THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1881. THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2252, 17 May 1881, Page 1

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1881. THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

The position of a member of the Drainage Board is not altogether a sinecure at the present moment. Apart altogether from the question of the proposed Bill, in which the Board is strongly inclined to set at naught the expressed will of the ratepayers, there are the necessities of the actual situation to bo provided for. And it appears to ns that certain of the members have not grappled with these necessities as the occasion requires. They have built up certain theories and formulated certain complaints, the former of which are utterly impractical, while the latter are altogether useless as far as they are likely to bring about profitable results. Let us state the situation as briefly and as clearly as possible. “Whereas,” as the Drainage Act said, “ it was found expedient to make provision for the improvement of the drainage of the City of Christchurch and the lands surrounding the said city,” the Act of 1875 was passed, in one of the schedules of which the district to bo taxed, and which was considered more or loss affected by the drainage scheme, was defined. Powers wore given to the Drainage Board to raise a rate of not more than one shilling in the pound, and £200,000 was borrowed on the security of the whole district. Mr. Clark formed a scheme which provided for the thorough drainage of the central portion of the district, and his ideas wore adopted. It has been found that the whole of tl e above-mentioned sum will bo used, and j yet there will be portions of this central district that will still have to be seen to. Now the members representing the outdistricts find that their constituents commence to think the payment of drainage rates irksome by reason of the fact that, at present, the benefits accruing from the scheme do not directly touch them. Wo say “ directly,” because indirectly they reap very considerable advantages. Supposing the central portion of the drainage district not to be properly drained, tbe effects would immediately bo felt over the whole area. Disease is no respecter of artificial boundaries, and the various maladies which follow want of cleanliness, as surely as night follows day, would find their way into the out-districts with the greatest certainty. It is very evident that the more populated portions of the district had to be begun on first, and no doubt it is, to a certain extent, natural that the out-districts should at times feel irritated that the land in their midst is not according to the present scheme, proposed to be touched. But Rome was not built in a day, and the present scheme does not, as far as we can see, represent a finality. Property increases in value, and, as a consequence, the security held by the bondholders increases, and when the centre of the ■ district has been seen to, it will be perfectly competent for the out-districts to demand that their immediate wants shall bo attended to, and that money shall be raised for tbe purpose, the burden of which shall be laid over the whole district, as is the case with the present loan. They will then reap the direct advantage of having their lands drained, and the indirect advantage of having the most thickly populated localities in their vicinity free from disease. With regard to such extended operations the central district will then be in exactly the same position to the out-districts as the out-districts are at the present time with regard to the central district. The latter will reap no direct advantage, but only an indirect one. It will benefit by the fact that the out-districts are kept in a cleanly and healthy state. Whether Mr. Clark’s scheme can be adopted or not, is not so much the question. It may or may not be able to accommodate the extra sewage, or the levels may or may not be found to fit in. That is a matter that must be left to professional men to decide on, and we are arguing simply on the general question. Our view of the matter is that the drainage district was formed as representing a tract of country affected by the same interests, as far as the public health is concerned, and that it would be well for the members of the Drainage Board to recollect this fact. The district is constituted and money has been borrowed on the security of the whole. The various sub-districts are joined together for better or for worse, and, like married people, they had better remember the vows they took at the marriage ceremony. It has yet to be proved that if now combinations were formed the out-districts would be at all better off, for drained the land there will have to be some day, and then they will have their innings. Let us take a single instance to show how the attitude assumed by certain members of the Board would work out. The Sydenham Council, has written a letter asking if the Board would agree te the Drainage Act being amended so as to provide for the separation of Sydenham from the drainage district, and the Board resolved that it was unable to comply with the request, as the loan has been raised on the security of the whole district. The Sydenham Council is of opinion that the completion of surface drainage by side channelling, combined with deodorization of house slops, is bettor suited to the requirements of the district. The Sydenham district, reaping the advantage of possessing a healthy district in its immediate vicinity, is willing to put up with an inferior system for its own use, because it does not think it is getting, or will get, full value for the money it provides. Now the Sydenham I district is being rapidly populated, and wo can hardly think that its Council imagines that the scheme they propose would suit the district if it were densely covered with houses. The proposal of the Council suggests a make-shift. Mr. White quite jumps with the Council, for ho says they want no deep drainage, and do not want to bo taxed. Mr. Hobbs’ notice of resolution, on the other hand, proposes that £IO,OOO bo sot apart for the laying of pipe sowers in Sydenham, and Mr. White will, if ho acta consistently, oppose this proposal. Should ho carry his point the position will bo that Sydenham will got no pipe sowers, and next year will have the Is in the £ to pay all the same. For next year, to meet the engagements of the Board, the whole district will have to bo rated a shilling in the £. For there will then have to bo provided £14,000 for interest and sinking fund; the working of the pumping system and looking after drainage works will cost another £2OOO, and the whole expenditure for the year will be about £20,000. Unless the whole arrangement provided for the Drainage Act is broken up and a now Act passed, Is in the £ over the whole district will have to bo charged

Surely it i 8 better for members representing out-districts to face this fact boldly. Their several sub-districts are portions of the whole district, and all are practically bound together by identical interests. The members alluded to are too apt to look upon Mr Clark’s scheme as a final arrangement. We cannot say that we read the Act in this light. We take the broader view that the various portions of the districts are bound together for one common object, and that they have all equal claims on the general purse. That Mr. Clark’s scheme for the drainage of the central portion of the district has been matured first is perfectly natural. But the time has passed when the subdistricts can go back on the general understanding. The bargain wo believe will not, in the long run, bo a bad one for them. The rise in the value of property all over the district will render money easily procurable in course of time, and the out-districts may yet be clean and happy at the same time. We have not gone into the question of the rating for the present year. The discussion of this and other matters would lengthen out this article to unreasonable limits.