DRAINAGE BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2240, 7 June 1881, Page 3

DRAINAGE BOARD.

A meeting of the Christchurch District Drainage Board was held at 1.30 p.m. yesterday, Present —Messrs Harman (chairman). Boss, Hobbs, Tancred, Cuff, White, Hall, and Blnkiston.

The report of the Engineer was read as follows:

1. In regard to the drain on tho north side of the Fendaltown- road, of which complaint was made to the Board of the damage and inconvenience arising from its depth, there was originally a deep drain on each side of this road, bat the drainage of the upper part of this road, westward of Mr Cartwright’s land, was diverted through his section ; some years ago, however, be filled np the drain through his land, and the Board refrained from re-opening it, partly because this division was not suitable to drain the lower parts of the road farther to the eastward ; in place of it, therefore, the ditch on the north side was deepened about a foot, and tbe ditch on the south side was filled up. Besides taking the drainage of a great area of land which comes into it at Mr Cookson’s. the drain in question is usefol to the properties fronting on its course. If, however, the drain were diverted on the boundary line between the properties of Messrs Crick and Dawson, the drainage of the upper part of t- e road would be cut off, and in that case the part of the drain along the Fendaltown road complained of need not be so deep to answer the purpose of draining the properties fronting it, and if the road was lowered one foot —which it might be with advantage—the depth of the drain would bo lessened still more. The cost to divert the drain as above would be about £3O, exclusive of compensation for passing through the property, as it would take a strip eight to ten feet wide along the hedge. I believe it is contemplated before long to widen tho road, and thus the inconvenience of the existing drain will be much less felt. I reported on this subject on the 3rd of March and Ist of June, 1879, but the Board at that time decided to make the ditch as at present existing. 2. I find that to complete the filling in of tho old city ditch, near the South belt, it would be necessary to lay a 12-inch pipe from the end of a small cross street between Manchester and Madras streets, for a distance of 255 feet. This would pass through private land similarly to the case of Ford and Ogdon, recently laid down by tbe Board, and I would request instructions on this subject. 3. I would suggest the advisability of plantia ? qnicks along the fences at Boiler’s drain, B.S. 1118, to take the place of the fences when they become rotten, as otherwise the fences would require continual repair. 4. I have advertised calling for tenders to lay the iron pipes to the Sandhills. On completing the survey and sections for this work so many difficulties and expenses were found to arise from laying the pipes in a raised footpath, that I have determined to lower the pipe and lay it in the centre of the road, and there will be no necessity to raise any part of the road, bat a certain portion of road metal must be laid over the shallowest parts, to be determined after laying the pipes. '5. I submit cross sections of- the Drain road, or Tnam street east, showing the proposed reforming of the same, and the stormwater ditch, as it will bo retained, and part of the old sewer to be preserved for the drainage of engines, houses, &c. The consideration of the first clause was postponed till next meeting. Clause 2 was discussed at some length ; after which it was agreed, on the motion of Mr Hall, that the matter be left in the hands of the chairman. Tho remainder of the clauses were discussed seriatim, and the report as a whole approved. A letter was read from the City Council, asking for the resolution delegating the powers of the Board of Health to the City Council. Mr Hall enquired whether this did not come properly under the scope of the Board of Health? The Chairman pointed out that the Public Health Act required that the seal of the Drainage Board should be affixed to the resolution conveying the powers to the City Council. The resolution had been passed by the Local Board of Health instead of being made by the Drainage Board, so that it might be legalised. i Mr Hobbs moved—” That the powers of the Local Board of Health for the city of Christchurch, except the appointment of medical officer, be vested in the City Council.” Mr Cuff seconded tbe motion. Mr White would like to know whether the City Council would pay any of the salary of the inspector of the Board ? The Chairman said he could not answer that question. Mr White said perhaps the mover of the resolution wonld explain. Mr Hobbs said it the city of Sydenham had not inspectors they would require two inspectors and a rate of instead of OJd in the £. He was in favor of the present system being continued. The Chairman said, as a private member, he was in favor of the present mode of charging the expenditure on public health purposes all over the district. The motion was then put and carried. It was resolved that a copy of the resolution be sent to the Mayor of Christchurch, and that the Chairman affix the seal of the Board to the same.

A letter was read from the Sydenham Borough Council forwarding the questions to be asked by the deputation appointed at a recent meeting of ratepayers, also forwarding a copy of the resolutions passed at the recent public meeting at Sydenham. Mr Hall thought the Board should proceed to consider the questions submitted. Mr Cuff thought that the Board required to submit the questions to the engineer. He moved—“ That the answers to the questions and the resolutions submitted be postponed till next meeting.” Mr Hobbs seconded the motion. Mr Hall moved as an amendment —“ That the questions and resolutions be taken into consideration at once.”

Mr White thought that the Board should go through the questions and answer those which they could, leaving over those which could not be answered at once. He seconded the amendment.

The amendment was then put and carried. The Board then proceeded to consider the resolutions passed at the recent meeting of ratepayers, which were at follows : 1. “That this meeting approves of the action taken by the Sydenham Borough Council, and by the representatives of the Borough on the Drainage Board, to prevent the laying of sewage pipes within the Borough, as the system of sewers proposed by the Drainage Board is beyond the requirements and means of the district at the present time.” 2. “ That the population of the Borough, being extended over a large area, within which the holdings are generally sufficiently large to afford a means of sufficiently deodorising the house slops; and as it will be necessary (even if deep sewers are laid) to construct side channels of a permanent character, the meeting is of opinion that the side channels, combined with the powers of the Borough Council and the Board of Health to prevent nuisances, will be sufficient for the requirements of the Borough for some years to come,”

3. “ That this meeting protests against the practice of the Drainage Board of charging the cost of the pumping station, outfall sewer, materials and plant on hand, and general charges in proportion to the prospective benefit to be derived by the various districts when the sewage scheme shall have been completed ; the meeting being of opinion that it is impossible for the Board to complete the scheme with the balance of its loan yet unspent, or for the borough to derive any benefit from the same.”

4. “ That this meeting is of opinion that the rates levied in this district by the Drainage Board have been greatly in excess of the benefit derived, and contrary to the intention

of the Christchurch District Drainage Act, 1877. Moreover, the rates for the years!B79 and 1880 were levied when the district was practically unrepresenl ed on the Board, and were

in excess of the rates levied on the remainder of the Hcathoote district, to which tno borough was attached for representation purposes. This meeting therefore requests the Drainage Board to consent to arbitrators to apportion the works to be charged to Sydenham since the Drainage Act of 1877 came into force.”

On No. 1 the Board was of opinion that no action was necessary by them, it being merely an expression of opinion. On No. 2, Mr Boss said it seemed to him that the Sydenham people would have to pay the rate, whether they had the pipes or not. It therefore seemed to him better for them to have the advantage of the pipes. It was resolved to express no oninion on this resolution, for the same reason as on No. X,

On No. 3, it was unsolved to reply that the Board were merely carrying out. the law as laid down in the Act of 1877.

With respect to the last resolution, Mr White expressed his opinion that Sydenham had been unfairly charged in the past, and he should like to see the appointment of arbitrators.

Mr Hall said this meant simply that the Board would not act impartially. Mr White said the Board had not acted so in the past.

Mr Hobbs said that Christchurch had been charged interest on £BOOO which was for the benefit of Sydenham, Heathcote, and Avon, viz, the acquirement of a freehold drain. It was resolved to postpone deciding on this clause until the queries were dealt with. The Board then proceeded to consider the following questions forwarded by tho Sydenham Council:—

1. Can the Board assure the Council, as representing the ratepayers, that Mr Clark’s scheme will be completed with the funds now at the Board’s disposal ? 2. If not, can the Board explain the reason why tho works will cost more than was estimated by Messrs Clark and Bell (vide Mr Clark’s letter to Board, 11-4 78) ? 3. Provided sewage pipes were laid in Sydenham, would they be of any use without a water supply ? 4. Will the Board say if they object to water from Sydenham side channels being taken by way of Bell’s Creek to the Elver Heathcote ? 5. Will the Board furnish tho Council with a statement of the portion of Mr Clark’s scheme now completed, or under contract, and showing the work to be done and the amount of money required to do it? Also, tho amount required to complete the scheme as regards Sydenham ? 6. If Sydenham does not separate from the Board’s district, will the Board allow the Council to spend the money it would cost to pipe the borough according to Mr Clark’s plan in constructing street side channels ? 7. Will the Board take steps to bring the Begulation of Bocal Flections Act into force in their district ? 8. Will the Board supply the local governing bodies with copies of annual balance sheet and estimates of the Board as formerly promised ? 9. Seeing that about eleven miles of sewage drains are laid in Christchurch, whilst Sydenham has none, upon what grounds has Sydenham been rated higher than Christchurch ? 10. Do the Board still intend to go on with their new Drainage Bill ? 11, Will the Board state why Sydenham was charged more for work lest year, than the amount dne for works completed to the present time p 12. Will the Board appoint independent arbitrators to apportion the charges to the various districts ? No, I.—To this it was agreed to reply that the funds now at the disposal of the Board would not complete the scheme. Mr Bell eaid that it would require some £42,000 more to complete the scheme. It was resolved to state that a sum not exceeding £50,000 would be required to complete the work. On question No. 2 being read, Mr Hobbs pointed out that the cost of the Ferry road and Madras street sewer—some £21,000 —was not included in Mr Clark’s report, but had been done for the benefit of Sydenham. Some £60,000 had been spent outside Mr Clark’s scheme, including £IB,OOO for the purchase of the outfall drain. It was resolved to reply to this question that it arose by reason of the construction of rural drains, Ferry road and Madras street sewers, of which details could be furnished if required. On question No. 3,

Mr White desired to ask Mr Bell whether there was sufficient flushing provided for in the scheme to get rid of the excreta, &c.

Mr Bell said that there had been no difficulty in flushing the sewers. In Chicago, the sewers were flushed with water carts. The flushing could be done hero with creeks, or in other ways. He was decidedly of opinion that flushing was necessary at the head of the pipes. Mr White thought Mr Clark had not considered it necessary to provide for flushing. Mr Hobbs pointed out that Mr Clark had adopted Mr Oarruthers’ scheme of flushing. Mr White wished to know from the engineer how the flashing was intended to he carried out when the excreta was put in. Did he propose to flush the closets, and how ? The Engineer replied that the flushing could be carried out by means of tanks, or from the roofs of the houses, or in a variety of ways. Mr White said what he wanted to got at was to know whether a water supply was required or not. Mr Hobbs said that they had nothing to do with that.

The Engineer said that the pipes in Sydenham could be flushed similarly to those in the north of the city. Mr White thought this was a very ambiguous and unsatisfactory answer. The Chairman called the attention of the members to the form of the question, from which they appeared to be wandering. A lengthy discussion ensued, and ultimately it was resolved to reply that they would be of use with the present available water supply. Mr White dissented to this reply. Question 4 —lt was resolved to reply that the Board would object to water from Sydenham side channels being so conveyed, provided they contained or carried sewage matter of any kind. Mr Hobbs wished to add to No. 1 answer that a rate of 2d in the £ would provide the amount, but the Board declined to allow this to be done.

Question s—lt was resolved—“ That the Board reply that they would see that the re turn should be furnished.”

Question 6 —To this the Board decided to reply in the negative. On question No. 7, Mr White said he would give notice of motion to bring the Act into force, and it was decided to reply that stops were being taken by one of the members of the Board to have the Act brought iuto force. No. B—lt8 —It was resolved to reply that the documents referred to had been supplied as promised. Question No. 9—lt was decided to reply that it arose from difference in valuation, the same principle being applied to both. Question No. 10—The reply decided to be given was that the Board intended to go on with the Bill, provided the member in whose charge it was placed did not advise them to the contrary.

On question No. 11— Tho Chairman said this was purely a matter of finance. Mr Hobbs said this was a matter on which Mr White could give information. Mr White said that he had never been asked for the information.

It was resolved that tho Board furnish tho Council with details.

On question No. 12 — The Board decided to reply in the negative.

A letter was road from tho Hcathcoto Road Board, asking for a connection to tho Stanmore road drain at Gloucester street, on tho west side.

The Board resolved to do the work at the expense of the Road Board. The deputation from the Sydenham Borough Council was then introduced, comprising Ore. Joyce, Day, Hall, Pavitt, Forester, and Mr 0, Allison, the town clerk. Or. Joyce apologised for tho absence of his Worship tho Mayor. The Chairman of tho Board then read over the answers of the Board to tho resolutions and the questions submitted as above. Or. Joyce said the answer to tho tenth question, viz., that the Board intended to go on with tho Bill settled ths whole matter. They should oppose tho Bill by all legal means, and the ratepayers having expressed their views so plainly, tho Board should have placed their resignations in the hands of the citizens. They wished to point out that, in their opinion, the scheme for taking the excreta to the Sandhills was a wrong one, and they might find themselves landed in a very large expense without any result. They therefore thought that before proceeding

with their Bill the Board should consult the

ratepayers. The Chairman explained that the extra cost had been incurred by works outside Mr Clark’s scheme, rendered necessary by the very great rainfall which came.

Cr. Joyce said that they were of opiniotr that the pipes proposed to bo laid down in Sydenham by the Board would be useless without the introduction of a water supply. Mr Boss would like to ask how the Council proposed to get rid of the sewage they proposed to put in the side channels. Cr. Joyce replied that it was never intended to put the excreta into the side channels, but to carry out the pan system, flushing the channels as in Christchurch by means of wafer carts.

Cr. Pavitt endorsed what had fallen from Or. Joyce ss to the intention of the Council with regard to tire aide channels. Mr Boss pointed out that the Board had been established mainly to prevent the pollution of the river.

The Chairman said that the present pollution of Ihe river was only temporary. As soon os the sewage tanks were in working order tho sewage would be taken away from the river and carried away. He had been on a Commission in 1862 as regarded the drainage of tho city, and the primary instruction had been all through that the river should not be polluted in any way, Mr Hobbs desired to? point out that the heavy rate on Sydenham whs coned by the low-lying nature of the locality, it being a basin, as it were, for the reception of all the storm water. To do away with this the Ferry road sower was cocslruoted, but it was found not to be sufficient. Then the Madras street sewer was put down especially for the benefit of Sydenham. So far as Christchurch was concerned it did not require the Madras street sewer ; yet, to sovo Sydenham, Christchurch had paid the greater part of the cost of this. Then there was tho purchase of the outfall sewer, some £IB,OOO, which had been charged to Christchurch, whilst it was really for the benefit of the whole district. In tho district of Sydenham now there was more typhoid fever than anywhere else, and there was also diphtheria at Addington. Tho question then came, whether they should pay the doctor or the drainage rate ? It was for tho district to decide whether they would or would not pay for health. As regarded the rates, a halfpenny rate in Christchurch produced as much as a fourponny rate in Sydenham, the valuation in the former being so much greater than the latter.

Or. Hall desired to correct Mr Hobbs' idea that the Madras street sewer was for Sydenham benefit only. The sewer was always two-thirds full of water from Ohristchureh, so that really Sydenham had no benefit, and it would be far bettor for them to have depended on the South town belt sewer. If Sydenham had to pay for the sewer they should have the use of it.

Or. Joyce said the main question was excreta or no excreta. If they had the excreta put into tho sewers they would have to get a very expensive water supply. The district required to be drained, and to pay for it, but the question was that the Sydenham people objected to these excreta sewers.

Cr. Hall desired to say that they had the pan system in use in Sydenham. The Chairman desired to say with regard to the Bill that the Board represented two parties, one that was in favor of tho excreta going into the sewer, and the other opposed to it. The Board had therefore circulated the Bill amongst the local bodies. They had been advised that the system of putting the excreta into the sewers was a right one to do, and the Board had only bad one or two expressions of opinion as to the Bill, and these were not from such a widely extended area of their district as would lead them to believe that the ratepayers os a body were opposed to tho Bill.

Mr Hobbs explained that Mr Clark’s recommendation was that, as the sewers had to be put at a certain depth to carry off the liquid house sewage, they might, if they felt disposed, put the excreta into them, as it would cost no more, the expense having been already incurred to eatry off the liquid house slops. It was, therefore, for tho people to say whether the excreta should be put into the sewers. The purport of tho Bill was to enable the Board to compel every resident to keep bis place clean, and to connect with tho sewers.

Or. Joyce said that what they thought wag that the professional advisors of the Board, were wrong, and that the best method would would be either to submit the whole subject to a gentleman from some other part of the colonies, or place their resignations in the hands of the ratepayers. Mr Boss desired to point out that history was repeating itself. This was just what had occurred some three years ago. Would Mr Joyce state whether they objected to the excreta being put into the sewers or to the sewers as such.

Or, Joyce said they were opposed to the excreta being put into the sewers; but if they had any confidence in the professional engineer of the Board, they might put anything down in the shape of pipes that they desired.

Mr Boss pointed out that they had, in deference to the wishes of a deputation some three years ago, got over Mr Clark, whoso proposals they were carrying out now. Mr Hobbs confirmed what had fallen from Mr Boss, and pointed out that the members had been re-elected in 1879 to carry out Mr Clark’s scheme, which was now being done. Besides this, the scheme was so nearly finished that it would be impossible to stop the work.

Or. Hall denied that the Board were carrying out Mr Clark’s scheme, more especially as regarded Sydenham. The deputation then retired. The following opinion was read from the solicitor :

With reference to the question submitted by you for my opinion, as to the power of the Board to subdivide any of the several districts defined in the schedule to the Act of X&75 for rating purposes, I am of opinion that by virtue of section 2 of the Christchurch Drainage Amendment Act, 1877, the Board can, in defining the boundaries of the suburban or rural districts therein referred to, subdivide any of the electoral districts of your district; e.g., the Avon Eoad District may be subdivided into two or more rural or suburban districts, and the rate to be made on such districts respectively shall be in proportion to the expenditure proposed in them respectively. A letter was read from Mr Neill, complaining of the injury done by the Board to his laud in laying a lino of pipes from a storm water drain south of the city drain at the estuary. The matter was referred to the engineer to report upon. Several aocounte were passed for payment.

Mr Hall moved—“ That the interest and sinking fund on the cost of the pumping station and outfall drain, &c., should, where practicable, be charged only on that portion of the whole drainage district which is covered by Mr Clark's scheme.” Mr Hobbs would second the motion as aprinciple to be applied whore practicable. Mr White objected to the resolution on the ground that the pumping station was for the benefit of the whole district, The Sydenham people would, if this clause were carried, dispute the validity of a rate struck upon it, and legally they would not have a leg to stand upon. In his opinion the resolution was unworkable.

After a lengthy discussion, Mr White moved as an amendment—- “ That the coat of the pumping station, outfall drains, &0., be charged against the several districts which have pipes already laid or under contract.” There was no seconder, and the amendment lapsed. The original motion was then put and carried on the voices. However, after some further discussion, it was proposed to adjourn the further consideration of tho resolution until Thursday nest, the solicitor’s opinion to be taken meanwhile. ... , Mr White said that ho had taken the highest legal opinion in New Zealand, and it was to tho effect that the rate would break down if gone on with under Mr Hall’s resolution. , . . , , Mr Hall thought it was not right for a member of tho Board to keep such information as this to himself. Mr White said he should withdraw his opposition. , . , The resolution was then put ana declared to bo carried. . Mr White demanded a division, which took place as follows : —Ayes : Messrs Hall, Hobbs, and Boss. Noes : Messrs White, Tancred, and Blakiston. The chairman voted with the ayes, which carried tho resolution. Mr Tancred then moved—“ That the Spreydon district, as defined by law, bo ra separately from tho Sydenham district." Mr Hall seconded the motion, which

earned. . The Board then, at 5.45 p.m., adjourned till Monday next at 1 30 p.m.