THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7224, 25 April 1884, Page 6

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

CONFERENCE OP LOCAL _ BODIES. A conference of representatives of the local bodies in the Christchurch Drainage District was held at the City Council Chambers, at 3 p.m. yesterday, to consider “ the advisability of abolishing the Drainage Board, and of making the necessary arrangements for one of the existing local bodies to take over tho loan Mid the management of tho pumping station and outfall drain;’ also tho allocation of tho amount that each district should contribute towards tho interest and sinking fund of tho loan, and tho other expenses incurred in tho maintenance of tho pumping station and outfall drain.” Tho following representatives were present:—The Mayw ox Christchurch and Councillor Keese, Christchurch City Council; Councillors Andrew and Forrester, Sydenham Borough Council; tho Mayor of St Albans; Messrs H. J. Hall and Numveek, Biccarton Road Board; W. Dunlop and W. Ray, Avon Road Board; F. Jones and W. T. C. Mills, Heathcoto Road Board; R. Glen and Toomer, Linwood Town Board; J. H. Hopkins and H. A. Bamford, Woolston Town Board, and W. Flesher. The Mayor of Christchurch was voted to the chair.

The Town Clerk read the resolution passed by the City Council on March 31, to tho effect that the Conference should be called. He also read a second resolution, passed at the same time, to the effect that tho Conference should take into consideration the question of procuring legislation in order to create a District Board of Health, of which the members should be nominated by the local bodies. The Chairman said that these resolutions aivso from a belief that tho present management of tho Drainage Board was more expensive than it need be. The City contributed 4 two-thirds of the revenue, and, naturally, two-thirds of the expenses of management. There was very little doubt in the minds of the Council that they could manage their portion of the works with a very little addition to their present staff. Considerable alterations, however, were involved, and the subject required careful consideration. Mr D. Reese had always considered the Drainage Board a great mistake, and the longer it continued in existence,' the more he was convinced of its cumbrousness. The Board had spent the whole of the loan, and was considerably in debt. The works were not Ucarly finished, and if they were to bo, the Board would have to borrow another ,£IOO,OOO. He had taken the trouble to prepare a statement that showed that by the abolition of tho Drainage Board they *would make a considerable saving. This, however, was not tho main object, which, in his opinion, was that each local body should have the control of its own works. No one knew better how to conduct the drainage of a particular district than the local body of that district. He calculated that Christchurch would save about 3d in the £if the Drainage Board were abolished. Some of the other local bodies were, of course, not so deeply interested as that, and he thought that Christchurch and Sydenham being the principal centres of population, must proceed with the more important part of the works. By the abolition of the Drainage Board the working expenses would be reduced, by his plan, to £1350; and a sum of £13,500 would be required for interest and sinking fund on loans. The total cost would be £14,850, a saving on the present amount of £4844. He considered that each district should be charged interest and sinking fund only on that portion of the loan spent within it. It was, however, impossible to get at that at present, or, at all events, was a matter for an expert to discover. The Drainage Board was so constituted, and had such powers, that now it was almost impossible for a local body to make a drain across a street without its consent, so that it was necessary, above all things, that tie local bodies should have the management of their own drains and sewers. Sewers were needful in the largely populated districts, but there was no money to make any more of them. The Board was overdrawn £15,000, and when it had collected its rates there would still be a deficit of £7OOO. He had prepared two resolutions, the first of which was—- “ That this conference of delegates from local bodies concerned conjointly by ‘ The Christchurch District Drainage Act, 1875/ is of opinion that it would be in the interests of all concerned if the Drainage Board, as constituted by the said Act, were abolished.” Were this carried, he would propose a second motion, to the effect that the City Council should take charge of the pumping station, &c. It would be necessary to have an Act passed next session to effect the alteration, with a provision that each district should have the privilege of using the sewage system as at present, provided they complied with the requirements of the Christchurch Drainage Act. He would move the first resolution.

Mr Dunlop seconded the motion pro form&. Mr Jones said that Mr Eeese seemed somewhat illogical when he said that the Drainage Board was a mistake, and then that Christchurch and Sydenham must go on with the works. He (Mr Jones) thought that the Drainage Board was a necessity. At the same time, he did not endorse all that had been done by the Board. The money had not always been spent advantageously, and a great deal of it need not have been spent to the present day. The moment the <£200,000 was expended, the expenditure on papital account should have ceased. At present, large portions of the district were paying for work done elsewhere. Though they did not want to abolish the Board, or alter its constitution, they did want to effect a very great alteration in the administration of its work. It would be well if the Board would delegate to the local bodies its powers with regard to rivers and watercourses, and also with regard to health inspection. This would be looked upon with great favour in the Heathcote district, and would effect a large saving in the expenses of management. The conference would also do a great public service if they drew attention to the unfair system of rating on the capital value. It seemed to him that the Heathcote district was being overcharged for interest and sinking fund, considering the work done in it, and there were some districts which were not paying for the money spent in them. He thought, also, that the representatives of the districts on the Board should be more nearly equalised. Christchurch, for instance, which contributed £12,000, had four members. Another district, contributing £228, had one. If necessary, the number of the members of the Board might be increased in order to effect this.

The Mayor of St Albans thought that whatever was done by the conference, the local bodies > interested should give an opinion on the subject. The Chairman took it that nothing done at the conference would bo binding on the local bodies.

Mr H. J, Hall thought that it would be almost an impossibility to do away with the Drainage Board. When established it was thought necessary to have a separate Board, because of the conflicting interests of the local bodies. He considered that, on the whole, the Drainage Board had done a treat deal for the district, though had it ad at starting the experience it now possessed no doubt some oi the expenditure might have been saved. It was a representative body, so that if the ratepayers were displeased with its members they could refuse to re-elact them. He contended that the Drainage Board was the proper body to act as a District Board of Health, simply because it had control over the whole district. A most unsatisfactory state of things would result if there were several authorities in matters of health in the one district. He thought that Mr

Jones’ proposal to delegate to the local bodies the powers of the Board m regard to surface drainage would not work, as the same drains frequently ran through two or more districts, and disputes would arise about tho time of cleaning them and the like. Ho considered rating on the capital value the fairest system. (Hoar, hoar.) Mr J. H. Hopkins thought that tho groat object was to save tho cost of administration, for at present tho Board was a very costly one. The money was all gone, and it was really in a state of bankruptcy. It was never contemplated that it should bo turned into a sewerage Board, and now it should bo re-constituted and made into a sewerage Board for Christchurch and tho suburbs, for a sewerage Board and a drainage Board were two different things. He asked if the Drainage Board had been consulted in regard to tho present propositions. », Tho Chairman replied in tho negative, Mr Hopkins thought it was very important to know the feeling of tho Board, as a body, on tho subject. Mr Andrew thought it would bo premature to pass the resolution. Ho suggested that an export should be appointed to go into the whole question of the expenditure in the various districts. Ho thought the amounts charged against Christchurch, Sydenham, and Heathcoto were not in fair proportion. He considered that the Drainage Board had been a mistake. The £200,000 they had borrowed was to have been ample for all works, and now that sum was spent, but the works were not finished. If the Board were to continue in existence, there would have to be more borrowing, and that would mean another shilling in the£ on the rates. The present financial position was very serious, but he did not think that Mr Reese’s scheme would effect tho saving that gentleman supposed. Mr H. J. Hall said that, if the Board had to borrow £60,000 or £BO,OOO more, the rapidly increasing value of property would enable them, in a few years, to pay all charges out of a rate of 6d or 7d in the £. Mr Andrew remarked that the same thing had been said some years ago.

Mr W. T. C. Mills said that the value of property in the Heathcoto district had increased 25 per cent, while the rate had risen from 6d to lOd. •

In answer to Mr Bamford, the Chairman said that though he believed it was not strictly necessary, a vote of the citizens would probably be taken to decide whether the City Council should take over the sewage system. He would like to explain that the Council, when passing the resolution for the conference, did not mean that they were of opinion that the Drainage Board should be abolished. They simply thought that they were sanctioning the calling together of representatives from the local bodies to take into consideration the present system. They did not express any opinion that they would be willing to undertake such a task as the management of the sewage system. He himself was very much of opinion that they would not be willing to do so. There were very great difficulties in the way of any alteration. Speaking for himself, he was satisfied that a reduction could be made in the cost of collecting the rates. There was no reason why the local bodies should not do this. The City Council had done so for one year, and therefore he could say that it was merely a matter of beeping a drainage rate account, for the money could be got in by the same notices and collectors who attended to the city rates. The expenses would be very small. He was very strongly of opinion that there should be one medical officer for the whole district. With regard to inspection, the City Council had two inspectors, and did not require those of the Board, though they paid two-thirds of the salaries of the Board’s inspectors. ? Mr Hall said that the Council did not pay anything towards the cost of the Board’s inspectors.

The Chairman said that he was informed by the Town Clerk that they did do so. However, if Mr Hall were right, he would of course admit the correction. With regard to rating, he thought the majority of those present would agree that the capital value basis was the fairest.

Mr Jones moved, as an amendment—- " This conference is of opinion that in the interests of the ratepayers of the Christchurch Drainage District, it is desirable that the Drainage Board should delegate to the local bodies in the district all the necessary powers to attend to the cleansing of rivers and {open watercourses in their respective districts, where required so to do; also to depute to them the inspection under the Local Board of Health Act, and also to promote an amendment in the Drainage Act to bring the collection of the drainage rates under the operation of a law similar to that obtaining for the collection of the Waimakarhi river rate/' Mr Bamford seconded the amendment. Mr Hall thought that it would make sanitary inspection a dead letter if the powers of the Board of Health were delegated to the local bodies. He agreed with the last clausa of the amendment. The Chairman suggested that Mr Jones should make the three clauses of his amendment into three separate propositions. Mr Jones agreed to do so. Mr Eeese thought that the plan suggested in Mr r Jones’ first proposition would not effect any saving. t Mr Glen agreed, with most of what had fallen from Mr Hail. There was no doubt that Christchurch and the surrounding districts had been improved by the Drainage Board. At the same time, he thought that a drainage scheme involving the expenditure of such a large amount of money should have gone hand in hand with a proper water supply scheme , (Hear, hear.) He hoped that in the not very distant future a water supply would be assented to by the ratepayers of Christchurch. (Hear, hear.) He pointed out that the rates were levied unfairly on some of the districts. In rural Linwood the ratepayers paid id in the £, and had had nothing done for them. The Mayor remarked that in part of Linwood the rate was Is in the ■£, though it was impossible for householders there to have their premises connected with the sewers.

Mr Glen said that he was opposed to the amendment, for he had a lively recollection of the squabbles that used to take place between the City Council and the Heathcote Koad Board about the Ferry road drain. If power over the drains were given to the various local bodies the same bickerings and heart burnings would be repeated. There was no doubt the management of affairs in the Drainage Board might have been more closely looked after, but much of the discontent that prevailed on the subject was due to the apathy of the ratepayers themselves in not looking sharply after the doings of their representatives. He would like to add -—and in doing so would say that lie thought he represented the opinion of a large number of persons in the Linwood district—that a very great mistake had been made by the Board in dismissing their Medical Officer. Mr Hopkins moved, as a further amendment—" That the Drainage Board be requested to meet a deputation from this conference for the purpose of considering the most economical method of carrying °“ works of the Board; and, also, whether any fresh organisation of the Drainage Board is desirable —the deputation to consist of one member from each ™P ro3Qn tod at the conference.” f owner seconded the amendment. Mr Mall said that he would not attend on any deputation with the object of doing way with the Drainage Board, or with j ® Board of Health. He had no doubt that the public clamour about the expenditure of the Board had been the cause of that body doing away with the

Medical Officer, and he agreed with Mr Glen that the Board never made a greater mistake than that.

Mr Dunlop said that it was very prejudicial to tho best interests of the district that tho Drainage Board and the Board of Health should bo one body. Ho know that tho Drainage Board sometimes shielded themselves from doing necessary work by tho fact of their being tho Board of Health. He thought, however, that a Board of Health was necessary, Mr Hopkins’ proposition was carried, after some further conversation.

Mr Jones said he would like to press his last proposition—“ That the Drainage Board bo requested to promote an amendment in the Drainage Act to bring tho collection of tho drainage rates under the operation of a law similar to that obtaining for tho Waimakariri rate.”

This was carried, on division, by eight votes to five.

Mr Reese moved —" That this conference is of opinion that it is advisable to procure legislation to create a ' Distinct ’ Board of Health,for tho present drainage district by nominating one member from each of the local bodies contained in the aforesaid district; members to remain in office for, say, three years.” Mr Glen seconded the motion, which was agreed to item con. A vote of thanks was then passed to the promoters of the conference, and a similar compliment to His Worship tho Mayor, for presiding, brought the proceedings to a close.