DOUGHBOY CREEK

Hokitika Guardian, 15 November 1933, Page 4

DOUGHBOY CREEK

PROPOSAL FOR JTS DEVIATION.

COUNCIL TAKES NO ACTION.

The proposal to deviate: Doughboy Creek was given full attention by tne Westland County Council yesterday afternoon, and the Council, after healing several expressions of opinion b.v members, as well as reading several letters on the matter from parties interested, declined to take any action. The Commissioner of Crown Lanas (Mr T. Cagney), in reply to the Council stated that lie, with the overseer (Mr W. Millner) inspected Doughboy Creek, and also the surrounding locality in connection with the suggested diversion of the creek into Cunningham Creek to prevent the present flooding of valuable farming lands, and also damage to county raods which, in each instance i s likely to be aggravated «» time goes on if something is not done. The diversion of the water if it could be relied on to adhere to the Cunningham Creek channel would considerably relieve the position. The tall of the creek and its capacity to accommodate flood water without scouring a new channel would have to be ascertained. However, the probabilities were that the flood water would keep more or less to its course, emptying into the Hokitika river near‘Higgins’ mill. The chief initial difficulty, the lettdV continued, wotild be in overcoming the objections lodged by residents opposed' to tlm proposal, Mr Growcott would • be the most seriously affected as the ■" diversion would divide 1 J his property, with a short length through Mr Etesian’s. In the former case the land might even be isolated in flood time. It was evident that Doughboy Creek in the past had threatened to establish a connection with Cunninghain Creek, and if> the ■ bhnk had not been protected some (yeans ago, it tmight finally have established itself along that course, which has a distihct fall towards Cunningham Creek. There was no doubt about the gravity of the position, and the merits of the proposal, which warranted full investigation andevery effort to achieve the object in view.

Further correspondence was received from Mr S. T. Havill, regarding a petition signed by settlers at Upper Koiterangi, and advising that he was prepared to contribute £2O in cash or labour toward the work. Mr G. N. Spence wrote asking the Council for consideration of the proposal, C " .• <; Further, Mr P. S. Heslan wrote ob r jecting to the scheme being approved as the creek would go through freehold property and do considerable damage. ' ",

It was reported, that Mr, Growcott had waited on the finance committee that morning objecting to the proposal.

Ci-. Murdoch thought it was beyond the Council’s power to do anything. Cr. Keenan moved that the matter be referred to the County solicitor for a decision.

The chairman Raid the locality hail been inspected, The Commissioner stated that the deviation would divide Mr G\roweott’s property. My Heslan had said that the deviation would cause damage to liis freehold - property and •n that ease he would hold the Council liable. Seven others were in support of tho ororv*sal. Tf the. Council were to involve inself in interfering with the course of nature -by instituting/ a? deviation it would land itself in trouble Or. Ward moved that the Council take no action, a-s it could not see its wav clear to accept responsibility in the matter. Cr. Donovan seconded the motion which was carried.