FLOOD WORKS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 102, 2 May 1930, Page 11

FLOOD WORKS

IN WAIRAU RIVER

BOARD'S J URISDICTION

In a reserved juilguicut dclivcrocl yesterday his Hono.ur Mr. : Justice, Becd held -that section 73 (2) of the Itiver Boards Act, 1008, did not render ultra vires the construction of ilood-protoe-tion works by-the Wairau .River Board witliin the. harbour district of the Win-, vau Harbour Board. The case was one in'which the Attorney^ cncral, the Wairau : Harbour Board, and Messrs. T. Eckford. and Co., claimed an injunction restraining the Wairau River Board from ■•prose-; outing certain flood-protection works, and. a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant board to remove suchworks as had hlready been completed. For about forty years various river; boards, united in 1922 in the defendant board, had constructed and maintained protective works against floods on the W'airau Ri'v-cr, stated his 'Honour! Without these works large areas of land and the town of-. Blenheim itself would be repeatedly inuudsted.and silt deposited over the "countryside. Tlio question"as i to whether the Eivcr Board should not only be restrained from further prosecuting such works,, but also should be ordered to remove such as liad already been constructed was, therefore, of vitalinterest not only to the board, but to the whole district. On the other.hand, the Wairau Harbour , Board claimed that the works wcr ; e. occasioning the silting-up- of the harbour and destroyI ing its navigability. His Honour mentioned that if it. were' held that the .River - Board had power -to cojistruet protective works within the area within, its jurisdiction, the, particular works constructed would probably be attacked as constituting a nuisance. The boundaries of the Wairau Harbour District were completely within the boundaries, of the, defendant's district, and' the works. attacked were within the boundaries of the former. - A CLEAR DISTINCTION. His Honour referred to section 73 (2) of the Biver Boards Act, which was. as follows:. "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorise a river board to exorcise jurisdiction witliin any district;' within the jurisdiction of any harbour board," and went on to deal wth the definition of the. words, "any district within the jurisdiction of .any harbour .board." The word "district" .was not .defined in either the. Bivers Boards/Act or the Harbours Act, 1923.' It had been, contended that the' sub-section referred only to tho harbour limits and not to the harbour district, but the section did not say, as' it well might have, if so intended, "within the. limits of a harbour within the jurisdiction of a harbour board." Moreover, section 59 of the Harbours Act, 1023, made a clear distinction between the'limits of a.hal'bour and a harbour district. . . . On the whole, said his Honour,- ho was driven to tho conclusion that a literal interpretation must be given, to the section, and that "district within the jurisdiction of any harbour board" included the, harbour district as defined by the Wair.au Harbour Board Act, 1907, '; • ■■ . OVERLAPPING AREAS. The position,1 therefore, was that by various statutes thero were several local bodies having defined jurisdictions within overlapping areas. . . . Section 73 (2) contemplated a river board having jurisdiction within the area of a harbour district; it could 'not be construed as meaning that no river board should be constituted having any jurisdiction within the area of a harbour district, nor could it be construed as meaning that on ,the establishment of a harbour, board :the»exjEtiug: "river board,.should ipso fae'to cc.as.c to .-function'so -far as regarded an area within the boundaries of' a harbour district- The section had to bo construed. literally, and all it,, said was, "Nothing jrj. this section shall be construed to authorise a river board to exercise jurisdiction, 9 tc-/' The: section placed within the jurisdiction of the river board "all- rivers, streams, 'or watercourses," whether or not the same were navigable. Navigable rivers naturally fell under the jurisdiction of a harbour board, and an impossible situation would bo created were a river board and a harbour board both given jurisdiction to carry on their operations in navigable waters. . His Honour thought, therefore, that'the effect, of sub-section (2) was. confined strictly to section 73, and that its provisions did not affect the powers granted to a river board by the .succeeding sections. '■■'■■ At tho hearing Mr. M. J..Gresson, with him Mr. C. H. Mills and Mr. A. C. Nathan, appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. H F. Johnson, K.C., with. him. Mr. W. T. Churchward, for the defendant.