PLAINS DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4831, 18 May 1925, Page 3

PLAINS DRAINAGE.

HORAHIA AND HAURAKI BOARDS.

AMALGAMATION SUGGESTED. The letter, from the Hauraki Drainage Board to the Horahia Board, as published in the report of the April - meeting of the former body, came be- - - fore the latter at its meeting on Friday last The chairman (Mr W. McDuff) said that it Was a great pity the matter had cropped up. He did not think his board had any intention of shirking its duty. As the matter of the •Ngataipua Road drain had been explained by Mr Hale the board understood it was ft private arrangement between settlers, and that the board was not responsible for any contribution. He had understood that Mr Gray had promised to pay £5 out of his own pocket. Mr Hale said that during a conversation with Mr Gray by telephone he: had. been told that he as a private individual was finding- £5. Mr Gray had, on interviewing Mr Murray, obtained a promise jpf £5, and had started the work. Nothing had been mentioned, about-the Horahia board finding any money. Even after the meeting Mr Gray, had said that he would find 10s for every £1 found by the settlers. He considered Mr, Gray’s* donation of £5. under protest was only .camouflage. . Mr McDuff said that .the difficulty had been caused by the fact that members of the Hauraki Board were permitted to incur liabilities on behalf of their board, whereas the Hora- . hia board had not given its members that power. , . Mr Miller stated that he had told Mr Gray that he would agree to any arrangement made between Mr Gray and Mr Hale. The balance due now was £6, and he was of the opinion that it would be fair for each board to pay half. He moved in. that direc- ' tion. - Mr Kneebone seconded, and the motion was carried. DUAL DRAINS. . A further letter from the Hauraki Drainage Board was received asking for the board’s written approval and consent to the carrying .out of the - work, on dual-drains, and-also for a written undertaking to pay the proportion of the cost of same, and wnere . the actual cost was not ascertainable Die hoard’s written undertaking to pay a half cost of whatever the amount might be when the work was satisfactorily completed. The works mentioned were : Whars- • poa Road culvert, replacing culvert: . Wharepoa drain flood-gate, ne.w gate ; Piako drain flood-gate, renewal of gate; Kerepeehi roadside drain, increase in price for cleaning; Willow outlet, removal of bar outside, floodgate. Continuing, the letter pointed but chat Mr Gray had stressed the advicability of empowering -.-members ofthe. board to deal with urgent matters between meetings. Consideration ?had . been promised by Mr McDuff, .but- so far nothing had been done. The letter also pointed but the ne-cessity-of attending to dual drains outside the flood-gates. The chairman said that the board was quite prepared to give, its assurance in writing. Mr Miller thought that the board should not only inform the Hauraki board that it agreed, but-heartily‘ap-proved of having everything between the two boards, in writing. * . ’ A motion to. that effect was carried.. In regard to the Wharepoa Corner culvert, members took exception to the remarks of the, Hauraki board members, au published in the Press, . to the effect that the Horahia board had -shuffled in .the matter, and it was suggested that the Hauraki board be asked to. explain. Discussion, however, wandered to other aspects of the question, and it was moved by Mr McDuff that‘the former promise to pay '5O-50 with the. Hauraki board still held good and had not in any way been altered by the Hbrahia. board.

Seconded by Mr Kneebone and carried.

Arising out of the discussion on the Wharepoa drain flood-gate renewal, members expressed the opinion that the cost should not be so much as estimated by the Hauraki board. However, the damage that would be done if a gate was not in good order was so. great that-it was agreed to pay the half share, but the. board regarded tlie cost as heavy, and therefore limited the contribution for the two gates to £l2,

Mr R. L. Davies explained the position in regard to the application for an increase in the contract price for the Kerepeehi roadside drain. The drain was a very bad pne, and the contractor was certainly not being well paid. However, the contractor was agreeable to carrying on. He moved that the board stand up to its agreement to pay 50-50 as 6s per chain.—Carried.

Concerning the bar outside the Willow outlet, Mr McDuff said that the board had no intention of going back on its agreement at the conference. He moved, and Mr Miller seconded, til,at the Hauraki board be notified that £25 would be contributed, according to the agreement, towards the scouring out of the Willow drain outlet and blasting out the liar outside the flood-gate.—Carried. Discussing the further request for cleaning the outlets of dual drains outside 1 the flood-gates it was pointed out that the .amount of money claimed from the board was very great.

Mr Hale said that :t was hot known whether■ value was received for the money or not. it was becoming more ami more apparent that there should be one board to control the wh&le area? Settlers should not be penalised while two boards squabbled, and drains" should not be abandoned as suggested by the Hauraki hoard. He d'h veil that in view of the large amount of money the Horahia board was finding for work in tlie Hauraki Drainage District, it be seriously suggested to the Hauraki board the desirability of amalgamation or the setting up of a commission to define the respbnsibilitios and liabilities of dual

drains and suggested dual drains tra their areas. Seconded by Mr Miller and carried. On the motion of Mr McDuff it was decided that the flushing out of the outlets in the Hauraki Jto-irdsjiren V® left in abeyance.