72 NOTES ON ADMINISTRATION OF WATER SUPPLY. 



interests of residents on one part of a river frequently differ 

 entirely from those of residents on another part. For instance 

 persons residing on the higher part of a river in England naturally 

 desire to afford every facility for the rapid discharge of flood 

 water, while those on the low land near the mouth of the river 

 view with apprehension any steps taken with this object, as the 

 violence of floods on the lower part of the river would be thereby 

 increased. Divergent interests such as these afford a wide field 

 for disagreement between different boards, and it is, therefore, 

 not surprising that when one board or commission desires to carry 

 out works for water conservancy or for river improvements of 

 any kind, it generally finds several other boards standing in the 

 way to oppose it. As an instance of the result of this state of 

 affairs, the feuds between the different boards on the little River 

 Nene have, during the last fifty years, cost £100,000. In the 

 case of the Ouse the amount expended merely in obtaining 

 parliamentary powers for carrying out necessary improvements 

 has been £150,000. Nearly the whole of these sums can be put 

 down as direct loss or waste, and there can be no doubt that the 

 indirect loss due to the retardation of enterprise and the delay 

 in carrying out useful improvements must have been much 

 greater. 



The extent to which responsibility in regard to river conservancy 

 in England has been divided is almost incredible. In the case of 

 the little river Witham there are seventeen separate authorities 

 which have more or less jurisdiction over its banks and main 

 tributaries, and these do not include the Drainage Commissioners 

 in the fen lands near the river's mouth. These if added would 

 make altogether forty different boards possessed of jurisdiction 

 over the Witham and its tributaries. Another notable instance 

 of divided authority is that furnished by the River Nene. In 

 the length of thirty miles between Peterborough and the sea that 

 river is under the charge of fourteen Boards of Commissioners. 

 Three of these boards have jurisdiction over the river channel, 

 five over the north bank, and six over the south bank. It would 

 be easy to furnish numerous instances of the pernicious effects of 

 multiplying administrative boards in this haphazard manner and 

 dealing piecemeal with the great question of river conservancy ; 

 but a few will suffice to illustrate the manner in which such effects 

 make themselves felt. In one case necessary improvements at 

 the mouth of a river were carried out only after the question had 

 remained in dispute for eighty years. In another a sum of 

 £150,000 was expended in improving a portion of a river, but as 

 the authorities possessed of jurisdiction on other parts of the 

 river refused to make corresponding improvements, no benefit 

 whatever was derived from this expenditure. In a third case a 



