DAY'S BAY DRAINAGE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 69, 18 September 1937, Page 10

DAY'S BAY DRAINAGE

WRANGLE GOES ON

NEED FOR CO-OPERATION

Summer is approaching, and every summer. the question of the lack of water and drainage services- at Day's Bay comes up with renewed vigour, but hitherto with very little result. Although in December, 1930, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Hutt County Council, against a Board of Health requisition requiring water and drainage to be installed at Day's Bay, characterising the conditions then as "unsanitary and unsafe," and the •Board of Health decided in June, 1931, that the Hutt County should be required to show why it had not complied with the requisition, nothing satisfactory in the way of reasons had apparently been supplied to the Board of Health by September, 1934, when the following resolution was unanimously carried:—"The board views the provision of proper drainage at Day's Bay as a matter of urgency in the interests of public health, and resolves that if the Hutt County Council will not take steps to supply efficient drainage the board will immediately take into consideration the use of the powers it possesses under section 143 of the Health Act, which enables the board to itself carry out the works at the cost of the local authority."

This was heartening to residents, but their spirits must have drooped again by December, 1935, when they ap-' pealed to the Minister of Health (the Hon. P. Fraser) asking that his Department should take more vigorous action, pointing out that "certain interests are opposing the necessary work on account of possible rate increases, even though the increase will be comparatively slight." Recalling the notice served on the Hutt County to install an efficient system of drainage some years before, the complaint says "the attitude of the Hutt County Council is still one of defiance to the Commission's report." Though there have been more conferences recently between the various bodies concerned with the supply of water and drainage to Day's Bay than ever before, in spite of alternative suggestions, the position stands the same today. SITUATION DIFFERENT. It would be unfair to attribute the whole trouble to conflict between local bodies, because some of them are prepared to do more than others. The attitude of the Hutt County appears to be that the installation required of it would cost more than the annual charge which could be levied on ratepayers would repay, but the position has been changed a good deal since 1930. Eastbourne, which undertook loans totalling £55,000 for water and sewerage in 1925, and was able to turn the water into the mains in 1932, and to see its sewerage scheme in operation in June, 1934, advised the Health Department and the Hutt County in May, 1935, that it was still prepared to confer with and assist the Hutt County in the carrying out of satisfactory water and drainage services for Day's Bay residences.

Eastbourne was not in the position to make similar offers to Lowry Bay or Point Howard, and is still unable to do so owing to configuration and technical reasons, but there are now other sources from which these two residential areas can be supplied, and it appears that provision for the whole of the eastern bays is reasonably possible if a common ground can be reached. There is a limit, it may be supposed, to the patience of the health authorities. It would be preferable if the bodies concerned came to agreement to take action amongst themselves. If they do not do so very shortly, action may be taken by the Government through the Health Department, or a Commission may be set up and its findings may curtail the individual liberties of the parties in perhaps unexpected ways.