THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1908. GREATER AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13683, 26 February 1908, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1908. GREATER AUCKLAND.

The adjourned conference of delegates appointed by the local bodies of the metropolitan area to consider the drainage question reassembles to-day. It may be supposed that in the month which has elapsed since the first meeting there has been a very considerable amount, of discussion and consideration given to this all-important problem by the delegates and the members of the local bodies they represent. But it remains to be seen whether they have realised that the position of affairs thrusts upon them, as upon their constituents, < the immediate con-, sideration of the Greater Auckland problem. There cannot be any question as to the imperative and absolute necessity of adequate drainage for the whole metropolitan district. Certain outlying parts of it might manage to carry on without drainage for a few years longer, but even these may at any time be driven.to insiaJ it- by the pressure of our rapidly increasing population ; while as for the great residence area al-' ready closely built over, and extending far and wide beyond both city and boroughs, the local authorities know very well that should they hesitate much longer to deal with the drainage problem they . will be speedily beaten to it by the ferule of Parliament. There is not a member of any local authority within the metropolitan area who ventures to deny that its populous streets must be provided with modern drainage, whatever the difficulty and whatever | the cost. For our people cannot live healthy lives under the conditions that exist. If we propose to occupy this isthmus as. a great industrial and commercial centre, in which a quarter of a million men, women, and children will soon be congregated, we must promptly and effectively dispose of its sewage. This is perfectly plain; nor is it much less plain that we have no option i but to accept the main drainage scheme of Mr. Midgley Taylor. It is costly, but it is scientific and practical. It avoids pollution of the harbour. It provides a great main system available to all the country on the Waitemata side, which constitutes the greater ■ part of the isthmus. Once completed it will enable drainage to be carried on uninterruptedly as required by the necessities of the 15,685 acres which are within its watersheds—every acre, sooner or later, metropolitan. No other scheme can be suggested in its place. There is, indeed, no rival proposition. What, then, can the _ conference do but consider and decide upon the way to go about its realisation

This brings us at once' to the in-, separable question of a 'Greater Auckland. Some of the delegates to the conference appear inclined to favour the formation of a Drainage Board which would take over the main drain work from the local bodies interested. But this idea is obviously only put forward to escape from the natural' solution or amalgamation. We have the explicit opinion of Mr. Midgley Taylor himself, one of the greatest authorities on drainage in the civilised world, that with a joint board "the whole of the objections pertaining to the present small boroughs and road districts would continue, and there would be no control by the joint board over the internal drainage of each district, which I view as essential to the success of a comprehensive drainage scheme." He tells us that he has ■' never met' an instance where the necessity of an extension of the city boundaries is so apparent and V urgent," and upon various: grounds-—particularly those of economy and of the public health —urges the claims of a Greater

Auckland. Unless we are prepared to ignore the advice of a great engineering authority, whose work is wholly upon municipal lines, we must; necessarily accept his emphatic opinion that the formation of a Greater Auckland should be a prelude to the initiation of a comprehensive drainage scheme. And ; what are the objections raised to the amalgamation of the fifteen local bodies which wield divided authority over this metropolis? Only two are heard with any force: that amalgamation would raise rates and that amalgamation ■ might lead to a neglect of local interests—both arguments depending, of course, ' upon the claim that the petty local bodies are more capable administrators i than "■ an amalgamated municipal | authority .would be. As for the rates, in the data and proposal on the question of amalgamation which was submitted, two years ago, to the conference held upon the Greater Auckland question, Mr. Myers showed conclusively that the surrounding bodies would gain and not lose by amalgamation with I Auckland. The figures of his data i and tabulations have never been i disputed in open debate ; nor has ! it ever been denied by any compej tent individual'that, as the Auckland Mayor pointed out, the existing indebtedness of any amalgamating authority would remain as a charge upon that particular district and would not be thrown upon a Greater Auckland. Under no conceivable circumstances could the mere act of forming a Greater Auckland result in any appreciable raising of rates hi a'constituent portion, if amalgamation takes place upon the lines proposed. Nor is*it reasonable to contend that fifteen local bodies can carry on the work of districts that overlap and intermingle- with one another as economically and as effectively as can a single administration. There has been nothing more wasteful and more burdensome than the endeavours of small local bodies to carry on work entirely beyond their very limited power, but quite within the power of a Greater Auckland municipality. As for the possible neglect of local claims under an amalgamated authority, is there any valid reason to assume this from the experience' of the various parts of Auckland City, and is there not every reason to anticipate that better administration must lead to the lifting of the general standard of excellence in roading, lighting, and other common factors of municipal organisation 1 ? Just as the individual bodies cannot economically deal with drainage but must, in sheer necessity, conjoin with the city and with one another to form the great sewer which will lead their drainage to open tidal waters, so they cannot economically deal with any other public matter, in which their local concern is of general concern, though the fact that they can patch and makeshift in many ways, while they cannot patch and makeshift with drainage that must reach Okahu Point, has enabled them to carry on at great cost, to the ratepayer and with little credit to themselves. We trust that the delegates at to-day's conference will advise the local bodies to consider favourably the formation of a Greater Auckland, and will not attempt to add., another authority, in the. form of a Drainage Board, to the unwieldy number whose archaic existence constitutes the very evident reason why in the year 1908 the Northern metropolis is, still discussing comprehensive drainage.