12° Julii, 1927.]

ultimate outfall being into either the Teetotal Sled or the Lynn Channel." Those are the names of two of the channels in the Wash. Then the first type of works is the Training Walls, and I gave some general indication of the nature of these works, and the engineer will tell you in more detail. The idea is that what is called the Lynn Channel -one of the channels among the sandbanks in the Wash-should be the ultimate outfall. Then they say: "The distance to which the training walls should be carried has been determined by two considerations, viz., that they should extend to such a point as would prevent the discharge on the ebb being dissipated through more than one channel, and that the water which would enter the tidal river during the first half of the flood on a spring tide, should carry only a small amount of silt in suspension. These two conditions would be fulfilled if the training walls were carried as far as Hull Sand Beacon, a distance of, approximately, five miles below the seaward end of the Marsh Cut." Of course plans will be handed in later on to show in more detail what these works actually will be, and they will be explained by the Engineer. "(27) We have assumed such a form of construction for the basis of our estimate of the cost of forming this trained channel, which amounts to £700,000 exclusive of contingencies.' Then the Marsh Cut, which is also one of the channels leading to the sea. This work has fallen into a bad state of repair, and has greatly deteriorated, the sum spent annually on its maintenance by the Norfolk Estuary Company being insufficient. We are apprehensive that if an attempt were made to deepen the existing channel serious slips would occur. To overcome this difficulty the bottom of the slopes should be secured from movement, and the sides of the channel protected from erosion." The estimate for that piece of work is £130,000. The Marsh Cut is between King's Lynn town and the sea. I do not know whether at this stage you would wish all these identified; they will, of course, be identified by engineering plans later on. This is to give your Lordships a conspectus of the whole matter. King's Lynn Harbour: There is not much required but some deepening by dredging at an estimated cost of £10,000. Then "The Tidal River between the Lower End of Eau Brink Cut and Denver Sluice"-that is the lower part of the

river.

66

[Continued.

"The sides of the channel are in a bad state of repair, and the bed has silted up. Any deepening of the river channel would be accompanied by serious risks, and, in our opinion, it will be necessary to deal with this portion of the main tidal channel in the same manner as the Marsh Cut at an expenditure of £1,000,000 "-that is a large work-" exclusive of contingencies." Then Magdalen Bend. In addition to the improvement of the existing channel, we think it desirable to eliminate Magdalen Bend "-that is another short circuit, there is a bend of the river known by that name and this is to be done at an estimated expenditure of £60,000. Then the Hundred Foot River, which we had known under its name of New Bedford River: "The banks and channel between Denver Sluice and Welmore Lake Sluice, through which the water is discharged from the Washlands are in bad repair, but above Welmore Lake Sluice they are in much better condition. We, therefore, only consider it to be necessary to enlarge the channel between Welmore Lake Sluice and Denver Sluice so as to deal adequately with the water discharged from the Washlands, at an estimated expenditure of £60,000." Then: "The Better Utilisation of the Washlands. We have given careful consideration to the two alternatives: (1) to increase the discharging capacity of the Hundred Foot River so as to deal with a substantial portion of the Upland flood water, and (2) to make arrangements for the better disposal of that water on the Washlands. The Washlands are of the utmost importa balancing reservoir for the temporary disposal of the bulk of the flood water from the Upper Ouse, thus preventing a coincidence of a high rate of discharge from that river and from the South Level through Denver Sluice. On the other hand, any improvement of the Hundred Foot River would tend to bring down water more rapidly from the Upland area, involving the risk of inundations in the South Level owing to the raising of the low water level at Denver Sluice, and is, therefore, not to e recommended except with regard to the short length between Denver Sluice and Welmore Lake Sluice." I do not think I need spend time on the intervening part. You will see on page 13, article 41: "We estimate the total cost of the works recommended for the beter utilisation of the Washlands at £195,000."

ance as

12° Julii, 1927.]

Then certain liabilities in connection with bridges, and the summary estimate is set out in table No. 1 on pages 13 and 14. The first branch of the works under head (a) relates to the tidal river, and for that the estimate for the work there is £1,960,000. Then the works for the better utilisation of the Washlands run to £195,000, and then the third head (C) for bridges, £18,000, making £2,173,000; an addition for contingencies (and contingencies are likely to occur I should imagine in this difficult class of work), £327,000, making in all £2,500,000. In addition to those works which are works relating to the main tidal channel there are works in the South Level Area. "In order to put the channels and banks in good condition in the old South Level Area "that is the area through which the original Ouse River runs, and which deals with the Cam, the Lark, the Wissey and the Little Ouse-" In order to put the channels and banks in good condition in the old South Level Area we estimate that a sum of £216,000, will be required, of which £90,900 would have to be expended on the old River Loop between the Hermitage Sluice and Denver Sluice known as the Old West, Ely Ouse, and Ten Mile Rivers. The details of this expenditure are set out in the annexed table," and they come to a total £216,000. Then comes the passage where the Commission report that in their opinion these works are absolutely essential.

Mr. Riley.] £216,000 in table No. 2 is in addition to the £2,500,000?

the

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, and will not be subsidised out of the Government grant. Having thus ascertained what were the works required to be done, and to be done as soon as possible, the next question to turn to was: How is the money to be provided? and here the Commission found themselves confronted with a highly controversial topic, indeed, rock upon which most of the previous attempts to solve this question had split. In the next part of their Report thev proceed to deal with what I think will be one of the central points of discussion before this Committee, the question really of the area of contribution, the area which it is proper to lay under contribution for the purpose of financing works of this character-main drainage works upon a river. This Bill, following the recommendation of the Commission, has made what I may describe as to a considerable extent

63205

a

[Continued.

departure from hitherto accepted views on the matter. You may recall this morning when I read to my Lord the early words of the statute of Henry VIII, the original idea was that the contributions towards protective works should be levied upon those whose lands could be shown to be directly benefited by those works or saved by those works from peril. That is known as the theory of benefit that payment should be commensurate with benefit, to be more accurate, should be dependent upon benefit, because I can show that later on the word commensurate would be inaccurate. The Commission accordingly direct themselves to this question as to whether that is the criterion, whether the criterion of direct benefit is to be applied for the purpose of laying down what I may call the zone or area of financial contribution. The Commission deal with it thus at page 15 under the heading of "The Theory of Benefit in the Distribution of Charges for Drainage Works." They first set out from the Bill of Sewers, on page 15, the material words which I have already quoted. Then in article 47 they say this: We are informed that the foregoing words have been universally interpreted as establishing the principle that lands can only be charged for drainage works on the basis of benefit derived, or assumed to be derived, from such works and avoidance of danger. That is the principle upon which rates chargeable under subsequent Land Drainage Acts have been assessed, and, apparently, no other principle of rating is under those Acts permissible. (48). Our Terms of Reference direct us to take into consideration the degree of benefit likely to be conferred on the various areas and sub-areas, into which the Ouse Drainage District is divided, by the execution of the works which we recommend. In the course of our Inquiry this question of benefit has continually cropped up. Witness after witness has claimed that this or that portion of the area under the Ouse Drainage Board ought not to be charged with the cost of works from which no observable benefit was derived, and we have had frequently quoted to us the statement, said to have been made by a prominent member of the then Government in connection with the Order of 1920, to the effect that no one who did not benefit under it would pay. The present law thus enunciated has certainly added to the difficulties of the

B

12° Julii, 1927.]

Ouse Drainage Board. We have, therefore, felt bound to consider the applicability of the principle of benefit to the present case. (49). No doubt when a small drainage scheme is in prospect, it may not be difficult to define the area which will be benefited by the execution of particular works. But in such a case as that dealt with by the Ouse Drainage Order, 1920, a reasonable assessment of benefit is well-nigh impracticable," as indeed the effort to do so shows by breaking down. "The object which the framers of that Order had in view was to treat the one river as one entity, and to establish a single authority, which would control all the channels of the main stream and its tributaries, execute such works as were necessary to put the river as a whole into a condition to carry off as effectively as possible the water from both highlands and lowlands, and reduce the risks of flooding to a minimum. In order to carry out the statutory principle of benefit, the district was divided into a large number of areas and sub-areas, the work was grouped into some 20 sections, and an elaborate schedule was constructed assessing the charge of each section of the works in fractional shares upon the several areas and sub-areas deemed to be benefited. A great deal of consideration was no doubt bestowed on the preparation of this schedule, but it has not been satisfactory, and that not on account of inaccuracy in its compilation, but because it is not possible, in dealing with so vast an area, satisfactorily to apply the strict principle of benefit." That is their conclusion, that you cannot really proceed upon a rigid estimation of benefit. "The modern system of rating is generally based on the principle that local taxation must be borne by the community at large, not in proportion to advantage derived from it, but in accordance with the assumed ability of the ratepayers to contribute, the measure of ability being gauged by the annual value of the property each occupies. (52) Moreover in matters of local government the tenddency of legislation has been for many years in the direction of extending the area of charge for a variety of local services. Parochial chargeability has been replaced by Union chargeability in matters of Poor Law, Parish highways have been converted into County and District roads, the, County rates have taken over many liabilities previously

we

[Continued.

borne by smaller areas, and substantial grants from the Exchequer have further tended to equalise local burdens. (53) Drainage works may no doubt be said to stand on a rather different footing and are far from suggesting that the doctrine of benefit should be altogether abandoned, but we think that some relaxation of the principle should be recognised. Accordingly it seems to us that it should be permissible in an Order defining a drainage area to provide how the rates leviable in the area should be charged, whether by an equal rate over the whole area or over sections of the area, regard being had, not only to the benefit received, but to the community of interest in the area as a whole and to the ability of the various parts of the area to contribute. There should be no appeal against a rate levied in accordance with the Order, on the ground that the land on which the rate is charged is not directly benefited." That was the defence, of course, constantly put forward to the tribunal charged with these rates, that no benefit accrued, and that there being no benefit there should be no rate. They proceed then under the heading: "Revenue to be Derived from the Whole Catchment Area." "Quite a number of our witnesses have expressed the opinion that it would be reasonable that all lands within the watershed line of a drainage area should be called upon to make some contribution towards the cost of land drainage works, not on the ground that those lands obtain any benefit direct or indirect from the works, but for the reason that it is largely owing to the amount of water sent down from the higher lands that the inhabitants of the lower lands are forced to undertake expensive drainage works. Of course it may be argued that the dwellers in the Uplands have an immemorial right to discharge their surplus water by its natural channels, and that they have no responsibility for what happens to those who live below them. But such an argument appears to us to be somewhat one-sided and to leave out of sight one of the main features of modern rating, namely, the principle of communal benefit. Many ratepayers derive no direct personal benefit from the expenditure of much of the local rates to which they are called upon to contribute, but as members of the community they pay towards all expenditure undertaken for the community as a whole. In such a matter as land drainage the whole catchment area may

12° Julii, 1927.]

com

be looked upon as in some sense prising a single community which cannot be artificially divided. The works for the drainage, or at least the more expensive works, need to be carried out in the lower levels. But if there were no Uplands whose waters had to be conveyed seawards, the works necessary to prevent flooding in the lower areas would be materially less. (55) A very large proportion of the expenditure which we consider necessary is for the improvement of the tidal portion of the Ouse, and the question may well be asked whether it is fair that the whole burden of this charge (so far as not met from Imperial sources) which is for the satisfactory discharge into the sea of the rainfall from 2,000,000 acres, should fall on about onefifth of that area. (56) It may also be pointed out that the whole of the very extensive works now existing have been carried out without any charge on the higher lands, and that all the Internal Drainage of the Fens is borne and will continue to be borne by the area directly concerned. (57) More than one witness made it clear that what they asked for was a contribution to the cost of getting rid of the upland water, and not for the drainage of the Fens. One defined the position thus:- We have spent millions of pounds in reclaiming the Fens; we have made channels and have banks and rivers which convey the Upland waters to the sea. These sometimes came flushing down the Hundred Foot, the tidal river, as well as the Ten Mile, and they come upon us in serious cases when we are already filled up to the brim with our own waters, and we say they should contribute something, be it one penny or be it a pound, towards keeping the funnel clear. . . I want to make it clear if I can that we repudiate the insinuation that we want help towards drainage from the Upland people.' (58). Among other arguments which have been placed before us by the advocates of a charge on the watershed area, are the statements that, owing to improvements carried out. to meet the modern system of agriculture, particularly in the direction of under-draining, the rainfall is voided more rapidly into the lower reaches of the river, and that the sewerage systems of numerous towns and villages above the Fens are responsible for the rapid discharge into the channels of the river of a considerable volume of effluent, thus increasing the strain on the drainage

63205

we

[Continued.

works in the lower areas. The foregoing points are, in our opinion, of importance, for the Fen lands are of too valuable a character as food-producing areas to be subjected to the risks of being flooded by the Upland waters. (59). It is interesting to observe that a Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed in 1877, 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, included in their Report .

a recommendation that the whole watershed area should be rated on the basis of rateable value (including towns and houses), but that land above flood level should pay on a lower scale than land below it."

Colonel Heneage.] May I ask, does the present area which it is proposed to rate correspond exactly to the area comprised in the watershed of the Ouse?

Mr. Macmillan.] Under the present Board?

Colonel Heneage.] Yes, in the present Bill.

Mr. Macmillan.] The present Bill is coincident with the whole catchment

area.

Colonel Heneage.] The geographical watershed?

Mr. Macmillan.] Geographically it is. the whole catchment area. Within the area you have different districts with different attributes. There is only direct rating within the flood level. I will give you the financial scheme, but the answer to your question is in the affirmative. The attempt under the existing régime, as you notice, was not to deal with the whole of the catchment area, but with selected portions. The Commission here refer to the Report of 1877 and an extract from that is given in the Appendix. I have the actual Blue Book here which

I may refer to. You will see there, there

are recommendations, but I propose slightly to amplify it by reading the report which I have myself. The reference to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House in 1877 was 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 conveniently and inexpensively constituted, their Procedure improved, and their

B 2