45. We are unanimously of opinion that the works above recommended are absolutely necessary to place the river and its tributaries in a satisfactory condition. If the work is not done, we are of opinion that inundation sooner or later is inevitable, and that the danger of the district returning to its original condition of swamp is very real. We are well aware that the estimate for these works amounts to a formidable total, and we should have been glad if we could have recommended a scheme which would not have involved so large an expenditure of money. But our own consideration of the problem and the engineering evidence which has been placed before us have convinced us that if this large and valuable tract of agricultural land is to be secured against inundation, improvements must be made to reduce the low water levels in the lower reaches and enable the upland flood waters to get away with greater facility, to prevent the accumulation of silt in the tidal channel and to put the banks in a

permanent condition of stability. All the works which we recommend in the tidal river and in connection with the Washlands are directed to these ends. Each section of them is intimately connected with the rest, and we fear that it would be impossible to assume that any partial or less extensive scheme would effect the objects desired The works recommended are of a permanent character, and when they are completed the cost of maintenance will be reduced to a nominal figure when compared with the present cost of upkeep.

3. THE THEORY OF BENEFIT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF CHARGES FOR DRAINAGE WORKS.

46. The Bill of Sewers (23 Hen. VIII. c. 5), an Act which is still unrepealed, and is the foundation of subsequent land drainage legislation, provides for the appointment of Commissioners to enquire" who hath or holdeth any lands or tenements or common of pasture or profit of fishing or hath or may have any hurt, loss or disadvantage in the same places as well near to the said dangers lets and impediments, as inhabiting or dwelling thereabouts, by the said walls, ditches, banks, gutters, gotes, sewers, trenches, and other the said impediments and annoyances and all those persons and everyone of them, to tax, assess, charge, distrain and punish after the rate of every person's portion, tenure or profit, or after the quantity of their common of pasture or profit of fishing or other commodities there."

47. 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 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.

50. The object which the framers of that Order had in view was to treat the whole 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 high lands. and low lands, 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.

51. 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 tendency 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 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 we are far from suggesting that the doctrine of benefit should be altogether abandoned, but we think that some relaxation of the principle should be 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.

4. REVENUE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE WHOLE CATCHMENT AREA.

Contributions by County Councils in respect of land (a) Without and (b) Within the Drainage District.

54. 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 be looked upon as in some sense comprising 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 very 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 two million acres, should fall on about one-fifth 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 his position thus:

"We have spent millions of pounds in reclaiming the Fen; we have made channels and we have banks and rivers which convey the Upland waters to the sea. These sometimes come 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 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 enquire 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 (see Appendix C attached hereto) 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.

60. Bills were introduced in 1879 and 1881 to deal with these recommendations, but neither of them was passed, and up to the present time no general legislative action has been taken upon

the Report of the Committee, although we observe that the Lancashire County Council (Drainage) Act, 1921 (11 & 12 Geo. 5. ch. xxxviii), and the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Drainage) Act, 1923 (13 & 14 Geo. 5. ch. xcviii), each contains. a provision enabling the county council to make a contribution out of the County Fund towards expenditure under the Act incurred in the general interest of the county.

61. Under certain of their general powers Acts the Middlesex County Council exercise powers of a Drainage Authority within their area and discharge the cost of so doing by a rate. levied throughout the County. General drainage powers have also been obtained by the Surrey County Council in an Act. passed this year, the cost of exercising them normally being defrayed as payments for general county purposes. Moreover, we understand that a Drainage Bill has been presented in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, under which it is proposed to authorise contributions towards the cost of drainage works out of County Funds.

(a) Contributions by County Councils in respect of land outside the Drainage District.

62. It seems to us that, although it is right that the main burden of charge for works of land drainage should fall upon the land which may be assumed to be benefited by the works, it is also reasonable that some measure of contribution should be made in respect of the lands, outside the area of assumed benefit, from which the water flows. This contribution has no relation to benefit, but should be regarded as a payment made in recognition of the fact that the discharge of water from outside the area of benefit results in additional expenditure being thrown upon that The sum thus payable should be placed to the credit of the general fund of the Drainage District to which the whole area drained contributes, and not to any special fund devoted to works in any particular section.

area.

63. Our Inquiry has, of course, been confined to the Ouse, and our recommendations can relate only to that area; but we recognise that if the principle we recommend is accepted, it might well be extended to the country at large. We now proceed to consider how the recommendation could best be put into effect. 64. One of our witnesses, who spoke in favour of the principle, put forward the following suggestions:

1. That the watershed line should be the boundary of the Ouse Drainage District.

2. That the rates within the District should be levied on the basis of annual value, but that there should be a differentiation in the amount of rates in the £ levied respectively in (a) fenlands, (b) high lands, and (c) towns, these rates being in the relative proportions of six, two and one.

3. That maximum limits should be fixed for the rates for capital expenditure and for maintenance, so that each part of the area might know the maximum liability to which it would be exposed.