AMALGAMATION BILL

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22518, 28 September 1938, Page 8

AMALGAMATION BILL

EVIDENCE TO SELECT

COMMITTEE

STATEMENTS. ABOUT DRAINAGE

QUESTIONED

Whether evidence about amalgamation of local bodies, presented to a Select Committee of the House of Representatives by Cr. G. Manning for the Christchurch City Council had been approved by the council was questioned by Mr H. G. Livingstone, a member of the Christchurch Drainage Board, at a meeting of the board last night. Mr Livingstone expressed tins doubt when he was reporting on his own attendance before the committee to give evidence ior the board. “I think it is extraordinary when a member of a local authority goes before a Select Committee of the House of Representatives and makes statements which in his opinion are con* trary in fact,” said Mr Livingstone. I asked when I gave evidence that the evidence of the council’s representative should be distributed to the vai ious local authorities: but I do not think it matters much now, because the Government has apparently shelved this bill.” Mr Livingstone went on to refer to the following statement which, he said, appeared in the evidence given by Cr. Manning: “Sewerage is controlled bv the Christchurch Drainage Board, which also has the powers of a local authority in its district within and without the city. Water carriage is used for the reticulation and land disposal by means of the sewage farm This means that high-pressure water is essential for the efficient working of the system, and in the outside areas this does not exist.” “That statement is contrary to fact, said Mr Livingstone. Mr W. J. Walter: Who drafted this statement?

Mr Livingstone; I do not know: but it was shockingly drafted and quite contrary to fact. Mr J. W. Beanland; You are quite right. I am sure it was not drafted by the City Engineer, because he always makes sure of his facts before he puts them into a report. “Confusion and Overlapping"

Mr Livingstone then read another portion of evidence, under the heading of drainage, in which it was said that there was considerable confusion and overlapping between the board and the council about storm drainage. Many drains were said by the board to belong to the council, the board accepting no liability therefor and the council accepting the board’s statement. There was considerable flood danger from the Hcathcote river, and this needed a comprehensive investigation with a view to devising an adequate remedy. For more than 10 years this had been under the board’s consideration, but although conferences between the two bodies had brought a good deal of improvement, a proper scheme had not yet eventuated. The statement contained many inaccuracies. and should never have been made, said Mr Livingstone. He would like to kn6w, he added, whether the evidence had had the endorsement of the City Council. He doubted very much whether it had, he said. Mr F. M. Robson said there was a great need for efficient flushing in some outlying districts, and he thought there was good reason for the statement in the evidence about the necessity for high-pressure water.