THE DRAINAGE BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13781, 20 June 1908, Page 6

THE DRAINAGE BILL.

DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION. SOME POINTS CLEARED UP. • A SATISFACTORY MEETING. A meeting of the committee appointed by the Auckland Drainage Conference, and consisting of the Mayor and three members of the City Council, and the Mayors of the boroughs and chairmen of the road boards interested in the drainage scheme, was held at the City Council Chambers last evening. The Mayor of Auckland (Mr. A. M. Myers) presided, and there were also present: Messrs. L. J. Bagnall, C. J. Parr and A. .7. Eniricau (City Council), G. W. Basley (Mayor of Paxncll), G. Sayers. (Mayor of Grey Lynn). 0. Nicholson (Mayor of Mount Eden), F. Bennett (Mayor of Newmarket), W. R. Bloomrkkl (chairman of the Epsom Road Board), E. W. Burton (chairman of the- Ono-tree Hill Road Board), F. Rowe (chairman of the Archhill Road Board), J. Garrett (chairman of the Eden Terrace Road Board), M. J. Coyle (chairman of the Mount AlbertRoad Board;, T. Coates (chairman of the Orakei Road Board). The town clerk (Mr. H. W. Wilson), city engineer (Mr. W. E. Bush), and city solicitor (Mr. T. Cotter) were also present. After a short- discussion, a motion to admit the press to the meeting was carried by six to live. AN ALTERED CLAUSE. The Chairman said that the provisions of the Drainage Bill, which would be considered by the meeting, had all been embodied in resolutions already agreed to by tho conference of local bodice. The Bill had been carefully considered before being printed. He had taken upon himself the responsibility of altering the resolution passed by the conference to the effect that three non-resident commissioners should be appointed by the Governor-in-Council to allocate the division of the cost of tho outfall sewer amongst the different contributing bodies. Mr. Cotter had, however, pointed out that this would involve three non-residents spending a great deal of their time in Auckland. In the circumstances, it was considered proper, primarily in the interests of the suburban bodies, to alter the clause by providing that the city engineer should make an assessment. This was in the interests of the suburban bodies in that they would, under the altered clause, have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against, any assessment, whereas under the original proposal, the decision of tho commissioners would have been final. Mr. Bush explained that the assessment would be fixed by the Valuer-General, and that ho (Mr. Bush) would allocate the contributions. Tha contribution of the City Council, under the new proposal would be' greater than under the original arrangement. Mr. Cotter also explained the advantages of the amendment. Messrs. Nicholson and Bloomfield spoke in favour of tho resolution as originally passed, the former stating that what he objected to in the Bill was the constitution of the board, and the method of assessment. Otherwise, said Mr. Nicholson, the Bill was a good one, and he would .support it. The chairman said that if any of the local bodies objected to what the majority of them decided, it was quite competent for them to do whatever thoy liked when the Bill went before the Local Bills Committee of the House of Representatives. The consideration given to the Bill had not been one-sided at all; there had bq|m an earnest attempt made to solve a most intricate position. It was agreed to take the Bill clause by clause.

THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

At clause 5, dealing with the constitution'of the Drainage Board, Mr. Barley said that the Parnell Council considered that the Bill was unfairly drafted in that it did not give each contributing body representation on the board it being provided that the City Council should be the Drainage Board. The Chairman said that the Bill only affected the main outfall sewer, and the City Council must take the responsibility of that. If they all wanted representation, what was the logical conclusion ? Several Voices; A "Greater Auckland Mr. Nicholson: Why did not Mr. Cotter nut thai in the Bill ? Mr. Cotter : I was not instructed to do so. The Chairman : I did not have the audacity to instruct Mr. Cotter to prepare a Greater Auckland Bill, but I hope to have that pleasure soon. If you want to get all the advantages of a Greater Auckland without taking any responsibility, it is hardly a fair position. Mr. Entrican said that the City Council had always been against a drainage board. He supposed it would be now said that the Council was inconsistent. Mr. Basley : That, is understood., Mr. Entrican : It is not understood. An, ordinary drainage board has power to go on any land and break it up. Voices: The Bill provides that, Mr. Entrican : Yes; but only in regard to the main sewer. THE CONTRIBUTIONS. Mr. Bush eaid that the total capital assessment of the combined districts was .-•i.5,362,249, of which the city represented £8,642,023, and the suburban districts £4,7iw,216. The city's proportion of the cost of the main sewer would be about two-thirds. Mr. Bloomfiekl staffed that the figures prepared some time ago showed that the city would contribute £177,000 and the other district £209,000, Mr. Bush said that the former figures were based on an average struck between the estimated ultimate population to be served and the present ratable capital value. The ligures now adopted were based on the capital value only. The amended allocation as provided by the Bill was on the basis of capital value. The total estimated cost of the main sewer was £400,000, and the contributions were allocated as follows: — Citv, £259,260; Archhill, £4205; Eden Terrace, £5316; Epsom, £11,705; Grey Lynn. £18.525; Mount, Albert, £14,545; Mount Eden, £24,867; Newmarket, £8490; One-tree Hill (approximate). £6000; Orakei, £330; Farnell, £18,989; Point Chevalier. £1704; Remuera, £23,787. If the Bill were passed, a new valuation would have to be made, and some of the assessments might be increased and some reduced. THE MAIN JUNCTION SEWERS. Mr. Rowe said he understood that the Archhill Gully sewer would be treated as part of the main sewer, but that was not in the Bill. Mr. Bush said tluit this was not done because there was not sufficient time to obtain the necessary data.. A provision of an, extra £100,000 had, however, been made for this and other branch sewers. Tho provision that no drainage into the harbour apart from the new scheme should bo permitted after 1925 was put in to afford ample time within which all the works should be completed. The Harbour Board, however, would probably press for tho period to be reduced. SUBURBAN REPRESENTATION. Mr. Nicholson moved, and Mr. Savers seconded, that the suburban Mayors "and chairmen he added to the Drainage Board. Mr. Parr said that the City Council should make the main sewer. If it made a main sewe* for itself alone it would be done at less cost. If the suburbs wanted representation they could get it by coming into a Greater Auckland. Mr, Burton said that tho Bill made not the slightest provision for the reticulation of the connecting- sewers, and yet the suburban bodies wen- asked to join in the cost of a sewer that would be necessary for the city in am' case. What was asked was that the suburban bodies should contribute ..to the cost of a scheme which would give them no drainage at all. He could not recommend iii-» Board to support such a Bill. Mr. Savers said the suburban bodies must be either represented on the Board, or there must be a Greater Auckland,

Tho Haver stated that- under the Bill k would cost the city £14.000 to £15,000 more than the originally proponed. Ml*. Bush explained the proposed lino ot the intercepting sewers, and how provision would be made for them in each of lis* suburban districts, in order that they could connect with the drainage system. Mr. Nicholson said that after the explanation given he was satisfied to withdraw his amendment in regard to representation. If the City Council was committed to a certain defined policy it- could be trusted to carry out the works. The constitution clause was then passed, Mr. Basley dissenting. AN AMENDMENT. At clause IS (providing for the work* to be done), the chairman moved the following addition:"And smell other main sewers or drains as in the opinion of the drainage engineer shall he neoes-'Sary or advisable to enable tho contributing bodies to connect the drainage of their respective districts with the said main line, as shown on the said plan." The amendment was agreed to, and the clause passed. It was agreed to treat as main junction sewers under the Bill the two branch intercepting sewers within the. city at Ponsonby, as well as the suburban main junction sewers at Hobsou Bay. Manukau Road, Archlnll gullv. and thai through tho Mount- Albert district to the Mount Eden boundary. SECURITY FOB LOANS. j Mr. Cotter, in speaking with reference I to section SO. which provides that no objection shall oe allowed it! any Court to anv rate or contribution which the Drainage Board or any local authority shall purport to assess, strike, etc., stated that he had drawn it up in that form because the only security that the Drainage Board comet offer to the investing public was the rate to be. struck under "that Act to pay interest and sinking fund, and that the section providing for the actual payment of that rate without objection by any contri--1 buting body was -almost the only security j that the investing public had. i At clause, 30 (sub clause 91 Mr. Basley | said that ho thought that the Drainage j Board should have the benefit of tho Hobson Bay reclamation. j The "Chairman said that the Harbour ! Board objected to that. The remainder of the clauses were passed i unaltered, and it was agreed that the Bill ! be referred for confirmation to a meeting ' of the conference to be held on July 3. i | OBJECTION FROM ORAKEI. i DEPUTATION OF NATIVES. A deputation from the natives residing ; at Orakci waited upon the Mayor yesterj day, for the purpose of representing their i views regarding the proposed construction of the main sewer along the beach in front of the native settlement at Orakci. Dr. Duck, who acted as interpreter, stated that the Maoris understood that the sower would be 7ft above high water level. The Mavor eaid that the height of tho sewer, as 'staled, would be 7ft above high water level, and that the question of determining the rights of the natives would be settled bv a proper tribunal. He suggested that tho natives should sell the land required. The deputation replied that they did not. wish to sell the land, and that their pipibeds and fishing grounds would ho affected by the sewer. 'They suggested a now pipeline passing under 'the cliff at the head of the wharf, with tanks at the head of the cliff. They also said that the height of the sewer was an objection, as it obstructed the view from their settlement. _ They also objected to the proposed location of the furnace. The city engineer (Mr. W. E. Bush) said that the alternative line suggested would not be a sufficient improvement from tho natives' point of view to warrant its adoption. Ho considered that a, new beach would form outside of the sewer. The Mayor said that tho height, of the sewei could not be. altered. The engineer would endeavour to meet their wishes in regard to tho furnace, and generally their interests would be carefully considered.