ELSTOW DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4860, 5 August 1925, Page 3

ELSTOW DRAINAGE.

MEETING OF BOARD. A meeting of the Elstow Drainage Board was held on Friday last, the chairman (Mr Andrews)) presiding over Messrs Dale, Davey, Swney, Carter, -Dunn, and Wynyard. A notice of motion by Mr Carter was considered. The motion provided for the rescinding of a rcsolutoin under which hardwood posts- would have to be used in fencing drains in the Aw.aiti area. The object wap to permit farmers who had suitable timber on their lands to use it for fencing, provided it met with the requirements of the board. In this way settlers would be relieved of part of the burden imposed by the fencing regulations.

Mr Wynyard pointed out that if the motion’ was carried and interior fences erected the board, which would have to pay half the maintenance cost, would suffer. Mr Carter said the ratepayers would oppose the board if it insisted on hardwood, and an appeal would be made to the Court.

Mr Wynyard said his idea was not that they should not meet these people, but he wanted to make the position from the board’s point of view clear. If the ratepaeyrs fought the board it would cost them as much a, 3 the fence. However, they wanted to meet the ratepayers if they could. There was no by-law and they were going by the Fencing Act, and he would suggest that the ratepayers place before the board any proposals they had to make. It was moved by Mr Carter that the former resolution on the minute book be altered by the addition to "hardwood” of the words “pr posfo of other timber and size approved by the board.” Mr Carter said that two settlers proposed to use black wattle from the King Country. Mr Wynyard: They will cost as much as hardwood. The Chairman: The ratepayers should try and meet the board, which is trying to help them. The engineer said that the only advantage he could see would be to those settlers who had bush with suitable timber practically on the edge of the drain. The motion was seconded by Mr Wynyard and carried, and it was decided to write to all settlers concerned naming the kind pf fence proposed by the board, giving the price of posts landed on the ground, and requesting the settlers to place any proposals they might have before the board, if those put forward by the board did not meet their wishes ; ahso that the settlers be asked to quote prices for erecting the fences. Mr Carter referred to the possibility of hardship being imposed with regard to fencing, and by way pf illustration mentioned a case in which therp had been a boundary fence between two properties. When this fence first came into existence there may haire been no drain at all, or if there were it may have been deepened. This drain would come on one property leavirig the fence on the other. The land necessary to the drain would become the property of the Board, which wpuld call upon the man who had been deprived of his original boundary to share with the Board the cost of erecting a fence along his side of the drain, leaving the other property owner the full advantage of the fence already in existence. Mr. Carter mentioned a case in which a man had lost eight feet pf his land and his interest in a dividing fence as well. Mr Davey asked if the Board wais liable for half the' cost of fencing boundary drains.

Mr Dunn said it was Mr Gilchrist’s advice that the Board must pay half the cost of fencing on both sides of the drain. The Board was regarded as the owner of the land occupied by a drain. There would always be cases, of hardship under any Act. Replying to a question the engineer said that when a settler ha,d .a satistfactory fence protecting a drain the Board would not interfere with’ it. Mr Dunn said that they Would automatically become part owners. '

Mr Carter said that where a fence could 1 be satisfactorily reapired they would not insist on being pulled down and a new one erected. The engineer agreed. Mr Wynyard said he had seen the Department for Internal Affairs and also the Valuation Department with a view to having provision' made for the striking of a rate in the Awaiti area on an acreage basis, and had been informed that it would not be possible to have a clauise inserted in the Washing-up Bill and that a special Bill woud be necessary. There Was no time to get a special Bill through this session. Mr Carter had been under the impression that a revaluation could be obtained on the grounds that a great deal of land had lately been improved, but the trouble was that if they got a new valuation would only speak from March 31k t. next and that would be too late for this year’s rate. In any case the lands they proposed to rate had not been improved to a,ny great extent yet« * Mr Carter said that they would be this year. Mr Wynyard said their difficulty was that they had agreed to apply to the Government for the right to change to the acreage basis, or failing that would have a new classification so that the burden would not go on those whose land was highly valued and yet did not get so. much benefit as others. The expediture on the area to March 31 last was £36 9>s 6d. Works to be done during the cuirent year were estimated at £65, to which had to be added £2O for adminstration, so that the actual amount they had to find was £B5. He did not know what rate would be necessary to produce this sum. He moved that they strike a rate and apply for a revaluation of the area. He understood that there was going to he a revaluation of the Haur'aki Plains in any case this year. They could then see whe-

ther it would be necessary to have a special Act passed. Mr Carter urged that whatever wais done they should reclassify. Mr Wynyard said! that could not be done. The land which Mr Carter, thought should pay more had, in the meantime, become a ponding .area for the higher and more valuable U«d. Some provision would have to be niade for, getting that water away before higher rates were placed on the settlers.

The engineer said that if they reclassified now they would have to dp it again after the valuation took place In about a year. Mr Carter suggested that the department should collect the maintenance rate. If that could not be done, lather than put an injustice upon the ratepayers, he would pay £2O himself. The rates were fixed at %d for A landj %d for B land, and l-16d for C land.

A letter was received from the chief land drainage engineer asking for data in connection with the scheme for draining Moyle’s land. The engineer said that a four-cor-nered arrangement had been made, by which the Lands Department, the Public Works Department, the County Council, and the Drainage Board were all to contribute towards the cost The board had agreed to pay £2O or £25, but that Was so Icng ago that the matter had been lost sight of. It was decided to take no action at present. Messrs Maras and Krivich, Te Aroha, wrote stating that it was not their fault that- they had been unable to finish their work at Carter’s outlet, as the dredges were not in time for the fall. They asked for a cancellation of the contract, full payment for the work, and the return pf a deposit of £5.

The clerk said it was difficult now the water was there to get a fair esitmate of the work done. He thought full, value had been received by the contractors. The work had been suspended till the fall of the water permitted completion.

It was decided not to comply with the request.

Mr R. A. Wiggins, Tirphia, wrote asking for a refund of money advanced by Mr Kenny and himself, and to be returned when loan money came to hand.

The engineer had replied stating that Mr Wiggins had agreed to pay half the cost of a concrete pipe culvert to replace the bld bridge that had been washed out. The total cost on the culvert was estimated to be £5O, but it was found that pipes cost £3l 10s, plus freight £9, making a total of £4O 10s. It would be noted, therefore, that his portion was £2O instead of £3O, as w.as estimated. When dealing with the settlement of Mr Kennys portion of the work Mr Kenny agreed to accept £l6 as the value of the drain to the board, and it was presumed that Mr Wiggins would accept a similar settlement. In a later letter Mr Wiggins stated that he could not see his way to allow any deductions as requested. He would be glad of the board’s cheque at their earliest convenience.

It was stated that Mr Kenny had allowed £l6 off hits account.

The chairman said he had told Mr Kenny that lie would be treated in the same way as Mr Wiggins.. Mr Dale: They should both be treated alike.

Mr yfynyard said he did not think there was any legal liability bn the part of the board to pay. Mr Carter: Mr Wiggins paid out in cash for the work done by Mr Kenny. Nt was decided, on the motion of Mr Dunn, to offer Mr Wiggins the same amount as Mr Kenny had received.—Te Aroha News.