DEFINITION OF MAIN SEWER

Otago Witness, Issue 3765, 11 May 1926, Page 8

DEFINITION OF MAIN SEWER

HARBOUR BOARD AND DRAINAGE BOARD. At the adjtfnrned meeting of the Otago Harbour Board, held on the 3rd int., the Chairman (Mr J. Loudon) submitted the following minute on the arbitration proceedings in connection with the “main sewer” dispute between the Harbour Board and the Drainage Board. Mr Loudon said: In submitting this minute, I must express my sincere surprise and disappointment at the finding of the Arbitration Court, which, I think, will be shared by every member of our board, and I venture to say bv an overwhelming majority of our thoughtful citizens. ... . I have no hesitation in characterising the decision—namely, the definition "that every particle of drainage and sewerage reticulation in an area, right up to private connections, should be deemed a “main sewer” under the Harbours Act, as a “monstrous absurdity.” Such a construction was never designed nor contemplated by the Legislature, and is, in my judgment, absolutely opposed to the weight of evidence submitted to the court.

I requested our assessor, Mr J. Blair Mason, to furnish me with his notes on question “A” (Are all or any of the works specified in the first and second schedules hereto “main sewers” within the meaning of section 165 of “The Harbours Act, 1923,” ana, if so, wlTich?) of the Deed of Covenant for reference, and for the information of members am appending hisTeplies:

The award states that all the works referred to in question (A) are main sewers.

To this finding I could not agree, because such award would make every possible sewer a main sewer, an interpretation which is, in my opinion, against weight of evidence, and also in conflict with the meaning of the words “main •ewer" as used by eminent writers on sewerage works and with the signification of the words themselves as given in standard dictionaries. In Murray’s Oxford Dictionary, the meaning of the word “main” is given as “chief or principal,” in permanent relation to others of the same kind or group. In the works quoted in evidence, the authors of whom are dealing with sewerage engineering, the term “main sewer" Is invariably given to the sewer which »eceiraa the final discharge from the

sewered area, and must therefore be the largest and chief or “main sewer.” To apply the term “main sewer” to every sewer must surely destroy the significance of the word “main” in that the principal sewer would cease to be specially indicated. If it were intended that every public sewer was a main sewer, surely the words “any sewer” or “any public sewer” would have appeared in the Act. It has been shown by the evidence that in a sew-ered area, it is usual to collect the sewage and discharge if into a main sewer for its ultimate disposal at an outfall which may discharge into another main sewer, intercepting sewer, or into the sea, and that the outfall of any main may be from a short distance to many miles away. It thus seems that a “main sewer” in a sewerage system is all important, and is to my mind unthinkable that the term “main sewer” should be read to include all manner of sewer as street, branch, or tributary sewer, as contended for by the Drainage Board. To apply the word “main” to all classes of sewers make the appellation absurb, and is at war with the plain and accepted meaning of the adjective “main.” The evidence submitted by the Drainage Board culled from authors, who were mostly sanitary inspectors or medical men, was dealing with the sanitation and sanitary arrangements of dwellings. For the Drainage Board it was sought to show that the “public sewer” in the street was a main sewer in contradistinction to a “house” or “private” sewer, and that therefore the word “sewer * could not apply to a “public sewer.” In my opinion the weight of evidence given by authors quoted (known as the five books) was that a house connection between the house and the street is not correctly called a sewer, but a house connection or drain. This is in keeping with the definitions given in the Drainage and Sewerage Board’s by-laws where the term “drain” is applied to private drains and house connections, and the “sewer” to common or public sewers. It is unthinkable to suppose that the Legislature would use the words “main sewer” as given in the Act to distinguish it from a private drain the provision of which are not a function of either the Drainage Board or the Harbour Board.

It seems to me unnecessary to review the lengthy parleyings that bavo taken place between the Drainage Board and ourselves, and I take it that, having submitted the question to arbitration, we l*ave

no right of appeal, and that so far as the present judgment is concerned, the only thing to do is to pay up and be as cheerful as possible. At the same time, I think we should record our emphatic dissent from what we consider a most inequitable and unscientific decision. The question appears to have been decided on what was done in Wellington and Auckland. but I submit i.iat the positions in the towns named and Dunedin are in no way analogous and have no bearing on the dispute as to the definition of a “main sewer.” With regard t<> the general aspect of the matter, I do not think I can do better than reproduce the following extract from an article appearing in one of our papers (written in 1323) about the inception of the trouble. It is tersely put, and indicates clearly the method of working originally followed by the Drainage Board compared with the attitude now adopted by the same board under the control and influence of the City Council:— Where the work in hand was purely, one of provision for storm water contributions were made to the cost by each body in proportions agreed upon. Where it is a question of the sewering of reclaimed

areas, the Drainage Board went into the cost of reticulation beforehand, and did not proceed with the work until the prospective revenue from drainage rates promised to cover the interest on the cost of construction, which the board paid out of its own loan money. The Drainage Board made no attempt to foist such expenditure on to the Harbour Board, recognising that it (the Drainage Board) had been expressly created to perforin certain functions—drainage and sewerage—and had been given certain means to pay for exercising that function. If, as we suspect, the financial shoo i 9 now pinching, would it not be possible for the City Council, on finding that the prospective revenue from drainage rates would not cover the interest on the cost of reticulation, to ask the Harbour Board to make an annual contribution towards the shortage? (The permission of tho Auditorgeneral for the Harbour Board making such a payment might be necessary.) Such shortage would gradually work itself out as the leases on the reticulated

block were taken up. As matters now stand, we should like to know the opinion of Harbour Board tenants on tho cool

proposal of tlie City Council that their upset rentals should be increased to enable the Harbour Board to “pass on” charges which the City Council is trying to ‘pass on” to tho Harbour Board. Not long ago it was made evident that im the abolition or “qjerging” of the old

Drainage Board the City Council had bitten olf more than it could chew, but why the Harbour Board should be coerced into masticating some of the surplus is not particularly obvious. Had an endeavour been made to solve the difficulty somewhat on the lines set out in the foregoing extract I feel certain our board would have met the position to the limit of ;ts powers and finances, but it cannot be overlooked that the board has no rating powers, and is entirely dependent for the upkeep of the port on dues on goods and ships and rents. Foi the last 10 or 15 years, as member* know, the board has made every effort to settle the lands, not primarily as ground landlords, but for the purpose of enhancing the trade and position of the port generally. In this connection it may be stated that frequently the suggestion has been made by members of the board and responsible citizens outside that it would be a wise proceeding to allow the use of our lands at a peppercorn rental, for a certain period, to stimulate the establishment of industries in our midst. If the board is to be governed by the sfiirit or letter of the recent decision, it follows that this policy would require to reversed. To my mind, this would be deplorable and inimical to the best interests of the city and province.

During the hearing of the dispute a determined effort was made to induce the assessors to regard the board as a land speculating subdivider, subject to the provisions of the Publio Works Act as to roading. draining, etc. but surely such a contention is not justified with a body that had to part with 67£ acres of its lands, for an approximate payment of £35,000, land to-day. which is worth £400.000, also that handed over free to the city, 65 acres as a park, and dedicated all the land required for Anzac avenue.

The fact that means are provided by legislation for the board to make mutual arrangements with other bodies interested seems to prove conclusively that the legislature never contemplated that the Harbour Board should come within the category of land speculators. However, gentlemen, time is a great rectifier and adjustor of most mundane troubles, and I am convinced that, in the near future, some more scientific and equitable solution of this important matter, so far as our board is concerned, will he devised In speaking to the minute, the Chairman said he thought it put the matter as clearly as they could. He could not understand the judgment as to the main sewer, and anyone he had spoken to had the same opinion. To find that every piece of reticulation was a main sewer was absurd. He certainly thought they should be quite emphatic that they dissented from the finding, and that they did Hot look upon it in any shape as a precedent to guide or govern them in future work of that kind. It was a serious matttr for the board, and it affected the board’s policy altogether. He could not for the life of him understand why the decision was come to. It was certainly not a scientific solution of. it. He thought that if some effort had been made to settle it equitably the board would have met the Drainage Board as far as it could. The Drainage and Sewerage Board was set up to look after drains and sewers. In the Harbour Board s case, if money were spent that was gone for ever. There was a certain block that must be exceptionably valuable to the City Council in the mattei of rates. It might happen that that paid handsomely, and the Drainage Board might levy a rate covering some other part and the Harbour Board would suffer. They had paid their money, and it was gone. The Drainage and Sewerage Board should attend to the drainage and sewerage, and if it had to borrow money to do it that should be done- The judgment seriously affected the board not alone in actual money costs, but in its policy o f dealing with the land. They were not land speculators or subdividers in the ordinary sense of the term, and he did not think the Public Works Act was ever intended to apply to the Harbour Board. The very fact that the legislation provided for a board like their 9 to meet with the Drainage Board and come to an amicable arrangement was proof that it was not to be bound by hard and fast regulations. He thought the minute put the position clearly from the Harbour Board’s point of view, and he thought it would be appreciated and understood by the publio. He did not think for a moment that they had any right of appeal. They had agreed to submit the matter to arbitration so far as this particular part of it was concerned, and he thought they were bound by the decisions. The Drainage Board had already submitted an account for £9555 10s for work which had been done previously, and which he did not think they ever anticipated the Harbour Board would have to pay for. Mr Anderson moved that the minute be approved and that a copy be sent to the Minister of Marine. He agreed with the chairman that the decision was a ridiculous one. The decision was going to hamper the letting of their lands. They would have to raise their rentals.

Mr Moller asked if it would not be wise to take out the words “monstrous absurdity.” They would have to deal with the marine department again in the future. He did not think it was wise to use the words, seeing that the Marine Department had sent down a man simply to do his job as he thought best. They had taken the risk .and they had lost. He thought the words should be deleted.

Mr MacManus said ho did not agree with the minute. The Drainage Board had on four occasions offered to settle the dispute on more advantageous terms than had been secured. Twice the Drainage Board I\ad offered to settle on a fifty-fifty basis, and twice, he thought, on a basis of £16,000 frob the board. It would seem that the Drainage Board had therefore held out the olive branch. The speaker traversed clauses in the minute, and referred to the long experience of the witnesses who had given evidence for the Drainage Board. He combated the arguments brought forward in the minute, and said that usage governed land where nothing definite was laid down. Mr Godfrey, the chairman of the assessors, had represented the Marine Department, and if anything. would be sympathetic to the Harbour Boards. Auckland and Wellington, he understood, paid the whole cost of the soworage through the reclaimed areas. He held that the board was trying to foist on to the people what it should bo the duty of tho shipowners and the payers of dues to pay. The decision had been finally given and in his judgment it was in the best interests of the people of Dunedin.

Mr Dickson said they had wanted to know what was the intention of Parlia-* nient when the Act said a “ main ” sewer, and, following on, how the cost of draining reclaimed areas should be borne as between drainage boards and harbour boards. He had been chairman of the committee of the House which hail drawn up the consolidating measure, and he had no hesitation in saying that the intention of the 12 members of the committee was that a “ main ” sewer meant in effect the same as what was meant by a “ main ” road. That had been the intention of the committee which had brought down the Act, and which had been adopted by Parliament. The

“ main ” road meant, for instance, the road which ran through from Dunedin to Invercargill. No attempt had been made to discover what was the intention of Parliament when it said “ main ’* sewer when the dispute had come before the assessors. When he saw Mr Godfrey he would have no hesitation in using even stronger language than that used by the chairman. He considered the finding absurd, and he had no hesitation in giving expression to his opinion. He considered they should even now get an opinion from a competent tribunal whether every sewer should be considered a main sewer. He was certain that if they could get the opinion of the 12 members of the committee of the House not one of them would say that their intention had been that every sewer was a main sew-er. Mr Moller said that was all very fine, but neither their own lawyer nor the secretary could tell them what a main sewer was, nor could their experts. It was Parliament that had put them into a difficulty through not making the point clear. He would support going to the Supreme Court now in order to get a final definition. Captain M‘Donald said it appeared that the board had to meet tremedous expense in laying drains in reclaimed areas. As a practical man he could never understand why the drains were not laid down before the sand was pumped into an area. Mr Russell said he entirely agreed with the minute. He could not understand how Mr MacManus, who, he understood, was now farming, could call all his drains main drains. The decision seemed absurd to him as a practical farmer used to making subsidiary and main drains. Mr Solomon practically told the arbitrators that if the decision went against the Drainage Board they would not accept it, but go to the Supreme Court for a definition. Why should not the Drainage Board do the same? Mr Sharpe said that an overwhelming majority of the public shared the board’s surprise at the decision. He ventured to believe that the Drainage Board was equally surprised and regarded the money awarded to it as a windfall. He would propose as an amendment that a committee be formed to meet the Drainage and Sewerage Board 'in conference with a view to a compromise. Members: No ! No !

Mr Sharpe: They know we are down and out. I do not think they will want to walk over us rough-hod. Mr Sharpe’s amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. Mr Gow suggested that the words “a monstrous obsurdity” should be deleted, and “entirely wrong” be inserted in theitplace. lie would move in that direction. The Chairman declared Mr Gow’s motion carried on the voices. Mr Ramsay then seconded Mr Anderson’s motion. The motion that the minute as amended ha? adopted and that a copy be sent to the Minister of Marine was put and carried, Mr MacManus dissenting. The Dunedin Drainage and Sewerage Board forwarded debit notes, under the award, for £9555 10s, in respect of foul and stormwater sewers work already done, and for £lB 13s for incidental expenses appertaining to the arbitration proceedings. Mr Anderson moved that the accounts bo held over, and that a decision of the Supreme Court on the question of “main” sewer be sought from the Supreme Court. The Chairman said he thought they could only get out of it by tne grace of the Drainage Board. Mr Anderson’s motion was not seconded. In answer to a question by Mr Moller, the Chairman said he did not think the Harbour Board could go to the Supremo Court for a decision unless the Drainage Board agreed. Mr Russell said they could decline to pay the cost of the drains, and then the Drainage Board would have to sue them in the Supreme Court. The Chairman said under the specifio schedules submitted to the assessors he thought they had lost, and there was no appeal. There were other works to bo done, however, and they might get a declaratory judgment from the Supreme Court regarding these works. Mr MacManus asked how the board, having agreed to the dispute going to tho assessors, could in the next breath repudiate the finding. Mr Campbell said whether the case had been won by common sense or by law he could not say. The money had been wasted by being spent in law. The dispute could have been decided on the question of common sense and not by legal technicalities. Mr Ramsay pointed out that Mr Campbell had supported the matter going to arbitration, which involved the employment of lawyersMr Wilkie, in response to a question, said the private owner had to pay for the drain from his house to the drain in the centre of the street. Captain M ‘Donald thought they could only pay up and look cheerful in this particular case. They would require to consider the position in the future, however. Mr Russell moved that the matter be referred to the Main Sewer Committee to report on the possibility of getting a Supreme Court definition of main sewer for guidance in future works. Mr Moller seconded the motion. The Chairman said thev were face to faco with tho letting of another area. Mr MacManus said he would oppose this. It was wrong to be wasting publio funds in this way. The motion was carried, Mr MacManus dissenting. It was agreed to pass for payment the Drainage Board’s accounts.