DRAINAGE CONFERENCE.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 340, 15 July 1875, Page 3

DRAINAGE CONFERENCE.

A meeting of the Drainage Conference was held yesterday, in the Council Chambers. Present—His Worship the Mayor (chairman), Crs Hart, Bishop, and Ick, and Messrs H. J. Tancred (Spreydon), J. T. Fisher (Heathcote), and E. G. Wright (Avon). The city surveyor, Mr Walkden, was also present.

The town clerk (Mr Gordon) read the minutes of the previous meeting, which were confirmed.

His Worship read a letter of apology for non-attendance from Mr H. J Hall, chairman of the Riccarton Board, whose absence was owing to a private engagement. He also read a letter from the Provincial Secretary re drainage, which has already appeared in the report of the City Council. He (the Mayor) had taken the liberty of placing this letter before the City Council, who had passed a resolution of a general character in this matter, which so far as he understood it, did not interfere with the Conference taking further action in respect of the object for which the Conference had been called. So far as he read the resolution, it was desired by the Council that no definite action should be taken towards sending the Bill to be prepared to the General Assembly, in which the Council were not given over the charge of the city proper. This desire on the part of the Council would not prevent the Conference proposing clauses to be prepared in a Bill, which, after being submitted, would be concurred in by that body. At the suggestion of Or Hart, the town clerk read the following resolution, passed by the City Council :—“ That this Council desires to urge the necessity for a complete system of drainage for the suburbs of Christchurch, but that no system should include the city without the approval of the Council.”

Or Bishop desired to say that in moving that resolution he meant that no Bill agreed upon by the conference to be submitted to the General Assembly on drainage, should include the city without first having the concurrence of the City Council, He did not wish any Bill to be drawn which would bind the City Council without their having a voice in the matter before it was sent up to the Assembly. Mr Fisher thought the suburbs should also have a voice in this matter. According to the resolution read, they were to go in for draining the suburbs while the city was to be excluded. It would be mere folly for them to draw up an Act which only affected the drainage of the suburbs, and did not include the city. His Worship thought Mr Fisher might, accept Cr Bishop’s interpretation of \he intention of his resolution.

Cr Hart said the real expressed intention of the City Council was to allow this allimportant matter to stand over until the next municipal election, when the ratepayers would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the desirability of having a Board independent of the City Council. Mr Fisher felt thas to agree with Cr Hart would be to simply shelve the drainage question for twelve months, and destroy all action being taken during the coming session of the Assembly. Cr Hart was assured that important changes were looming in the future, when municipalities would receive considerably increased powers. Mr Tancred said that Cr Hart’s views would defer ary definite action for another year. Cr Hart—Yes, but we can still go on considering the best means of drainage. Mr Tancred —Well, laws may in the meantime be passed which will prevent any action taken by us having any effect. The Mayor said that half of the members of the City Council were in favor of a Drainage Board being established, and unless some definite action was taken the conference would not know where they were to commence. A suggestion had been made at the last meeting of the Council of electing a Metropolitan Board on the basis of

population. Unless something were done immediately there would be nothing to lay before the Council to approve in time to send up to the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly. Personally he felt the subject to be of such importance that it was absolutely necessary something should be done at once. Supposing to prevent loss of time a Bill were drawn up and agreed upon, and then sent up to the Assembly, its progress could easily be watched, and should it be seen that constitutional changes were going to take place, there would be no necessity, if found necessary, of pressing it forward. Cr Ick said that the resolution passed by the Council was so peculiarly worded that it would take a lawyer to understand it. He felt at the time the feeling of the Council was to let this question stand over until the next election, to allow of the ratepayers saying that such and such things would be well, which expression would decidedly influence Councillors’ opinions. An election would take place at least not later than six weeks, and through the means of the papers this would be well ventilated by that time. The present intention of the .Conference seemed to tend to hurrying matters through. The City Council were carrying on a system of drainage at present proved satisfactorily in all respects, and he thought the conference might let matters go on as at present until after the municipal election.

Mr Wright said the suggestions of Cr Ick would altogether shelve the question for at least twelve months. The City Council, in their circular to the Eoad Boards, desired to inaugurate a system of drainage which would include all the districts. All the Road Boards asked was to be allowed a voice in the expenditure of the money, a considerable portion of which would be raised in the suburban districts, and he would again say that no system of drainage would he complete which did not include the Road Board districts. When a complete system was initiated, it would be found that the money already spent on drainage had been spent to no purpose. By the reports at the last meeting of the City Council it was seen that the outfall drain* had proved not sufficient for its requirements. One Councillor had said that such an emergency might not occur for thirteen or fourteen years hence, but his experience of the rainfall here led him to believe that it might be looked for every two years. Cr Hart would refer Mr Wright to the depth of rainfall given for years past in the Government returns.

Mr Wright considered that the proper course for the Conference to take would be to give instructions for a Bill to be drafted, which would be submitted to them, and revised before being placed before the Council, The Road Boards wanted nothing unfair, and only a voice in a system of drainage, which would include all the suburban districts.

Cr Ick would like to know why the Road Boards wanted, in their system of suburban drainage, to include the city. Cr Hart said some people were foolish enough to differ with the opinion of Mi Wright in his desires. The Mayor said that, in his opinion, any system initiated would be incomplete that did not include the city.

Mr Wright would give, as *an instance of the desirability of combined action, the difference which had arisen between Christchurch and Sprevdon, resulting in a drain being constructed by the Council on the South belt, which had been proved to be insufficient for requirements. This was one instance at least of the desirability of united action.

Or Hart considered that in not seeing to this the Heathcote and Spreydon districts were more to blame.

Or Ick considered that mentioning the Heathcote district at this stage was unfortunate, as, notwithstanding the large amount of money spent on the Spreydon drain it had proved a failure, while the City Council would not in any way admit that the work of drainage initiated bj them had proved so. Mr Fisher said that the City Council were so much the more lucky. Christchurch was, however, the reservoir, and that the City Council could not get over. Cr Hart said the outfall drain had cost the citizens a very great deal of money, and the Council considered that if a metropolitan Board were formed the suburban districts should repay this expenditure. Mr Wright 'said that none of the Road Boards had disputed the equity of this r.-mark, and one had gone so far as to openly express it. Mr Tancred said it appeared to him that in any system of drainage initiated, Christchurch could not isolate itself. Cr Hart admitted this, but did not think the City Council should be excluded from all control of the drainage throughout the city, to be placed under the control of a separate Board until the ratepayers had had a voice in the matter.

Mr Tancred pointed out the delay that must take place until that time arrived, and said the people did not want another year of fever.

Mr Fisher considered the ratepayers would be more likely to object to twelve months being allowed to pass without something being done in this direction.

Or Bishop felt he ought to say that he disagreed with the resolution passed by the conference at their last meeting, as it bound his Honor the Superint. ndent, as their representative in the Assembly, to take steps to promote legislation upon it; and if the City Council had not moved a resolution in the matter his Honor would no doubt, in his desire to accede to what would have been presumed to have been the general desire, have been bound to take action accordingly. Thus he had moved his resolution in the Council. He could not, however, see why a Bill should not be prepared which would comprise the drainage of the suburbs only, a draft of which, after preparation, might be submitted to the City Council. He advocated the formation of an independent Board of Drainage for the suburbs, which would not interfere with the power of the Council inside the city, as such a jurisdiction would not be acceptable to the citizens. Let it be supposed that a Board, elected irrespective of the ratepayers within the city, were to come in and interfere with any of the city works, how would it act ? Say, for instance, an application to have kerbing and channelling done were made to the Council, this would have to be referred to the Board before being decided, and the result would simply be that outside the work of looking after the roads and footpaths the City Council might as well be done away with. If he lived in the suburbs he should certainly go in with the Road Boards, as he felt that the principal cost of general drainage must come out of the city. [Or lek—Hear, hear.] But as a large ratepayer in the city, he would always

object to such a course, and that was the reason why he considered a Board for carrying out a system of suburban drainage should always be a separate power. If the Conference carried any resolution in opposition tO' his views he would of course acquiesce. Mr Wright differed with Cr Bishop in his desire to place the city beyond the power of a Board, and instanced the Metropolitan Drainage Board of London, who did not interfere with minor drainage questions carried out by the parish authorities. That Board only considered major questions of drainage, while minor matters were left to the latter, and these bodies had been found to work well together. Some of the suburban districts were independent of Christchurch in the matter of drainage, yet he thought it was necessary for the public good that all should be worked together, and he would agree to that meeting passing a resolution empowering a solicitor to compile a Bill for that purpose, and if the conference could not agree to some of the clauses, the City Council would then have an opportunity of expressing their views on it. The Mayor agreed with much that had fallen from Mr Wright, and as to the citizens not being satisfied with a separate Board, he would only instance the appointment of the Waimakariri Board, to whom rates were paid without demur. If some members of the City Council desired to have the ratepayers’ opinion, why’did not those two members who were going out in September retire at once, and thus allow of the public expressing an opinion on the subject.

Cr Hart asked whom of the citizens would like to stand to be elected only for two months. His Worship had remarked about the Waimakariri Board, but he might tell him that that Board was nominated before the people were aware of the real meaning of its constitution.

The Mayor said that, with reference to Cr Hart’s first remarks, he would say that if good men were elected for the two months the citizens would re-elect them at the expiration of that time. Better that any course should be pursued rather than that things should be allowed to remain in their present state for another twelve months. He knew of a child dying in the Heathcote district from congestion of the lungs, caused only through the humidity of the atmosphere occasioned by water lying around the house. In the interests of the majority he would submit to anything sooner than this state of things should continue. If the Road Boards expressed their intention of allowing for the expenditure on the outfall drain, there was no necessity, in his opinion, of immediate action being taken towards a general system at once.

Cr Bishop remarked that if two Councillors resigned at once, it would prevent them being eligible to stand again for reelection until some months had elapsed. The Mayor was aware of this, but he had been given to understand that the two Councillors who retired in September did not intend coming forward again. Cr Hart suggested that possibly those two Councillors might not feel inclined to fall in with his Worship’s views or information.

Mr Fisher said that some remarks which had been made showed a desire to override the Road Boards, but the city must not be touched. The Road Boards, with a view to the public good, were q'fite willing to be overridden, but it seemed to him, according to the opinions of some members of the City Council, that at all hazards the city must remain untouched.

Cr Bishop would like to explain that the Road Boards possessed no powers, but if the necessary powers were given them, there would be bound to be a clashing should one district desire to drain through the others.

Mr Fisher said that observation would equally apply to the city should it desire a separate system of drainage. He would tell councillors that a portion of Colombo street had been drained by a district before the city had commenced the work of drainage.

Mr Tancred said he would settle discussion by moving the following resolution—“ That the Conference proceed to the appointment of a solicitor to prepare an Act for making provision for the drainage of Christchurch and the suburbs, in conformity with the resolution passed on the 10th day of June last. That the legal expenses incident to the preparation of such an Act be borne by the City Council and the Road Boards concerned conjointly.” Mr Fisher seconded the motion.

Cr Hart would again say it was the desire of the City Council that definite action on this matter should be postponed until after the election.

The Mayor said that as Cr Hart was not present when the question was first discussed by the Council, he could not be in a position to state the feeling held by the members. If the Council did not intend that sorre decided action should be taken why did they appoint a committee to invite the chairmen of the Road Boards. Cr Hart did not know how far he was authorised to go in binding the Council to the latter portion of the resolution. The Mayor said it would be waste of time electing a committee of the Council if they were not given some discretionary power. Mr Fisher felt it would be wrong if the question for which they had met was postponed for twelve months, and as the City Council would meet next Monday, and some of the Road Boards during the week, it would be as well that this matter should be discussed by them before being again discussed by the Conference. Cr Bishop approved of the resolution in a general way, but felt that he would be opposed to any Bill which would give the suburbs control over the works ot the city. Mr Wright said, so far as he could interpret the resolution of the Council, they did not object to joint action being taken.

Mr Tancred understood the resolution agreed to by the City Council to mean that they would not object to an Act which would combine the city and suburbs in a general sytem of drainage. Before the resolution was put, Cr Bishop would like to express his qualification of it until the Council had expressed an opinion upon it. Cr Hart would also desire the matter to be postponed until this was done. Mr Fisher said, if the City Council disagreed with the action taken by their representatives, they ought to have passed a vote of want of confidence in them.

After some further remarks, Mr Tancred said he saw no use of a committee being appointed if they had to submit everything before being decided upon, to those who appointed them. He took it they had been appointed to make all preliminaries, and after the Conference had determined upon a certain course, this could not be confirmed until ratified by the bodies who had appointed them.

Crs Bishop and Hart would prefer the latter portion of the resolution being first submitted to the Council.

Cr Bishop said that if he said # yes to the resolution he would only stultify himself, as he was only of opinion that a Drainage Board should be appointed for the suburbs. Mr Wright said a very long time might, elapse between the drafting of the Bill and p’acing it before the Assembly. If a draft were prepared they would have then an opportunity of discussing the various clauses, and arriving at the best result for general benefit.

The resolution was put and carried, Crs Bishop and Hart dissenting. Mr Wright moved—“ That Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw be appointed to draft the Bill.” His reason for proposing those gentlemen was that they were not connected with the Council or suburban bodies. Cr Tancred seconded the resolution. Mr Hart moved as an amendment—“ That Messrs Hanmer and Harper be appointed.”

The amendment was not seconded and fell through, and the resolution on being put was declared to be carried.

The meeting then adjourned until Friday week, to be held at same place, at eleven o’clock.