PLAINS DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4596, 3 September 1923, Page 2

PLAINS DRAINAGE.

CONFERENCE AT TURUA. A conference between the Hauraki Drainage Board and the delegates elected from the rest of the area between the Piako and Waihou rivets up to as far as Kerepeehi was held at Turua on Friday last to consider the question of the drainage of the whole area and the formation of a drainage board t.o control the whole area. There were present: Messrs G. Gray, J. Mules, R. H. Heappy, R. Baker, and D. G. McMillan of the Drainage Board, and Messrs W. E. G. Willy, J. C. Miller, W. E, Hale, D. Shilton, J. Taylor, and J. McKerchar. Mr Willy said that as the person who had started the project to form the Hauraki Drainage Board he would be pardoned tor bringing forth a further proposal. The Government had said that they had finished the work of draining the area north of Kerepeehi,, and had advocated the formation of a drainage board to control that area. Meetings had been hold and the men present had been elected to deal with the matter. They were present to ascertain from the Board what position the board would take up if the delegates petitioned to join the board, and what obligations existed between the two areas. Mr Gray said that there were seven drains’coming through the Board’s area. The Board had decided that any new drains from the outside .area must be paid for by both areas. He was of the opinion that the Board should amalgamate with the outside area provided no extra cost fell on the ratepayers of the board. The Board’s area was well drained, but the drains from the outer area were carrying too much water. The batter was not sufficient, and new drains would have to have a one to one batter. Mr Miller said that the Lands Drainage Engineer had said that a one to one batter was what was wanted, and asked if it was intended to make the present drains of that batter. air Gray said that, that was the first time the Drainage Department had advocated a one to one batter. The Government had said that settlers would have to stand the cost of improved batters. Mr Gray said that; one board would work bettier than two, and it remained for the outside area to have their" diTins put in with a one to one batter. No benefit would accrue to the present ratepayers of the Drainage Board except that the administrative expenses would be decreased. Mr McMillan said thait; he was a strong advocate for the one board. One danger would be that the outer area, being the larger, would have the balance of power, and could, force the ratepayers in the present area to an expenditure. The Board’s ratepayers were paying a loan as well as a maintenance rate. The outer area only paid a maintenance rale. In his opinion the only was to effecit| the amalgamation would be through a royal commission. Mr Willy said that the settlers of the outer area were paying for the work done by the Government. The work was not paid for out of the Consolidated Fund, but by the sale of the land. Mr Mules said that) the Government gave settlers the land for the cost of the drainage and roads. Mr Gray said that the Government had spent more money on the oute? area than was intended,, and did not intend to spend still more. Mr Hale agreed to this. He said that further work would have to be done. To form a separate board would create squabbles between the two boards. If an amalgamation took place he was sure .that the Hauraki Board would be treated fairly. The proportion of representatives would be according to the valuation, three from the outer area to two of the Board’s, or four to three. Mr Mules suggested that the area could be divided differently. Mr Gray thought that the Hauraki Board’s boundaries should be kept intact, as the mattei- of the present rating and the question of new loans for the outer area affected this. Mr, Mules said he had only implied abolishing ward boundaries,, not rating boundaries. Mr Heappy was against altering the boundaries on account of the voting power. Mr Hale said that while most of the present board’s area was well drained, some parts would undoubtedly benefit by extra ot,ule.ts. The best way was to amalgamate and work together in the interests pf the whole. Mr McMillan said that extra drains would do the present board a certain amount of good, but also a certain amout of harm. Mr, Willy said that the question was, would the Board take an antagonistic attitude if the cuter area petitioned to amalgamate with it. Mr Baker asked if it would not be a fair thing for the outer area t,o form it.s board and do the work before amalgamating. Mr Willy said that; this would mean much additional expense. Mr Heappy said that the inclusion of the outer area would increase the general administrative expenses of the present board. Mr Baker said that the Hauraki Board had nothing to gain by amalgamating and much to lose by being swamped in the larger board. Mr Green, clerk to the Board, said that there were :t,wo ways of accomplishing the object. The present board could go out of existence and the whole could be formed as one board or the outer area could be included in the present board by petitioning. Mr Willy said that the outer area would bear t,he whole of the expense of the amalgamation. Mr Gray said that the Board must protect their ratepayers. Was it pos j sible for the Board to take in the outer area and have four representatill the next general election. This would show the Board’s ratepayers that no share of the expenses would fall on them. The Board had no money available for extra expenditure, as it tried to keep the rates

i down to the bare cost of maintenance. I Mr J. C. Miller asked if it was the intention of the Board to pay a share of making the batter on the present dual control drains one to one. Mr Gray said that it was not, as it was up to the Government to do this. The Board had always advocated this, but the Government, would not consent. The only drain put in on a one to one batter was the Willow drain, and the Board had to pay the whole cost. Mr McMillan said that of the £2OOO spent on the two big dual control drains the Board had paid about £l5OO. It was up to the Government to equalise this. In regard to the attitude to the amalgamation the Board had decided to leave the matter to the ratepayers. Mr Willy and Mr Green pointed put that there was no power to have a 001 l on such a matter. ‘ Mr Willy said that one of the conditions under which the outer area would form a board and take over control from the Government would be the provision by the Government of flood-gates pf twice the capacity. They did not favour forming a separate board owing to the extra cost, and the fact of a later amalgamation. ’ In reply to Mr Miller M'r Baker said ! that his opinion was. that the Board 1 would be agreeable to amalgamation ’ when the outer area was as well drained as the Board’s area. 1 Mr Willy gave figures, to show that 1 the outer area had more drains per - acre than the Board’s area. ■ This was admitted, but it was con- • tended that the Board’s chains were 1 more effective. Road drains were less ! effective than other drains, and the 1 new board might consider abandon- ! ing road drains. - Mr Gray said it would clear the ! air, if the outer area settlers agreed ’ to pay the cost of putting the dual 5 control drains in good order with a ' one to one batter and pay half maintenance. There were seven dual con5 trol drains in the Board’s area, and 1 this would carry a lot of weight with ' the ratepayers. ? Mr Green said that most of the ‘ Board’s loaji money had been expended in improving dual drains, ami for - that reason the ratepayers would 1 have to be protected. ! Mr Hale said that any drain would" ; slip in such a winter as the present ' one. Farm drains slipped. Mr Gray stated that, no slips had I occurred in the Wlilow drain since a one to one batter had been constructed. , Mr Willy said that the deputation ! could not say that the settlers would ’ pay for the improvement of the dual drains, but he thought that fair-mind-ed men would realise the benefit and 1 would treat the matter in a fair and ■ square manner. Mr Heappy thought that the easiest ! way would be to form another board, ■ and the two boards could then -sit ’ together to control the. whole area. Mr Willy said that the Lands De- ’ partment was against the formation 1 of a separate board, and advocated ' one board for the whole area. It was - the express wish of the settlers in 1 the outer area to amalgamate. Mr Gray 'suggested that the outer ■ area be divided into three areas and ■ have three representatives against ' four of the Hauraki Board until the ■ present term expired. s Mr Baker asked how would the membership of the present board b§« reduced without an election. He sug- ■ gested that two from the outer area join the present board. - Mr Willy asked if the Board could get the opinion of its ratepayers, so ■ that the amalgamatjon could be completed as early as possible. I Mr McMillan said that the Board ! could not tell its ratepayers of the I conditions because none-were avail- ! able. : Mr Gray stated that the Board had i told its ratepayers that they would ! not be loaded with anything more I than at present. i Mr Willy said that the only quesi tion to ask the ratepayers was were they prepared to amalgamate or not. i In his opinion the most satisfactory thing to do was to set up a commisi sion. That would mean that the pre- - sent board would go out of existence. ; The could would be borne pro rata > between the two areas. Mr Heappy said that working by ■ petition it would take two years to - get going. Mr Heappy said that the > waj- to come in by January next ; would be to accept the offer to come in with two representatives till the : next election in 1925. I Mr Hale said that the whole area • would be divided eventually into ■ seven wards. The present boundaries would have to be abolished and the . two areas would dovetail one into the i other, so that there would be no quesi tion of which area would control i Mr Mules stated that the area would be divided on a drainage and i not a valuation basis. The Drainage Act was read by Mr i Green. Mr Heappy said that the. cuter area i desired amalgamation. The Board i offered to admit them for a term with ; two representatives. Mr Green said that as scon as the i new board met it could divide the area int,o wards, it would mean i election. i Mr Gray said that if the outer area- ? elected two representatives for the time being the Board would treat the i outer area in a fair manner.: Mr McMlilan said that the only al- ■ tei native would be to form a board of the outer area. I After informal discussion Mrj Willy - .said that the only thing they could t see was a commission. While they' I did not think the Board would not act j fairly, they could not go back to their • petitioners and say that they had • agreed ,to the outer area having only two representatives. The settlers k would not be convinced that it was ! a fair proposition. Mr Gray said that if a commission : sat the Board would not adopt an 1 antagonistic position, but would only : endeavour to protect, its own ■ ers. j Mr McMillan said that the outer’’ i area would not control the area next I winter. > The deputation then withdrew and ■ the Board discussed the matter in i committee.