DRAINAGE BOARD LOANS AND EXPENDITURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16078, 20 May 1914, Page 2

DRAINAGE BOARD LOANS AND EXPENDITURE.

COMMENTS ON THE EX-MAYOR'S STATEMENTS.

At the meeting of tho Dunedin Drainage Board last evening Mr J. S. Douglas, tho chairman of that body, made some comments •on what Mr W. Downio Stewart had said in his valedictory speech as Mayor of the city, relative to Drainage Board matters. Mr Douglas spoke us lollows: —"Since tho last meeting of this board, Mr Stewart, our late Mayor, has in his valedictory addrcas made special reference to the board, and has givon a. comparison of loans for drainage worlc in each of the four principal centres—Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. It is his statements of comparison of drainage loans in these centres and especially the Unfavourable attitude ho takes with regard *to Dunedin, to which I vieh to refer. Now, before dealing with tho expenditure on 'drainage, , I desire to express my appreciation of Mr Stewart's lucid etatement concerning local government by municipalities, particularly his remarks on' trading municipalities, and his suggestion for tho appointment of a Government Board corresponding to the Local Government Board at Home. Under these conditions, I understand, before a drainage, <y; any other loan, such as bathe, Town Hall, streets, etc., would be authorised, the scheme iteelf would have to be submitted in detail and receive the approval of the expert and* engineering department. Thoro is no doubt that if the engineering works had to be approved of by a competent board before being authorised and carried out by local authorities, many thousands of.pounds would be saved in Dunedin and other parts of the dominion. And may I say that the special method adopted by our engineer and approved of.by this board, for bedding and haunching sewers in Dunedin, has undoubtedly increased the first cost of our cwn schgmc. This method, I know from personal observation, is not carried out in some of the other centres and, in fact, I have often heard our doing so here criticised; but 1 feel confident that the result of recent investigations at lowa, America, conducted by 6omo of the highest authorities on drainage, and from what we know of collapsed eewers in New Zealand and olsewhere, conclusively show the omission to properly haunch end embed sewers to be false economy. I have also here photographs to tho same effect. This wise policy as adopted by our board may, therefore, have some slight bearing on the result of our late Mayor's statements. As to Mr Stewart's comparative one could criticiso the cost of drainago in the four centres, there must bo a basis for comparison, and the particulars which I have to hand show that there is no common ground on which to compare the figures—the responsibilities borne by the Dunedin Drainage and Sewerage Board arc of much wider scope than those denned in the other centres and omitted from Mr Stewart's table. I refer to sewerage, stormwater with mud tanks, and advances to householders on instalment .basis. Mr Stewart ateo forirot to take into consideration the fact that tho constitution of the Dunedin Drainage Board differs entirely from that of the other centres. For instance his figures for Auckland represent loan moneys expended by the Auckland City Council, and they have just received authority to borrow another £80,030 for reticulation—each of the local authorities'(l believe there are about eight) carry out their own reticulation. Then there is the Auckland Drainage Board, whose work is not yet completed, and none of the capital expenditure, about, £365,000 to March 31 last, out of £450,000 borrowed,'ie included in the amount given in Mr Stewart'e table. It will be seen, therefore, that the figures given for tho cest of Auckland , drainage merely represent outstanding loans expended in reticulation controlled by the Auckland City Council, to which has to bo added the amount still required—l might also add that in reply to my inquiry, the town clerk, Auckland, further stated that unfortunately in the past no 'drainage account' had been kept, and he was, therefore, unable to say how much more, if any, had been expended on drainage out of revenue. You. will here note that there are no returns from the other various ,local authorities of tho amount spent by them on sewerage—the Dunedin Drainage Board's figures provide for all local authorities within the drainage area. The figures given for Wellington refer only to the expenditure for sewerage for the city and suburbs incorporated in the city, and further, as I have stated before when dealing with reclamation works, the Wellington Harbour Board pays for the cost of stormwater carriers * through their reclamation. The Drainage Board in Chrietohurnb is probably the oldest constituted board in the dominion, but for a considerable number of years the scheme was not pushed at the same rate as in the other centres—for qeite a long period a halt was called, and two populous suburbs—Riccarton and Spreydoh —are not yet sewered. " With two exceptions, I understand that the sewers in Christchurch do not cany storm water. The Drainage Board there, however, controls over 100 miles of rivers and open water-coursee, but this does not enter into the consideration of capital expenditure. Further, the City Council advances the money to pay for drainage work carried out for ratepayers —not the Drainage Board, as in Dunedin. Within a few months almost the whole of the residences within tho Duncdin watershed—city, St. Kilda, Mornington, and Maori Hill—wjl be served by sewers, although some of them were put in by local authorities 'before tho board was constituted, and are now vested in the board, the ; cost of these latter sewers is not included in the late Mayor's figures. But in addition to sewers, the Dunedin Drainage Board has to contend with the ptorm water discharging from the surrounding hills on to an extensive and denselypopulated area just above high-water mark, and subject therefore to tidal influence. To cope with this ha* involved an expenditure on aqueducts, an enlarged main intercepting sewer, pumps, etc. We have also to provide for storm-water rct.culation and mud tanks, and bear the major portion of the cost for 6torm-water extension through Harbour Board reclamation. From the foregoing it will be seen that, compared with the other centres, the Dunedin Drainage Board's functions are wider and the problems confronting it greater than elsewhere. In my opinion, therefore, there is no doubt that the carry.ng out of all sewerage and storm-water works, as part of a comprehensive scheme to deal with the vHiole watershed, by one local authority, is the best method, and, as far as Dunedin is concerned, the only one practicable; and I am quite confident that when the correct figures as to the cost of the whole scheme (compared with method of construction) are given tho Duncdin Drainage and Sewerage Board will more than favourably compare with the othur centres. In conclusion, I note that Mr Stewart states: 'Our municipal loans are much lower than those of other centres, but our drainage loans are very much higher. I think the citizens need have no cause for anxiety so far as the city'e indebtedness is concerned, provided tho Drainage Board calls a halt.' I might say that the reason I asked the various chairmen of committees of this Drainage Board to furnish for our information the position with regard to works, finance, and staff required ia that our main works are drawing towards completion, and should we not be called upon to undertake further responsibilities the board will at an early dato require to consider the question of a considerable reduction to the standing charges.' The chairmen of works and finance have already , furnished detailed statements, and I presume the chairman of the Officers and Servants' Committee will make a recommendation shortly. In short, gentlemen, I feel that our board is fully alive to the interests of the ratepayers, having due regard to efficiency and economy." Mr Marlow gave figures as to loans and expenditure in Auckland and Dunedin, and said they had nothing to fear by a comparison with other bodies. Mr Belcher moved that the chairman's speech be handed to tho press for publication. He expressed some doubt as to the rfecuracy of the figures used by Mr Stewart after hearing the very carefully prepared statement made by the chairman of the boai-d. The Chairman sa.id that in justice to Mr Stewart, he would like to mention that when the position was explained to him ho had acknowledged that he had made a mistake. He had not known that there was an Auckland Drainage Board, and had taken his figures from the ord'nary Year Book, which simply dealt with the Auckland City Council. Mr Small said ho thought, the matter could bo considered when the balance sheet cama before them. One matter that had been overlooked wae that the drainage of Auckland and Dunedin was not completed. There were certain portions of the city served in the meantime by eewers put in by the Town Council, and they would entail ah expenditure of about £58,000 if replaced. The motion moved by Mr Belcher was carried.