CASE FOR PAEROA.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4316, 12 September 1921, Page 3

CASE FOR PAEROA.

* MR HANNA’S ADDRESS. TO RIVERS COMMISSION. A MASTERLY SUMMARY. A masterly analysis of the position in respect to allocatipns of cost under the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Act, frpm the point of the Borough of Paeroa, was put before the Commission on Friday by Mr J. L. Hanna, solicitor, as iollows : The Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Act, .1910, section 7, provides : The Minister is hereby authorised to construct all necessary works and to dp all other things that may be required for the following purposes :— (a) Remedying or preventing the silting-up of the Waihou and Oliinemuri rivers by mining or draining operations, (b) Preventing or mitigating the flooding of lands within the river districL by .the waters of the said rivers. (c) Improving parts of the said rivers for the purposes of navigation. (d) Such other purposes within the scope of this Act as the Governo'r-in-Council from time tp time determines. A and C.—Nothing done,

All that has been done by the Public Works Department is the clearing of willows and erection of stop-bank on right bank which would probably not-cost £5OOO.

Had Paeroa Borough done this the annual cost would be £275 per annum, or probably much less, because the cost is but on the high side. But to go further, had there been no deposit of mining debris there, according to Mr Rhodes and other witnesses even abnormal floods wou 1 1 -not have required more than a 2ft stop-bank at less than half .the cost, or £137 10s per annum. -

The only evidence before this Commission or that of 1910 is of overflows at the Criterion Hotel and at Wharf Street.

On the left bank nothing has been done at all in the way of stop-bank-ing. and it is highly probable that Paeroa Borough would have, done nothing in the way of stbp-banking this area within the borough, as, according to Mr T. W. Kenny’s evidence, which was not questioned, only 30 to 40 acres of this is liable to flood. The land affected by overflow at the abattoirs, over Rotokohu swamp, is outside the borough, ,and the body affected is the Ohinemuri County, and in any case the area affected is not more than 1500 acres. BENEVOLENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. And dealing with the drainage or Rotokohu swamp, I would ask the Commission what this has to do with Paeroa, or, indeed, the rest of the river district ? This is a separate area requiring draining, and should, as the settlers .themselves suggested, be dealt with by a drainage board of their own, but the benevolent Public Works Department complacently takes it off their shoulders, and would rate Paeroa Borough and other districts for the work.

Further, it must be distinctly noted that not even a suggestion has been made that any overflow occurred here till nor can it be suggested, else why would the Railway Department have constructed .the railway so low that flood waters could run over it? Therefore I contend. that this overflow must be attributed to the deposit of mining debris.

The evidence shows not less than 2 200,000 tons of mining tailings in Ohinemuri in 1910, and this must have materially constricted the ci’osssection, so that it is only reasonable to assume th,at. with no constriction in the cross->section the floods of 1907 and 1910 would not have come .over the banks, and there would have been —as far as those floods were concerned—no need for stop-banks at alh The most the Public Works Department should be asked to do is to find outlets (Rotokohu).

The mining companies and Waihi Borough admit a .liability in respect of the Ohinemuri River, and I maintain, for the reasons I have' stated, the mining industry should contribute almost the whole of the cost of Ohinemuri River works. PAEROA AND NAVIGATION.

Now, dealing with navigation. The 1910 Act authorises the construction of works and doing of tilings necessary to “Improve parts of the said rivers (I would ask you to note the plural number) for the purposes of navigation.”

What, I ask, has been done to im-prove-the navigation, or what is-pro-posed to be done to improve the navigation of the Ohinemuri to Paeroa town ? Has Paeroa no rights at all ? Is it to be deprived or its birthright, its greatest asset ? Are its citizens to pay out £1650 a year in cartage charges, or an amount capitalised on a 5 per cent, basis of £33,000, or a sum of £21,450 spread over 13 years ? Or is it fair that the town should be put back in its progress by the stigma of silt from developing, owing to its excellent geographical * position, into an important manufacturing and distributing centre (a disadvantage that is probably greater still) just because the Crown in its folly granted a sludge channel right to the mining industry and openly flaunts its intention of refraining from doing anything to improve the navigation of the Ohinemuri ? Is the expenditure of £5OOO any justification for an attempt to rate the town in face of these detriments for £3OOO, which is. the equivalent of £7 10s per ratepayer ? Can a town of the size of Paeroa, that ».s immediately faced with an expenditure of £120,000 to give it ■the ordinary amenites of life ; that is now paying nearly £9 per ratepayer per year, and that is faced*with a payment of over £lB per ratepayer in the immediate future, and double this when the whole loan of £120,000 is expended, be expected to pay any sum towards works in respect of which P. derives su'ch detriment ? A PERTINENT PARALLEL. And again: Mr Blow practically commits the Commission to refrainfrom rating Te Arolia until the detriment to its navigation is remedied, and I feel confident he will hotJnake

flesh of one and fowl of the other. The I Act provides for the remedying of navigation in the Ohinemuri, and in any case Te Arolia’s case Applies more strongly tp Paeroa, because whereas they have only impeded navigation we have none at all in the Ohinemuri, and I take it, by the same process of reasoning, will not be called upon to pay until the Ohinemuri is made navigable to Paeroa town. Mr May states it will .cost £5OOO or alternatively £12,000 to do this, which amounts respectively to £250 and £6OO a year., as against £1650 loss per annum through the lack’of it. In any case, ,we maintain that wharfage accommodation casting £6OOO is more than double our requirements, and probably the shipping companies would build their own wharf. DAMAGE BY MINING. All these things are due to mining silt, and as the mining industry, has to contribute principally for the remedying and preventing of silting, i maintain that they should have to pay at least 90 per cent, of the cost of Ohinemuri River works. WHAT PAEROA SHOULD PAY. in this case Paeroa would contribute, when its iiavigation was restored, interest on, say, £5BOO or onetenth of £58,000, stated by Mr Baker as the cost of Ohinemuri River works. This would be £290 per annum, but would only be payable when the Ohinemuri was made as navigable as in 1895. MINING CONTRIBUTION. The mining companies have contributed in the past %d per ton on the tonnage deposited in the river. Mr Leah, in .answer to Mr Buchanan, said their, working cost was 29/2d per ton, and that 4d per ton extra charge would not cause them to close down. 4'd was the price at which Mr Kingswell agreed to take the tailings out, though the other companies stated it would cost them 2/- to 3/- a ton w keep them out. At 4d per ton the total, cost on 6,737,547 tons would be £84,219 Bs, which, as 8 per cent., would produce £6737 per annum, as compared with, at 2s per ton, £673,755 total cost or £53,896 per annum, and as compared also with £58,000, the estimated total cost of Ohinemuri Rivers protective works, or £4640 per their liability to-day under a £600,000 annum, or, compared with £26,644. scheme. I have used 8 per cent, as a basis rate for the interest as this will produce on the total estimated expediture £49,836, or practically the sum of £50,000, estimated by Mr Blow as being required for interest and maintenance. THE CROWN CULPABLE. Before leaving this point, I would remind the Commission that liquidation should not, necessarily relieve mining companies. If anyone is tp contribute to the mining industry’s liability it should be the Crown, for the following reasons :

1. If anyone should have known in 1895 the probable effect of the proclamation i.t was the Crown. It is futile to suggest that the settlers or residents of Paeroa should have known. ' 2. I quoted frpm Halsbury’s Laws 'Of England, vol. 28, pages 400-2, that the right of navigation was paramount to any right of the Crown, and could only be taken away by Act of Parliament. The Crown in this case has assumed the responsibility of -taking away this right of navigation from Paeroa, and substituted ,a lessei and disadvantageous right to the Puke only, and therefore must pay for the damage done if the mining industry does not. 3. Mr .Baker says that one reason' for refusing to put through Pereneki’s cut was that large deposits of tailings above and about Paeroa might go down further. His Department would leave these deposits where they are to the detriment of Paeroa, for the benefit of the rest of the district.

Now. it must be generally admitted that all works from ,Ngahina north affect the whole district, as opposed to Paeroa alone, and Paeroa is not affected by the upper Waihou works. The damage to navigation from Ngahina down affects Paeroa just as muph as it does all ,the other districts, but only as much. Now, if Mr Baker’s assumption that the mining industry should pay half the cost of Ngararahi Cijt is correct, surely they should pay half the cost of works below Ngahina, but suppose we put it down at one-fourth. BENEFIT TO THE CROWN.

Then leaving this fpr a moment, and dealing .with the benefit to the Crown itself.

According to Mr Thompson, some 27,000 acres on the Hauraki Plains area will be directly benefited, and on his admission the Crpwn should protect the persons tp whpm it has said land, and on this count 2,000 acres, the Awaiti settlement, should be added, and I suggest that about 6000 acres referred to by Mr Buchanan between Ngarua and Maukoro Estate on the west bank of the Piako should also be added to the 27,000 acres, making •a total of 35,000 acres. Now, Mr Thompson admitted £3 was a fair loading on the major portion pf this land, but I suggest his statements under cross-examination indicated that the benefit would be greater than stated in his examination in chief, and I suggest £5 'an acre all round as a reasonable loading. This would show £175,000, the interest on which, at 8 per cent, is £14,000. It has also been stated that 5,000 cusecs overflow just below Mangaiti, and as Mr Thompson admitted that the general overflow to Netherton was to some extent restricted by a 4-foot ridge running along the eastern edge of the line of flow, I think I am putting it as a moderate estimate when I suggest that 3000 cusecs, or one-fourth of the Piako’s total capacity, finds its way into the Piako, and the balance of 2000 cusecs goes over to. Netherton. In flood time the addition of 25 per cent beyond its capacity to a river is a detriment that it is worth paying to “prevent, and for this reason the Crown should contribute on behalf of the settlers on the Lower Piako co whom they sold lands. As I stated I in opening I think shipping should

contribute and I think that land obtaining a benefit should also, contribute. I would, therefore, suggest the following contributions: In giving the following figures I have dealt only with £50,000 as the estimated annual cost, as I have not Mr Baker’s amended figures at the time, but simple proportion will reduce them to £43,000, Taking the annual amount required in respect of works from Ngahina north as 8 per cent, on £165,486 (the cost of same) we arrive at £13,232 per annum, and dealing with them in the same we get: Ohinemuri River £4176 per annum, Upper Waihou £15,468 per annum, and expended moneys £16,960 per annum, or a total of £49,836 yearly. xNow, the. mining industry is undoubtedly liable for 90 per cent, of the damage in the Ohinemuri, but if we put them down at 75 per cent, or £3,132 per annum on this item we are liberal. Add to this one-fourth of the annual cost of works north of Ngahina,, £3308, or together £6440. The method adopted to arrive at the proportion of expended moneys was as follows:—

The proportions of the estimated future expenditure as given by Mr Baker were arrived at as stated above, and the proportion each contributory’s share bore to the total of these is the proportion of the unexpended moneys charged to them, Thus £3200 is added to the mining industry, bringing its total liability of £9640 per annum, or less than the interest at. 8 per cent on the total amount crushed at 6d per ton, without even touching the gold duty. I maintain that the Crown should contribute one-quarter of the Ohinemuri annual ’cost as (1) ,a liability incurred by granting the Proclamation, and (2) as ,a liability for the restoration of navigation in the Ohinemuri, and on this item would pay £1044 annually as against Paeroa’s annual Ipss of £1650. Also, that the Crown should pay half of the Upper and Lower Waihou costs, or £14,350, and their share of the expended adds £BOOO, making a total of £23,394,, or •'about 50 per cent, more than its annual betterment on the 35,000 acres previously mentioned, and £BOOO a year spread over the benefits to lower Hauraki Plains lands, and for keeping open a national navigable waterway, let alone the preservation of its taxable lands and business, is surely not too high. Shipping, in my opinion, could reasonably stand one-quarter of the annual cost from Ngahina north, or £3308 plus its proportion of expended moneys, £l6OO, totalling £4908. 1 maintain here that Hauraki Plains shipping should pay portion of this, as the Piako is being materially protected by the upper Waihou works.

The land from Wharepot south to and including Matamata, but excluding land drained by the Ohinemuri, I suggest should pay half of upper Waihou cost, or £7734 plus its share of expended moneys, £4250, giving a total of £11,984 per annum. By including from Whareppa to land drained by the Ohinemuri in the upper Waihou charges they are in effect contributing to the whole of the Waihou works a rough valuation taken from plan. APPALLING INCONSISTENCIES. Mr Baker’s figures deserve soma comment, if only on account of some of the appalling inconsistencies shown. For instance, he would make Paeroa pay £3028 and Waihi (including gold duty) £3495. Does he hot realise that the mining industry, which is Waihi’s opulent maintain, has caused all the'' damage to Paeroa, over £20,000 on one item alone ? Then shipping is apparently.nothing to MiBaker. Again, he .would charge Paeroa’s 2780 acres of land,- which has reaped damage to .the tune of £20,000 through loss of navigation, with a little less than half the amount payable by the Crown, which is admittedly gaining betterment in respect of 30,000 acres. Another instance is his classification of Paeroa as al'l A, when he must know .that 6~7ths is not .and never will be liable to flood, and that if he eliminates flooding that :he only has navigation benefits to come o.n. and yet he would classify Te Aroha and Waihi as C when .they derive just as much benefit from navigation < r ) the Puke and have not lost £20,000 in respect of navigation as Paeroa has.