ROADSIDE DRAINS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4772, 5 November 1924, Page 4

ROADSIDE DRAINS.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE. BOARD AND COUNCIL CONFER. A conl'erpuce between Hie members of the Hauraki Drainage Board and a committee of the Hauraki Plains County Council to discuss the responsibility for making good certain damage caused to roadside drains, and to arrive at some understanding with regard .to such cases that may arise in the future, w,as held at Turua on Saturday morning, and though an agreement was reached in regard to the particular case little progress was made concerning future < ases.

There were present: Messrs G. Gray, J. Mulcts, R. H. Heappey, R. Baker, and D. G. McMillan, .and J. Green (clerk) of the Drainage Board, and Crs. J. C. Miller, W. Madgwick, and J. H. Nicholson (members of the committee appointed by the County Council), together with the county engineer, Mr F. Basham, and the county clerk, Mr E. Walton. Mr G. Gray, chairman of the Drainage Board, was appointed chairman of the conference.

The chairman suggested that, the first point to settle would be in regard to the damage to the drain on the Turua-Netherton roadside near Carter’s Corner. The conference could then discuss which body would be responsible in future cases of a similar nature.

Mr Heappey explained the nature of the work done by employees of the council which, in his opinion, had caused the slips to occur. He had protested and pointed out the dangei, but no alteration was made in the methods adopted. He therefore contended that the damage had been deliberately caused by neglect on the part of council employees. In reply to the county chairman Mr Gray said that the board had received permission to deposit spoil on the side of roads where it could be used for building up those roads. Mr Heappey said that in the case of Carter’s Corner the board h.ad been asked to deposit all the spoil possible on the roadside, as it would all be required. Cr. Miller suggested that the legal position be ■ascertained. Cr. Madgwick said that the point was that the same settlers would have to bear the cost. The responsibility (should be fixed so that the damage could be repaired before it extended. In his opinion the damage should oe repaired by the drainage board, whose function it was to maintain adequate drainage. The board was in abetter position than the council to get the work done expeditiously and well. It did not matter much whether the council or the bo.ard paid for the work, as either body could collect a rate from the same settle rs.

Mr McMillan contended that if the councn had caused the damage it should pay for the repairs. The landowners could object to spoil being deposited on their land, so there remained only the roadside. The bodies existed for separate purposes, and’in his opinion both sides should give and take and bear the cost equally. Cr. Ma’dgwick said that the point was to fix the responsibility, so that the damage could be remedied as soon as possible: If the damage at Carter's Corner had been repaired months ago it would probably have only cost a quarter of what it would now cost? In his opinion the board should have repaired the damage and settled the payment,afterwards. Mr Baker thought that the board would be the better body to control the repairing, but he did not think it could collect the cost from ratepayers as equitably as could the council. The wards of the board were very Different areas to the riding of the county. Mr Gray pointed out that in some of the board’s wards there were a great number of roadside drains. A rate over that area would be enor-

muus. while over the riding it would be very small.

Mr Gray read a portion of the Di-.linage Act to the eitect that a drainage board may, ”in tlie maKi'ng, widening, deepening, cleansing, or repairing oi any dram or ditch, leinove the soil thereof, and place it on the bank on either iside of such drain or ditch."

The county chairman pointed out that it would not be fair for the board .to claim from the county foi all slips that happened in roadside drains. The condition of the drain before the county commenced work on the road should be taken into consideialion.

Mr McMillan agreed, and said that the riding member and the ward representative could meet and come to some agreement.

With legard to Carter’s Corner dram, Mr Heappey said that it now required rebattering. This would not bring the bank b.ack beyond the present slips. The work could not be done except in the summer time, a* the spoil would have to be placed on the metal and then removed. It wais for that reason tha.t the slips had not been removed up to the present. In reply to Mr McMillan the county chairman said that the county council would not admit any liability as it did not know the condition of the drain before the work was commenced. In regard to the Gumtown Road drain, the condition had been known and the council had admitted liability and had the slips removed.

Mr Heappey and Mr Gray said that the Carter’s Corner drain had proved a very good drain. It had been one of the least expensive drains to maintain in .the board’s area.

Cr. Nicholson agreed that he had not up till the past winter noticed any slips in the drain.

In reply to the county chairman Mr Heappey said that the repairs would cost about £6O at the outside. The spoil would have to be double shifted, but perhaps the second shifting could be done with a grader if the work was done in the summer time. The committee of the council then conferred together and later announced that it would recommend the following for the approval of the council if acceptable to the board: — (1) That the Council accept no responsibility for damage deme to roadside drains. (2) That the Council insist that drainage boards comply with section 20 of the Lands Drainage Act, which provides that befoi’e drainage boards interfere with any road or footpath they notifiy and obtain the approval of the Council. (3) That in regard to the roadside drain near Carter’s Corner, if the Board would place the spoil removed on the eastern side of the road the Council will purchase same at a price co be fixed by the county engineer.

Mr Gray and Mr McMillan said that they were very disappointed that the council had decided to adhere strictly to the Act. Under those circumstances. .the board would be willing and eager to hand over control of all roadside drains to the county council. Mr Walton said it had been stated that the result of the conference would be looked upon in the nature of a precedent. The council was not liable in law for damage to roadside drains, and while it would meet the board in the case of the drain near Carter’is Corner it wished to affirm that it would not generally accept liability. With regard to the second clause, there had been too much laxity in the past, and while (he council did not wish to be harsh it was necessary that the procedure should be pufe- on a proper footing in case trouble in future cases. necessitated legal action.

The county chairman pointed oui that the recommendations would not bind the council, to any definite attitude in the future. It had always met the board in • the past, and would doubtlessly continue to do so. Ajs it might have caused 1 the damage at Carter’s Corner, the. council was willing to contribute by paying for the

spoil it would use on the road. Mr Gray said he was very sorry that no better ariangement had been arrived at.. Both the board and die council were acting for the same ratepayers, and an amicable arrangement was desirable if possible. The county chairman pointed out that the Drainage Act had to be adhered to, and the committee had decided to recommend that the council meet rhe board in the case undei discussion. He could no.t see that the recommendations should not be acceptable to the board. Mr Gray thought that seeing that the drains were alongside the roads be'ore either body came into being the matter should be one for agreement.

Cr. Miiler asked what the board would suggest., seeing that the committee's recommendations were not acceptable. Vlr McMillan urged that the first clause be wiped out. Mr Walton pointed out that the conference had been called to discuss the position in regard to Carter s Corner drain, but apparently the matter was to be taken as establishing u precedent. The committee therefore decided to lay down its policy lor the future.

Mr Heappey said that he was prepared to accept the county engineer's price concerning the work at Carter s Corner.

The board therefore decided to leave the matter in the hands of the ward member, Mr Heappey.

With regard to future works, Mr J. Green said it was necessary for something to be put on record in connection with the manner' in which work should be done. If any dispute arose the position would be on record. The requirements of the notice under the Act as mentioned in. clause 2 of the recommendations would be the necessary record. Mr Gray still contended that clause 1 should be deleted.

Mr Walton explained that this was not a new departure; it was only stating the legal position. It w:>s then decided that the following clause be added to the recommendations : ‘‘That the Council notify the Board of its intention to carry out any works likely to affect any drains.”

This would permit of an inspection of the drains being made by representatives of both parties, so that in the event of slips occurring .they would be better able to tell if the damage had been caused by the council’s operations.

The conference closed with a vote of thanks -to the chair.

Interviewed later, membrs of the Drainage Board said that it was necessary that some more claistic arrangement than the procedure laid down in section 20 of the Act should be anived at? If the board had to send notification to the council and gets its approval to remove a slip from a roadside drain it might mean that the work would be held up for a month. This would be impossible in winter time, as some of the roadside drains were main outlets.