PLAINS DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4736, 11 August 1924, Page 3

PLAINS DRAINAGE.

AN IMPORTANT CONFERENCE. NO AGREEMENT REACHED. A conference between the members of the Hauraki Drainage Board and the committee appointed by the settlers of the rest of the area between the two rivers to deal with the formation of the proposed Horahia drainage board was held to the Turua Build ings on Friday evening to discuss the suggested outlets through the Hauraki Drainage Board’s area to the Waihou river.

Although no finality was readied, and the conference terminated in a deadlock, the discussion was open and friendly throughout, and if no good was a< complished the cards were laid on the table.

Owing to the unavoidable absence of the chairman of the Drainage Board Mr R. H. Heappey was appointed to the chair. Other board members present were Messrs R. H.'Baker, D. G. McMillan, J. Mules, and Mr J. E. Green (clerk), and on behalf, of the outer area there were present Messrs A. H. Rogers, W. E. G. Willy, W. E. Hale, and J. C. Miller. Tn opening the meeting Mr Heappey said that while there was no doubt that in time there would be one board only tc control the whole area, the two boards would have to continue operating until then, and it was "very necessary’ that some working arrangement should be arrived at.

• Mr W. E. G. Willy said that as the Horahia board had not yet been constituted the conference could only be informal, as the committee had no (standing whatever. However, much good would be done by a friendly discussion.

Discussing the work, Mr Willy said that it would be necessary to link up the drain between the Orongo estate and Miller’s and the drain to' theOrongo ferry.

Mr Mules said that this was not a Drainage Board drain. The committee did not know the position in regard to the Towers drain, but it was obvious that it should be continued to take water from the back country. Continuing, Mr Willy said that the committee did not favour roadside drains, but preferred to put them through farm land. The difficulty in regard to the fencing was mentioned by Mr Baker, who was pf the opinion that there would always be trouble. In his opinion the new board should make provision in its loans for- fencing. It had power under the Fencing Act to compel landowneis to contribute half the cost, but there were many objections to that procedure.

Mr Willy stated that the Hauraki Board’s drain known as Taylor’s drain would also need to be connected up td din in the back area. As one of the Piako roadside drains would probably be closed at some time in the future it might be advisable to divert some of the water to the Mill outlet. The Jubilee outlet would also be required tp take back country water, as also would the Te Kauri No. 1, the Thames Valley, and the Monganui No. 1. All these drains would probably require enlargement or improving. A number of existing drains would probably have to be abandoned and others substituted. The committee was of the opinion that more water should be sent to the Waihou River than at present, as it was apparent that the fall was to that river. In addition, it would be advisable to so construct works that the water from each area should be se’nt to the outlets to that area. There was no doubt that in time of abnormal rainfall the water travelled a great deal further than was necessary.

The suggestions were discussed at great length and many aspects were touched upon. The committee expressed the opinion that most of the new drains should have a one to one batter and all should be properly fenced.

Mr Heappey pointed out that the new board would have to take into consideration the compensation that would havq to be paid to landowners for land taken so that drains could be enlarged.' At the present time some settleis were paying rates and interest on land which was occupied by drains. Settlers in the Hauraki Board’s area were satisfactorily served by the present drains, and the enlargement to drain the Horahia Board's area would not be an aisset to the settlers, so the betterment clause would not always apply. FINANCE. Mr Willy said that the committee had gone into the question of the cost of the improvement required on#ome of the drains in the board’s area, but ais the committee was not very conversant with the drains the estimates were therefore . rough, and were : Orongc South drain, £2OO ;■ Taylor’s, £325 , and Jubilee, £3OO. In addition a little had.been allowed for fencing wire. No allowance had been made for anything required to be done to the fleod-sates. THE DEADLOCK. The committee was of the opinion that each board should contribute half the cost of the new work. Members of the Hauraki Board contended that this would not be fair. The new board was asking to be taken in as partners and was not suggesting any allowance for the assets of the Hauraki Board. Mr Baker asked if it was the committee’s opinion that ratepayers of the Hauraki Board would sanction a loan to improve drains for the benefit of the back area. At the present time the board considered it was paying too much towards the maintenance of dual controlled drains.’ Mr Willy answered by asking what would be the effect on the Hauraki area if there was no drainage in the back area. Mr Mules said that the seepage argument carried no weight. Mr Baker stated that the board could erect stop-banks at very little cost. The Hauraki area was loaded with a loan rate. Mr Willy mentioned that the other area was paying for its drain construction in a period o£ 25 years,

whereas the Hauraki loans were for 36% years. Mr Mules pointed out that whep the Lands Drainage Engineer was preparing estimates for the Orchard East works he took into consideration the fact that the board had assets in the drain, and therefore he did not rate the settlers in the board’s area who would derive benefit from the improvements. The only thing the board had to pay for was the extra batter it desired. On other works the same consideration had been shown by the Government. Mr McMillan said that all present desired to effectively drain the ai«a, but as no agreement could be arrived at he thought the matter would have to go tp a commission.’ The committee was not making any allowance for the money spent in the Hauraki area, and was also asking the the ratepayers in that area should bear half the cost of the work for the new areaThe Hauraki -Board members were fair-minded men, and were in the hanife of the ratepayers. A step in the fight direction would be for the new board to give the Hauraki Board ciedit for the money it had spent, and then make an agreement. The board could not ask its ratepayers to sanction a loan under ally other circumstances. Mr Heappey said that , the conference had come to the vital question, and it was obvious that no agreement could be reached. It would be unfortunate for the drainage of the district if a deadlock was reached on the question of finance. Dual control drains had proved a curse to the Hauraki Board. For instance, on ths Willow drain the board had spent £750 and the Government £l5O. He was of the opinion that if the new board made up the difference it could come in as an equal partner. Other dual controlled drains were in -a like position, and the board’s operations were serious-ly hampered. In the northern area, for instance, it Would require the whole of the rates from that area to do 'he work necessary on one dual contrclled drain to deal with the back country water. In another case sufficient had been spent in keeping the drain open as would have paid for piping it. Mr Mules thought that in addition to the new board taking into consideration the amount of money spent by the Hauraki Board it should also consider the area that would be benefitedIf the new board drained five times as much country as the Hauraki Board it should pay five times as much. Mr Baker said that the Orchard East area had done the fair thing, and the rest of the new board’s - area should do the same. He would not advocate the Hauraki area settlers raising a loan, but would strenuously oppose it. He thought the commit-, tee’s suggestions very unfair, and that the only solution would be to refer the matter to a commission. Mr McMillan concurred, and pointed out that the Hauraki Board’s territory was divided into areas or ridings, •and the finances of each were separate. The commission would be advisable to adjust the share of each area-. There was no doubt that one board for the whole area was desir--able, but this could not eventuate until a mutual agreement had been arrived at, and that would not be until the Hauraki Board received a fair offer from the Horahia Board. Mr Mules asked if the committee was of the opinion that the Horahia Board would be agreeable—providing the two boards united —to spread the Haurtki ’ Board’s £lO,OOO loan over the uhole area and then to raise fresh loans over the whole area. It would, of couqse, require an Empowering Bill, but the rate over the whole area would be very small indeed. Mr Hale pointed out that the present drainage work in the Horahia area was an asset which would be a set-off Mr Willy said that to spread the loans over the whole area would be a very cumbersome method. The new board would raise loans over its area for the new work. Mr Mules said that an argument in favour of spreading the loans over the whole area when the two boards were united was .that it might not be possible to raiise a loan to do work out of the area over which the loan was raised. The conference then petered out, discussion wandering to other subjects.