. Hoggard said he had used the water at Day’s Bay for years, ■ and had suffered no ill effect. As to the suggestion that a temporary arrangement should be made with the City Council for a supply of water, the City Council had replied to representations that it had insufficient water with which to supply the city. The council was the largest owner of property in Day’s Bay. The speaker felt that the City Council was under moral obligation to -rovide water at Day’s Bay. Financial Difficulties. Mr. H. M. Jones (Eastbourne Borough Council) said that the local bodies concerned had reasonable answers to the complaint made. The Eastbourne Boroug Council was jealous for the health of its ratepayers. Although the proper sanitary conditions did not exist, the health of the ratepayers compared favourably. The council was anxious that the facilities should be effected, and it was within striking distance of having that done. In 1924 loan proposals had been carried to provide water and sewerage, but the financial position had not allowed the work to be carried into effect. The speaker dealt at length with the difficulties and loss of revenue the council had experienced with its ferry service. The council had collected over £20.000 from the ratepayers of the borough for the ferries. That sum would have gone a considerable distance toward providing a water supply. . The council had large sums invested in its ferries and omnibuses, and its revenue

was decreasing, owing to increased motor traffic. The speaker made a point of the suggestion, that a water board for Greater Wellington would be more satisfactory, cheaper and economical. The water board at present existent included Eastbourne, yet Eastbourne had to go ahead with a scheme of its own. The position was absurd. .The ratepayers of the Eastbourne Borough Council could not be burdened further with a loan of £50,000. In answer to the chairman, Mr. Jones said he anticipated that after two years the council should be enabled to consider the matter of drainage and sewerage. He agreed that a metropolitan water board should be constituted, and should take over the whole of the liabilities of the smaller bodies. Outside the water areas controlled by the Wellington City Council and the Water Board, there was no source of adequate water supply. The only real solution was for the Eastbourne Borough Council to draw a supply from the Orongorongo pipes, by arrangement with the Wellington City Council. Mr. Jones considered that the conditions in regard to sewerage at Day’s Bay were not as gloomy as Dr. Findlay had described, although the conditions were unsatisfactory. The council would like to commence on sewerage and water systems to-morrow, but their finance would not allow it.

Mr. R. Tait (Wellington City Council) pointed out that in its recreation grounds at Day’s Bay the City Council had a big liability. These grounds were maintained entirely in the interests of the Hutt County Council. He was not prepared to say anything further in regard to the matters in dispute, but would report to the City Council. The chairman said the sub-committee was prepared to accept a statement from the City Council. The inquiry was adjourned.