LAYING WATER MAINS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 51, 28 August 1925, Page 7

LAYING WATER MAINS

UNDER PRIVATE PROPERTY BILL BEFORE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The proposal to give the Wellington City Council authority to construct water mains under private lands or buildings, contained in the Wellington City Empowering Bill, was discussed in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. • In moving the second reading of the Bill, the Hon. J. P. Campbell, who conducted it in the absence of tho Hon. T. W. Hislop, pointed out that no entry could be made on private land for the purpose of laying water pipes without the consent of the owner. He also alluded to the Municipal Corporations Act as enabling owners of property to claim compensation for damago dono. In the circumstances he submitted that the Bill was one which should pass. The Hon. Sir F. Lang said he did not oppose the Bill, but he called attention to the unfortunate position of some people who permitted local bodias to take water pipes under their property. After twelve months they had no claim to compensation, and it sometimes occurred that no damage took place until after that time had elapsed. The time limit, in his opinion, should bo douo away with. GENERAL APPLICATION URGED The Hon. G. J. Garland said it appeared to him that the powers asked for were practically held by the local bodies already. It was a question whether the Bill should not be mado applicable generally, aud not particularly to Wellington.

The Leader of the Council (Sir Francis Bell) said he did not think it would be wise to make a .general provision under the Municipal Corporations Act. Wellington was in a peculiar position, as tho water coming from Wainui-o-Mata had to follow the hills. In flatter cities the local authority should be made to keep to the streets. He pointed out that claims for compensation could not be permitted at an indefinite period after the work had been done. There must be 6ome limit to claims on a local authority. He thought there was very good reason why the Bill should pass. The Hon. W. Earnshaw said the Leader of the Council had made a good case of a bad subject. Sir Francis: "Would you prevent the watermains from being laid?" Mr. Earnshaw replied in the negative, but added that the Bill applied'to all kinds of reticulation. He objected that no protection was given to the property owner in' the shape of provision for leaving the ground in a satisfactory state. The manner in which the City Corporation left the streets after the completion of a job' was a standing disgrace. He favoured the suggestion that the measure should be made applicable to tho whole of New Zealand, for there were other towns in the Dominion which were similar to Wellington. The Hon. H. L. Michel said he failed to see any grounds for opposing the Bill, as it did not deprive the ratepayers of any of the rights they held afc present. The damage that might be done if a break occurred in the pipes was referred to by the, Hon. J. Craigie, who asked why one ratepayer should be penalised if any damage should occur. Compensation, he maintained, should be payable in respect to damage which occurred at any time. Tho Bill was read the second time.