LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ORALLY-cont.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ORALLY-cont.
On behalf of.

Witness. Whitfield, T. W.

...

...

Salisbury and Fordingbridge Drainage Board and Personal.

Whitmore, Col. F. H. D. C. Central Landowners' Association.

...

Wicks, J. G.

Wright, Capt. G. A.

Ancholme Drainage and Navigation Commission.
Black Sluice Drainage Commission.

Bradford-on-Avon Urban District Council.
Bramber, Rape of, Commission of Sewers.

Brigg Court of Sewers.

Cale and Cary Moor Drainage Board.
Chippenham, Corporation of.

Clwyd Drainage Board.

Clwyd Drainage Ratepayers' Committee.

Crowle Ealand, etc., Drainage Trustees.
Dartford Commission of Sewers.

Dee Drainage Board.

Dengey Levels Commission of Sewers.

Denge Marsh and Southbrooks Levels Commission of Sewers.

East Kent Commission of Sewers.

East Norfolk, Committee of Drainage Authorities and Marsh Owners in, representing the undermentioned Drainage Authorities and persons:

LIST OF DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES, ETC.-Cont.

Epsom Urban District Council,

Fobbing Levels Commission of Sewers.

Gowy Drainage Board.

Gravesend to Sheerness Commission of Sewers.

Havering Level Commission of Sewers.

Holderness Drainage Trustees.

Kent Agricultural Committee.

Kesteven Agricultural Committee.

Lee Conservancy Board.

Lincolnshire Commission of Sewers (acting at Grimsby, Louth, Alford, Spilsby and Boston.)

Lincolnshire Commission of Sewers (Grantham Court).

Newhaven Harbour and Ouse Lower Navigation Trustees.
North Level and Nene Outfall Commission of Sewers.

Notts County Council.

Pratt, Colonel E. R.

Rainham Level (Essex) Commission of Sewers.

Romney Marsh Level, Lords, Bailiff, and Jurats of.

Salisbury, City of.

Somerset Commission of Sewers.

Sow and Penk Drainage Board.

Stour (Essex and Suffolk) Drainage Board.

Surrey Agricultural Committee.

Tebbutt, C. G.

Tendring, Level of, Commission of Sewers.

Thorney Drainage Board.

Thornton Cleveleys Urban District Council.

Upper Medway Conservancy.

West Sussex County Council.

Western Parts, Limit of, of County of Sussex, Commission of Sewers.

Winterton and Somerton Drainage Commission.

Wisbech and neighbourhood, Commissions of Sewers with Outfalls into the River Nene.

APPENDIX III.

REPORT.

BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into the Operation of existing Statutes in regard to the Formation of and Proceedings by COMMISSIONERS of SEWERS and CONSERVANCY, DRAINAGE and RIVER NAVIGATION BOARDS; To consider by what means such Bodies may be more conviently and inexpensively constituted, their Procedure improved and their Powers enlarged so as to provide more efficiently for Storage of Water, the Prevention of Floods, and the Discharge of other Functions appertaining to such Boards; and to report to the House.

ORDERED TO REPORT

That the Committee have met and considered the subject matter referred to them, and, having examined a considerable number of Witnesses in relation thereto, have agreed to the following Report:-

I. It is evident to the Committee, from the information which has been laid before them, that considerable damage has been caused in

various parts of England by the prevalence of floods during the last winter, and that such floods have been more frequent and of longer duration in recent times than formerly.

Among the causes which have been assigned for this state of things, the Committee find that prominence is given to the very general adoption of the system of subsoil drainage, owing to which a greatly augmented quantity of water is rapidly carried into rivers, and to the deterioration which is constantly taking place in the channels of the rivers themselves whereby they are rendered inadequate to carry off the drainage of their respective watersheds.

The Committee gather from the evidence that if the channels and outfalls of rivers be properly cared for, any water flowing into these rivers from the catchment basins of which they are the outlets, may reasonably be expected to be discharged by them in sufficient time to render unlikely any serious damage to agricultural lands by floods.

It is the opinion of several witnesses of experience that floods of moderate duration are not always prejudicial, but, on the contrary, have the effect of improving and fertilising grass lands by the deposit which they bring down, and that in such cases it is mainly when, owing to insufficient arterial drainage, or other causes, flood waters are suffered to stagnate upon the soil for a lengthened period that injurious consequences are found to arise.

One of the principal points to which the Committee have directed their attention has been the best means of preserving the channels and outfalls of rivers in such a condition as to suffice for the discharge, with reasonable facility, of the waters flowing into them; and in order to arrive at a judgment upon this point, it has been necessary to inquire at some length into the manner by which the conservancy of rivers is at present regulated.

II. The first public statute which undertook to deal with river conservancy, and that upon which all subsequent legislation in reference to this subject was founded, is the 23 Henry 8, c. 5; that statute provided for the appointment of Commissioners of Sewers, with very extensive powers for taking such measures as they might think proper for preventing floods and improving the state of rivers. These Commissioners were appointed by the Sovereign upon the recommendation of certain Officers of State, and remained in office during the Royal Pleasure. The particular mode of executing their duties was left very much to their own discretion, and the expenses which they might incur for works of repair, demolition or improvement were to be defrayed by the riparian owners, in proportion to the benefit derived from the works. Subsequent Acts defined and extended their powers, and in the year 1861 further provision was made for the drainage of agricultural lands by the Land Drainage Act (24 and 25 Vict., c. 133), in which the representative principle seems for the first time to have been adopted, as regards the choice of persons, to deal with arterial drainage. This Act, however, related mainly to the drainage of land for agricultural purposes, and did not materially affect the constitution or functions of Commissioners of Sewers. It is generally acknowledged that these Acts have not worked successfully for the prevention of floods; and this seems to be owing partly to defects in the machinery provided for carrying the Acts into execution, and partly to obstructions caused by private legislation.

As regards the first of these causes, although very large powers of executing works and of rating have been conferred upon the persons charged with the execution of these general Acts, their duties have only been indicated in a vague and general manner; and it further appears that certain powers are wanting which are essential for the maintenance of an adequate system of drainage. In addition to this, the constitution of either a Commission of Sewers or an elective Drainage Board for any district is not compulsory, so that in many cases districts urgently in need of such bodies are without them. The principle of rating exclusively according to the benefit received is difficult of application, and is fre

quently found to work unsatisfactorily in practice. Moreover, owing to the existence of several distinct authorities for the course of a single river, conflicts have arisen which are fatal to the adoption of any uniform and comprehensive scheme for the conservancy of the river as a whole, and there is, moreover, an absence of responsibility, which may be held to account, in a great measure, for the present neglected state of several important streams.

The difficulties which private legislation has placed in the way of any public system of conservancy are many and grave. It has been stated to the Committee that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 private Acts now in operation which relate to drainage, navigation and matters of a similar kind; and the interests of the several persons, or bodies of persons, in whose behalf these Acts were passed are frequently found to conflict with the due exercise of the powers granted under the public Acts above referred to. This more especially applies to private Acts relating to canals and navigations, in many of which, while the main purpose of the particular Act has in great measure, or entirely, ceased, the duties imposed by it are still required to be discharged. Moreover, as the general Acts provide for the maintenance of the rights conferred by private Acts, Commissioners of Sewers and district Drainage Boards are powerless to interfere with such rights, however inconsistent with the public interest.

There is a further obstacle, arising from liability ratione tenure for the maintenance of river banks. This liability, being in the case of many rivers distributed among a large number of ripanian owners, can rarely be enforced with such uniformity as to make it thoroughly effective for maintaining the banks along the whole of the river at any one time. III. The sufficiency of a main channel of a river may be affected by several causes; such as a continuance of heavy rain within the area of the watershed, and by various natural and artificial obstructions, all tending to limit the capacity of the channel. With these causes the Committee believe that it is possible to deal, more or less, successfully. At the same time, rivers are found to differ so widely in their characteristics that, in the opinion of the Committee, it would be impracticable to prescribe any general scheme of conservancy which would be applicable to all rivers without exception.

The particular measures, therefore, which should be adopted for keeping the main channel in a satisfactory condition must, the Committee think, be left to be determined by a consideration of the circumstances of each separate case.

IV. The Committee find that almost all the witnesses examined by them are of opinion that in order to secure uniformity and completeness of action in dealing with each river, each catchment area should, as a general rule, be placed under a single body of Conservators, who should be responsible for maintaining the river from its source to its outfall in an efficient state, and in this view the Committee entirely concur. With regard, however, to tributary streams, the Committee consider the care of these might in some instances be entrusted to district committees, acting under the general direction of the Conservators; but near the point of junction with the principal stream they should be under the direct management of the Conservators of the main channel, who should be a representative body, constituted of residents and owners of property within the whole area of the watershed.

In some instances a tributary stream might be of such magnitude and importance as to require a separate Conservancy Board for itself. In these cases it might be desirable to vest in some authority the power of deciding differences which may arise between these co-ordinate bodies.

Although the Committee are of opinion that means should be taken to ensure the appointment of a Conservancy Board for each watershed area, they consider that it should, in the first instance, result, if possible, from the application of persons having an interest in the district. Upon receiving such application the Department of Government, in whose