DRAINAGE BOARD.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 35, 18 March 1914, Page 3

DRAINAGE BOARD.

HEATHCOTE RIVER CONTROL. LEGAL OPINION. A meeting of the' Drainage Board was held last night, when there were present '.—Messrs F. J. Barlow, S. C. Bingham, F. Storey, H. Langford, W. J. Walter, J. Dawn, ; J. Richardson, and H. J. Otley. Mr Otley having arrived late, Mr J. Richardson was elected to the chair. TREASURER'S REPORT. The treasurer's report for the month ended March 14 was approved. The report showed total receipts amounting to £7471 13/6, and the expenditure a debit balance on the rate account of £12,275 5/10. Accounts amounting to £1426 8/9 were passed for payment. 'ENGINEER'S REPORT. The engineer reported the completion of the widening and deepening- of the Heathcote River from the old dam at the Convalescent Home to Smart's Bridge, and jthence to" the bridge at the old Cashmere Homestead, for which the Cashmere Trustees had agreed to pay an additional £lO. It was also stated that the cost of constructing the Elmwood sewers would be refunded by the Cashmere Trustees and the Hon. R. H. Rhodes respectively. CORRESPONDENCE. The Spreydon Borough Council forwarded a "resolution from ratepayers, asking that, since' the board had/ approved the scheme advocated by/the council for the No. 2 drain, the sehenje for No. 1 drain be approved also, since this drain was as great a menace to health-as the No. 2 drain.—The matter was .referred ,to the Works /Committee for further cbrisideration. The director bf the' T§chnical College wrote asking the board if it would donate the usual to'-the school, which last year was £2o—The request was acceded to, the donation to be the sa.me as previously given. A petition was forwarded from the ratepayers of the Marshland district to deepen the drain along Briggs, Road. — It i was repprted that the alterations necessary would cost £l3O. The motion of " Mr W;< J. Walter, that the" board do the deepening provided the ratepayers interested pay for the timbering, was carried. ' 1 The Beckenham-Fisherton Residents' Association forwarded a resolution protesting against any septic tank draining into the Heathcote River or into any drain going into the river.— The letter was received, and it was decided that, in view of the solicitor's report on the control of the Heathcote River, the applicants be advised that the board has no jurisdiction at present. CONTROL OF HEATHCOTE RIVER. The opinion of the board's solicitors, dealing with the disputed control of the Heathcote'River, as brought before the board at last meeting by a deputation from the Heathcote County Council, was received.

The opinion stated that the principal Act, 1907, vested "all public sewers, drains, and waterc parses " in the board. The Christchurch Drainage Act, 1908, defined the Heatheote-Woolston area under the board 'a, jurisdiction as " all that area in the Canterbury Land District known as Rural Heathcote District," also "All that area commencing at the southernmost corner of original section 96, block 16, and proceeding southerly, westerly, northerly, and again westerly along the River Heathcote to Wilson's Road," northerly by" Wilson's Boad to the Lyttelton railway line, then south-easterly by the railway to the place of commencement. Also the area commencing at «the.corner of section 227, block 15, p'roceeding easterly along Tennyson Street to the River Heathcote, along the river to Colombo Roadj .back to place of commencement. The Woolston division was described as ' 1 all that area contained in the Rural Woolston District," the Spreydon area as extending sotth-westerly to the river, and bounded on the south-west and south-east by the river. The boundaries of Sydenham are described in the Gazette of September, 1877, as running along the north side of Piper's Road to the river, and then along the south branch ; of the river to Wilson's Bridge. The opinion states that the description "to the River Heathcote" and "along the River Heathcote,'' mean that the districts extend only to the near bank and do not include the river itself, and that "that part of the river which is contiguous to Sydenham is within N the district, and is therefore vested in the board, but the rest is not." The original Act of 1875 describes the drainage district as "bounded on the south by the south side of the Avon and Heathcote estuary and the south side of the River j Heathcote." The Amendment Act of 1880 describes the Sydenham District as bounded by the southern side of the Heathcote River. But in the Christchurch District Drainage Act Amendment Act, 1907, the words "southern side'' as defining the boundary are omitted for the first time. This is the Act which carried into effect the findings of the 1907 commission set up to investigate a dispute in regard to levies upon sewage and rural areas. This Act was drafted without reference to the board or its solicitor, and the opinion states that it is impossible to say who was responsible for the altered description. The consolidating statute of 1907, now the "principal Act," also omits the words '' southern side of.'' In 1908 the board submitted an amending Bill, altering the boundaries of north-east, north-west, south-east and south-west Christchurch, but, without reference to the board, the Government draughtsman added a clause altering the description of the boundaries of Heathcote and . Woolston and making them identical with the descriptions of the Amendment Act,' 1907. As that Act

was a consolidating measure, tlie purpose of which was to collate, without , amending, prior Acts, the alteration was j manifestly a pure mistake. That it j was only a mistake is shown by the j Christchurch District Drainage ACc, lali, which legislates on tng assumption that the boundaries remain unaltered. The opinion goes on to say: ' l Although the alteration in boundaries effected by the omission .of the words 'southern side of' from the schedules is obviously a mistake, it is not one that a Court would feel itself competent to correct. On the other hand, it is one which the Legislature itself will no doubt be ready to correct by a short amending Act," for the reasons that "(1) It is an obvious mistake in What purports to be a consolidating statute; (2) the board has continued to exercise control and expend money, and this has been sanctioned by the Legislature itself in the Act of 1911, which merely enacted the recommendations of a commission in which the surrounding counties and local bodies fully concurred; (3) the present position is anomalous in. that the board is vested with the control and saddled with the responsibility of cleaning, and maintaining a reach of the river, from Tennyson Street to Wilson's Bridge, without having control of the river above and below these points.'' The opinion concludes with a statement that a shore Bill of from 10 to 20 lines will effect the necessary amendment, and that there should-be no difficulty in procuring such an enactment.

Mr Otley said he had no doubt that when the Amendment Act was passed itwas intended to include the river. A mistake had been made-it wac impossible to say by irh«in, and he thought the sug-£ " . gestion of the board's solicitors, that a>;k ■ short amending Act be passed through^Parliament, was ah excellent idea that' should be acted on. He moved that at" Bill as suggested should be drafted by the solicitors and submitted to Parlia--ment. No one would object, not even. the Heathcote County Council, since no' one wished-to take up the board's sponsibilities in this matter. •, ,

Mr Richardson said that the trouble was that in the meantime the Heathcote-. .' Council might force the-position and in-~ stall a septic tank system draining into* the river.

Mr Langford thought there was no> need to approach the Legislature if,.as,, the opinion said, the error was an obvi-* ous one, and proved sueh by the aseump-r tion of the District Drainage Act, 1911,? ~ that the boundaries remain unaltered.' He thought the matter might be by agreement with the bodies affected. Mr Richardson, •in reply, pointed out ■' that the opinion stated that the mistaken was one which no Court would feel itself> competent to correct. The error was in the Act as drafted, and therefore such* a "course as proposed would be impossible? Mr Otley's motion —'' That the" Legis-*. lature be approached to pass a short; amending Bill"—was carried, - and it was decided , to. place the Bill in charge of Mr T. H. Davey, M.P. 1 ~'