ROADSIDE DRAINS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4769, 29 October 1924, Page 3

ROADSIDE DRAINS.

maintenance responsibility. A PLAINS PROBLEM. A game of checkmate has been engaging the attention of the Hauraki Drainage Board and the Hauraki Plains County Council for the past six months on the question of, the responsibility for the damage caused to loads and drains owing to the close proximity of one to the other. Both bodies realise that trouble from this source is only just beginning, for it is the nature of drain-banks to slip, no matter what the batter, and particularly is this so where the ground is subject to the vibrations of road traffic or when the surface near the drain edge is disturbed. Undoubtedly the mistake in the past has been to construct t,wo drains and a road in a reserve only a chain wide, and this cannot now be altered without interfering with the rights of propertyowners. Where extensive slipping occurs so as to impede the flow of water or endanger the road, spiling will have to be resorted tb.

Although the case in dispute, while not exactly on a par with others that will follow, as in this instance neither the road nor the drain was build by the Lands Department, is the first dispute that has arisen in this district, and the result will probably establish a precedent. The case under review arose in connection with several slips that occurred in the roadside drain near Carter’s ,Corner, on the Turua-Netherton road. In May last the Drainage Board requested the Council to have certain slips removed before damage was caused to nearby lands by the blockage of the outlet causing flooding The Board contended that it was the Council’s operations in removing spoil from the . drain-bank, thereby permitting water from the road to soak to instead of running over the surface, that caused the slips.

The Council, on the advice of its engineer, denied liability, and pointed out that its operations could not have caused the damage as the far bank had slipped as badly as the one on the roadside.

The Board contended that the slips on the far bank had been caused by the slips from the roadside diverting the flow of water against the far bank. The Council had’ repaired the damage in similar cases, and it was necessary to fix the liability in the present case so that the Council could not claim damages from the Board if the slips extended to the metalled portion of the road. A conference was suggested.

At the July meeting of* the Council Ur. Madgwick reported that the position was serious, and something should be done. He did not know which body was responsible, but the point was, who was to rectify the mattei ? On his motion the Council decided that the Drainage Board be informed that the drain was under the Board’s control, and in its present condition it endangered the road. Cr. Nicholson contended that no slips had occurred until the drain had deepened. A further cross-fire then ensued until the Council agreed to meet the Board in conference, failing which the matter would have to be tested at law.

In August the Board agreed to accept the conference suggested by the Council, which was fixed to. be held on November 1, but it has yet to be decided where.

So far there has been no hostility displayed, nor has the legal aspect been explained, but both bodies have been reluctant to concede any point, realising the far-reaching effect of the ultimate result of the case unde-' consideration. Already another case of damage to roadside drains has arisen in the Hauraki drainage area. Whatever the result, the ratepayeis will have to bear the burden, th® point being to make the burden equitable and so as not to embarrass the finances of one local body.