STORMWATER IN THE CITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18679, 8 April 1924, Page 6

STORMWATER IN THE CITY.

There is some satisfaction in the knowledge that the City Council is not utterly oblivious to suggestions that greater provision should be made for the discharge of stormwater from Queen Street. The statement by the Mayor, however, indicates that, in this matter, the official attitude is unduly conservative. Mr. Gunson contends that complaint is unreasonable since it refers to damage that is not comparable with the injury caused by flooding in country districts and even in some of the more important provincial towns. He is obviously in error in stating that the rainfall in Auckland last week was as heavy as in those other places— as Puhoi, Paeroa, Waiwera and 'Taumaruryii— that is less disturbing than the general principle of his argument. Is the city's government to be guided by the exampile of tine "more important provincial towns" 1 The suggestion cannot be confined to a particular application. If it is right and proper that the greater hardships of provincial towns should be an excuse for neglect of adequate measures against the flooding of city streets, there will be ample justification for inaction in other matters. The paving of city streets would wait until there are no Rangriris in the province ; electric lighting might be postponed until country towns had developed beyond the stage of rare oil-lamps ; and the city suffer shortage of water until every provincial town had a better service. The problem cannot be translated into terms of provincial conditions. It arises from urban conditions, concerns only the city, and if a solution is possible, the city must pay for it. Until accurate inquiry has been made as to the extent and character of the ( necessary remedial works, it seems premature to declare that they i would involve "a very great cost" which "is not warranted." If the council has information leading to this conclusion, no harm would be done by making it public. It is not impossible that ratepayers would not regard the cost as prohibitive in view of the recurrent peril of damage to property and injury to health that arises whenever heavy rain falls in the city.