HAURAKI DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4793, 24 December 1924, Page 2

HAURAKI DRAINAGE.

MONTHLY BOARD MEETING. The regular meeting of the Hauraki Drainage Board was held >n the Turua Buildings on Friday evening, Mr G Gray presiding over the following . Messrs D. G. McMillan, R. Baker, J. Mules, and J. E. Green, secretary. TOWERS OUTLET. As I'. was impossible to borrow timbei with which to construct the concrete work for the flood-gate at the Towers outlet, and it not being an economical proposition to purchase it, the board decided not to instal a concrete gate but make a wooden one, ACCOUNTS. Accounts totalling about £320, including £292 2s 6d for interest, were passed for payment. TE KAURI DRAIN. A deputation comprising Messrs J. A. Bennett, J. Newman, E. A. Clark, W. Uiquhart, and ,W. McKee, settlers whose land fronts the Te Kauri No. 2 Drain, waited upon the board. Mr Bennett was the spokesman, ami lie said that since the Te Kauri No. 2 drain had been altered bv the Government about three years ago it had caused tlie land to be flooded so that the pasture became replaced by weeds, and for the Horahia-Opou special rating area"scheme the drain had been enlarged to take an enormous amount of water. A recent inspection showed that tlie drain had slipped very badly, and would continue to slip. The settlers had asked the Lands Drainage Engineer to lay the batter back to H-j to 1, or 2 to 1. whichever was necessary. This request had not been granted, the negineer contending that it would be better to let the drain slip and then remove the obstructions. In regard to the flood-gate, Mr Bennett contended that the way ’t was installed by the Government was disgraceful. The drain had been spiled, and the department had contended that the banks would have become firm before the kahikatea lickers rotted away. The engineer had refused to guarantee the settlers against loss from flooding. The chairman, Mr G. Gray, pointed out thiit the drain was a dual-controll-ed one The Government had the power to send water through the board’s area provided the drain was made to the board s satisfaction. No action at law could be taken against the Government, as could be done against a private individual or another drainage board, fod any breaca of agreement. Mr Bennett siad that uo law could over-ride the common justice of compensating settlers for damage done. The board was there to protect tlie settlers’ interests, and it was the object of the deputation io ask the board to endeavour to protect them from the Government works, and to secure compensation, Mr McMillan expressed the opinio i that this could not be done, as the Lands Department was only doing the work for a group of settlers in what was now the Horahia Board’s area. Tlie chairman stated that the board had already done all it could. The work Lad been held up for months until conditions had been agreed to. The board had insisted on a one to one batter. Mr Bennett said that the state of the ground should be taken into consideration at various points on the drain. At some places a one to one batter would do, and at others where the giound was rotten a two to one o’’ greatei batter would be necessary. Mr Newman pointed out that the drain had been er.ooked prior to the Lands Department commencing work. Th<> ihain was now straight, and, consequently, at places all the widening was being done on one side. Mr Gray pointed out that the board had decided to allow the department to do the work provided the batter was made one horizontal to one vertical, and the board would not pay its contribution unless this was done. Mr Mules suggested that the drain be inspected before anything further was done. Mr Gray pointed out that it was of little use passing judgment until the work was completed. Mr Bennett contended that an inspection at any time would show that the drain was not going to be completed as the board expected. In his opinion the department was going to do the job in its own way and then leave, not to return. The board should take action as soon as possible. Mr Gray stated that the beard could do little, as the Government had complied with its request. It was unfortunate that it was not then realised that more than a one to one battei would be required. The board would certainly make sure that a one to one batter was provided. Mr Bennett said that the whole fault was that the work had not been laid out properly for the contractors. In reply to Mr Urquhart Mr Grai said that tlie Horahia Drainage Board would have to pay half the cost of the maintenance of the drain when completed. Mr Bennett said that no maintenance would be done, as the board would never have sufficient funds for such an undertaking. In regard to the gate, it should never have been put so deep in such rotten country. As it was obvious that a mistake had been made, the Government should remedy the matter. Mr Urquhart mentioned that there was a big washout around one of the wingwalls. Mr McMillan moved that the Hauraki Drainage Board ask the Horahia Drainage Board, the Lands Drainage Engineer,• and the settlers concern-?! to meet it on the site and discuss the matter. Seconded by Mr Baker and carried. Mr Newman said that the Lands Department had not advertised or notified the landowners of its intention to take land for the drain. The loss of tlie land was not complained of, but the landowners felt that the huge bank of spoil should be graded

down, as the amount of land occupied was more than they could afford to lose. The settlers notv looked to the board to grade back the bank or to get other parties concerned to do the work. After discussion it was decided to bring the matter up at the forthcom- z ing conference.