RIVERS IMPROVEMENT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4455, 18 August 1922, Page 2

RIVERS IMPROVEMENT.

PLAINS SETTLEBS’ VIEWS*. UNFAIR ALLOCATION. COUNCIL’S STRONG PROTEST. The Waihpu and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Scheme allocations were discussed at the meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council on Monday. The subject was introduced by Mr P. Henry, who, on behalf of the Turua Ratepayers’ Association, asked what action the Council was taking in connection with the Waihou and Ohinemuri rivers improvenients. It was not the function of the drainage board to take action. He had been informed that the rating area would be between the two rivers; in f|aet, the boundary came a little to the west of the Piako River. He asked if the Council was alive to the fact

Cr. Harris said the Council would watch it very keenly. Cr. Death was the representative of the Council, and he (the speaker) represented the Harbour Board, so that the Council had two representatives on the Thames Valley Drainage Reference Board. Cr. Death also maintained that the interests of the Council were being keenly watched. Cr. Harris said that no benefit would be derived from below Puriri. Cr. Chatfield said his area would never benefit by the scheme, and it shoudl not have to contribute. Mr W. Madgwick also contended his area would receive no benefit.

Mr Johnstone said there was a ridge running from Kopuarahi to Netherton and the land sloped each way.

Cr. Chatfield said that if th,e Government ‘ had left nature albne they would never have been flooded. Cr. Harris said that if they were not careful they would b,e rated off their land, and for which rating they would receive no benefit. A STRONG PROTEST. Cr. Harris said the finding of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Commission was of vital importance to the county. The area was a very limited one in that the commission’s finding was that there would be no benefit derived south of Puriri. Everybody was protesting against the Bill being made law. He thought the Council had been asleep in not entering the protest they should have entered. The representative on the Drainage Reference Board was doing what he could to watch the Council’s interest. The least the Council, could do was to protest against the Bill in its present • form. He moved in that way.

Cr. Death seconded, and supported Cr .Harris' views. He suggested that the members for the district, Messrs H. Poland and T. W. Rhodes, be asked to further the Council’s interest in the matter;

Cr. Chatfield thought it most unjust that his area should be rated. There was no danger of flooding in his section.

Cr. Parfitt said the settlers in the area would be rated off their farms. Cr. Hayward said it would be too heavy a rate to handle. Cr. McLoughlin thought the Council should send a representative to Parliament to object. Cr. Death said the Reference Board would send a representative. Cr. Parfitt suggested that t;he Council send one tpb, and he moved accordingly. The. following resolution was then passed : "That immediately we enter a most emphatic protest to the Government against giving effect to the commission’s finding as it affects the ratepayers in this county, as the same would have the effect, if made law, of rating the settlers off their properties, the land, with other necessary rates, being unable to carry it, and that members for the district be written to and if necessary the Council send a qualified representative to Wellington to act in conjunction with other bodies in protesting against an excessive rate being levied ph our ratepayers.”