THE DRAINAGE BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 12927, 25 September 1906, Page 8

THE DRAINAGE BILL.

BOABD AND SUBURBAN COUNCILS

CONFER.

Ac conference between the 'Drainage Board and renreaentatiyes, of suburban boroughs, for the purpose of hearing the. objections of the boroughs to the Dunedih: District. Drainage, and Sewerage Act Amendment .Bill, now befor© Parliament, was held in.the Board's office last night. The members, of tbe\ Board present were Mr W. Burnett (chairman), Mr T. Scott, Mr J. Gore, and Mr J. J. Mariow, with Mr G. Mondy (solicitor) and Mr SKnger (engineer). The .suburban delegates were : Maori HUl—Messrs P. Duncan, J. Smith, A. Butterfield, G. Butler, and C. Grater (clerk); North-east Valley—Mr J. Campbell ; St, Kilda-Messrs W. J. Burk, C. J. Gore, and W. ,T. M'Farlaiie; Mornington—Messrs F.. Anderson, E. T. Clarke, and P. Nelson (clerk); Roslyn—Mr J. A. MacMillah. . .*../' Mr Burnett said that they had met to discuss the amendments in tho Drainage Bill, and he hoped they would not go berond the amendments. The first clause to be considered, this being the crux of the whole question, would be clause 12, relating to —Natural Watercourses.— Mr Duncan said that the suburban boroughs, at their conference on Saturday night, went through the Bill clause by clause, and formulated certain objections and suggestions. As to clause 12, the object of the Board seemed to be to avoid the responsibility of. dealing with natural watercourses and surface water. The Board seek to effect that object and to maintain the position which they would gain by debarring any owner of land in which there is a depression or watercourse from doing anything to impede the flow of water, but the Board at the same time take to themselves the right to execute work (in the event of obstruction), providing for a passage for such water at the expense of the owner of the laud, and exdud© themselves from liability in respect of ihc watercourse— even after the execution of th© works referred to. At a first casual reading of this clause, it might appear to be a fair one, on the ground that the party who has caused an obstruction deserves to suffer the consequences. But a full and ccinrprehensive consideration of the physical features'of tb© suburban areas, and of the exigencies of these respective boroughs in th© disposal of their surface street drainage, and of th© Laws which empower boroughs to do certain acts, and which place certain obligations upon propertyowners, show that if this clause were inserted in the Bill, the Board would create an impossible position. First, the location of each of th© suburban boroughs is such that all surface water, storm water, or water in a natural wa,terconrse. must find its way through the Citv of Dunedin befotv it reaches either the harbor or the Kenn. The Board cannot disregard the -ccossitv for providing for these waters. •Vv-nndlv, the exigencies of the snburban iVM-vmghs are such that they must lead ,'hpir surface street drainage into the naiural watercourses —the contour of the rruntry necessitates this. In some cases I lie flow of this surface water has been deflected from the original to other watercourses, and in some cases the flow from several streets has been concentrated to one point, and turned on to private property, on which there is a depression forming or leading ultimately to a watercourse. Thirdlv. the laws empowering the borouglis to so. act, and placing obligations on pro-pertv-ownexs with certain but very doubtful remedies, enable the boroughs to get rid of surface .water in the easiest but only possible way in which they can get rid of it. Similar newer is vested in the Drainage Board. If these statements be admitted, it must follow that :—(a) An actual situation exists for which provision must be made, (b) The situation involves an intereference with the properties of holders on to whoso lands these waters are led. There may be depressions on their properties, there may be watercourses, but that these depressions or watercourses are now clean and pure, as originally they were, no one will contend, (c) The situation is one in which the suburban borough corporations are as much interested as the property -owners are affected—these corporations must get rid of their street drainage, be it surface, storm, or any other water. Again, the settlement upon the snburban boroughs without any fixed system of sewerage has resulted in the house sewage being led into street channels. Sewage, storm water, and surface water are all by the one means (for there is no other existing) led into the depre'Bions and watercourses, and left to find outlet through the lands of property owners. It will be answered by the Board.that this will be remedied as each district becomes "sewered." But ihe obvious answer of property owners in the outlying districts is that the sewering cannot possibly be undertaken for a good many years to come, and the. question is rightly asked : Is th© development of every property on which a depression exists (for the interpretation of the law goes so far as to define a depression to be a natural watercourse), to be held up for years until a district is sewered. Further, as indicated, the Municipal Acts and the position taken up or sought to be created by the Board place the property owner between two contending authorities, neither of which he «an placate and neither of which will placate him. let the Board seek now to place it beyond the power of the property owner to protect himself, or compel him to seek compensation from the Corporation of his suburban borough, whose answer to him in the first instance is to go- to the Drainage Bnard. It is manifest that tho watercourses in the suburbs of Dunedin cannot be kept unpolluted, and that it is impossible for "the Drainage Board to stand alcof from taking the responsibility and control of waitrDourses. If they do take this responsfbility and control they should be prepared, immediately upon a-property owner notifying his desire to develop his property, to make provision for carrying the water by covered way, because under existing, physical conditions, and as a result of the necessary exercise of their powers by municipal bodies, it is a fiction to say that any watercourse in the suburban area of Dunedin now carries or can be made to carry unpolluted water. The following is submitted as a Substitute for clause 12:—"(1) No person shall fill in or otherwise obstruct any natural water, course, stream, creek, or gully in the district without having first madcj to the satisfaction of the drainage engineer, provision for the passage of storm water which would have otherwise been carried in such watercourse, stream, creek, or gully, and if anv such person shall -fail to make such provision os aforesaid, the Board shall be at liberty to provide for the passage of sach storm water in such manner as it ihinks fit, and section 6 hereof shaU apply to all works, materials, or things executed, provided, or done by the Board for such purpose. (2) The Board shall enclose and cover in any s-tream or watercourse within the district which, by reason of rcwago or other offensive matter therein, or from anv other cause whatever, has, or in the opinion, of the council of the borough within .which such stream or watercourse is situated niav become a nuisance or dangerous to the public health, whereupon the work shall become a public drain; and the owner of any land on which any such watercourse, stream, creek, or gully is situated shall be entitled to call upon the Board at any time to make, construct, and lay down such drains, and do al 1 such other works as may be necessary for the covering in of such stream or watercourse." In concluding, Mr Duncan said that the amendments he asked for would protect the interests of all parties. Mr Scott said that they would protect the property owners.

Mr J. Gore said that if the on-.is were cast on the Drainage Board, as Mr Duncan wished, a million of money would rot do the work.

Mr Anderson.and Mr Campbell supported the suburban boroughs' suggestions. Mr Burnett said that the suburban delegates were totally misled about this clause. The object of the clause was to prevent a rapacious property owner from r-topping the flow of a creek or stream, and thus creating a nutunce or a pestilence. Mr Mondy said that the Board's idea was to abandon clause 12 of the amended Bill and to have this clause, dealing simply with irtonu water: "No person shall fill, in or ctiMEHrise obstruct aw nataal

stream, creek, or gully, in the dfetrict -with-' out having first made, to the satisfaction of the drainage engineer, provision for the passage of storm water which would have otherw4sc,..been carried in such watercourse, stream, creek,, or gully; and if roiy srch person.shall fail 1,0 maie'such provision as aforesaid', the Board shall be at liberty;to provide for the passage of such storm water in such manner, as it thinks fit, and sectjon 6 hereof shall apply to all works, materials, or things l executed, provided, or done by the Board for such purpose;'provided always that the supervision, of any such works by the drainage engineer, or th© execution thereof by the Board, shalL not fender the Board liable in respect /.of. any such water--course, stream, creek'j or gully, or the provision made for the passage of such storm water; and such works, if executed-by the Board, shall, be deemed, to. "be executed as agent for such, person."'"'The effect of this was-that no. person should be at. liberty to fill in any watercourse without first making provision, to the satisfaction of the Board's engineer, for the of such water. If" anyone did so act, the Board could enter in and do the work. The Board did not father liability for anything but storm water in natural watercouses.

Mr Duncan: What is storm water in a natural watercouise? Mr Burnett: The rain from heaven. Mr Duncan: Then I defy tho Board to find any natural watercourse in or about Dunedin that takes only storm water. Mr Scott said that the first duty of the Board was to deal with sewage, and till then they should leave storm wafcer alone. That was tho opinion he had always held and still held. If a man bought land in a gully and filled it in, he was justly entitled to pay for it. A quarter of a miHjon of monay would not suffice if tho Board • had to take over all these watercourses, and nan© of the present members of the Board would live to see the completion of the scheme. The Board's little efforts to deal with storm water in the past had not been a success, and h© thought the Board had made a mistake in trying to deal with this matter as yet. The delegates might rest content that it was the Board's intention to push on sewerage as fast as possible. Some of the applications 'before the Board bore no other construction than a desire to get. out of just liability.

Mr J. Gore said it was no breach of confidence, to tell the meeting that Mr Cardew said the other day he would never dream of putting a sewer in a watercourse —that the natural drainage should be left free of sewage.

Mr C. J. GoTe held that the meeting was not called to discuss the Board's past actions, but to consider what was best to be done in the future. At the same time, he did not think that the boroughs wished to hamper the Board. St. KiWa did not, at anv rate.

Mr Burnett, said that they bad discussed the natural watercourses clause sufficiently, and he might as well state that the Board intended to retain that clause. It was their duty to dc so. Mr Campbell asked if the Board had made up their minds about other clauses to which objection was taken. If so., there was no use discussing them. Mr Burnett said that these other clauses were up for consideration. —Charges on Sections.—

Mr Burk protested against what he took to be the effect of clauso 45. A man might buy a section, and some time afterwards find out that a charge was registered against the section. Mr Mondy said the Board would meet that objection by agreeing that the charge should only attach to the land on registration of the change. —Evidence as to Cost. — Mr Burk also found fault with section 36, saying that it was unfair to make the drainage engineer's certificate conclusive as to cost-. Mr Mondy said that- this would be- qualified, so as to make the engineer's certificate prima facie evidence as to cost until it was proved wrong. —lnterest. . Mr Duncan b-ronght up an objection to clause 6. subsection B, and The Board agreed that whore the Board execute work in default of the owner doing so, three months' grace should be allowed before recovering from the owner. —Rating Powers.— Mr Duncan moved an alteration, in the clause which takes the place of clause 48 in the principal Act (" notice as to sewered property "). The object of the amendment is to, make the clause apply to properties using or which might use sewers, although not abutting on a street. It was decided t© leave any modification of this clause to the further consideration of the Board's solicitors. —Land Drainage Act.— Mr Duncan further objected to clause 11, which incorporates the provisions of the Laud Drainage Act. Mr Mondy explained that the idea was to make it clear that sewage could be carried. Mr Duncan protested that this was dragging in a provision evidently intended only lor agriculture 1 land. The question, was passed for the present. —Power of Entry.— Mr Dunean asked for an amendment of the clauso providing for entry to examine as to tho existence of any nuisance or anv breach of tho Act or by-lawn. It was agreed to modiifv the clause so that i shall not apply if tlie work has been passed by th© drainage citgux«r. —Joiot and Several Liability.— Mr Duncan wished the addition*to clause 16 of tho words "where more persons than one are the owners of promises such persons shall bo jointly liable," so as to make provision for cases as where a property was held by trustees or joint owners. It was agreed to leave this to the Board's solicitors. —Representation. Mr Duncan moved an alteration in the constitution of the Board, bv makhv the Board consist of ten members, five elected by the City and one bv each of the boroughs. It was ruled by the Chairman that this question was not properly before the meeting.