HAURAKI DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4871, 31 August 1925, Page 2

HAURAKI DRAINAGE.

monthly board meeting. The regular meeting of the Hauraki Drainage Board was held ar-Tu-rua on Friday la*st, Mr G. Gray presiding over the following: Messrs D. G. McMillan, R. H. Hcappey, J. Mules, R. H. Baker, and the clerk, Mr J. E. Green. DUAL DRAINS. The clerk of the Horahia Drainage Board wrote advising that his board hoped shortly to be in a position to place before the Hauraki Board the information it desired in regard to the drains’ from the Horahia area to the Waihou River. The engineer was taking levels, and when the work was completed the necessary data could be got out. . ; The board was asked to supply ffiformation concerning the amount of money spent by it in constructing oi improving Taylor’s outlet, the Jubilee outlet, Thames Valley outlet (Te Kauri No. 1), and-their flood-gates; also what proportion of the money spent was Government grant, the cost of the flood-gates, and whether any grant money had been used for floodgates. Until such time as the board vas in a position to supply the data desired the date of a conference between the two boards would be unfixed. Mr Gray said that he did not see what the amount of Government grants obtained had to do with the Horahia Board. The money did not come from the Hauraki Plains Settle- ' ment Account, as the Horahia Board thought, but from the Consolidated Fund. ...... Members adversely- criticised the actions of the Horahia Board in ignoring the clerk’s letters and answering definite statements by evasive replies. It was pointed out by a member that the board was positively insulted by members of the Horahia Board at meetings, according to remarks published in the Press, It was endeavouring to show that the Hauraki Board twisted at every meeting. .. ' ; The opinion was expressed tnatnegotiations should be broken off entirely in regard to proposed dual drains. Mr McMillan said that he had been “slated ’ at the last meeting of the Horahia Board and Mr Baker had been held up as a shining light. The position was that on behalf of his area he had made an offer under certain conditions, just' as the pthei members had done. Since then the money had been spent and the offer had therefore lapsed, as the Horahia Board had been informed it would 'Unless taken advantage of at once. The Horahia Board was evidently of the opinion that the offers would stand for all time and the necessary work could be held up to suit its convenience. He had noticed that it had been moved that steps be taken to force amalgamation. In his opinion the board should oppose a forced amalgamation. They were agreeable to an amicable working arrangement, but advances in that direction had been ignored and he was of opinion that the board should now sit tight. On Mr Heappey’s motion, seconded by Mr Baker, it was unanimously decided : “That this board regrets that it cannot continue to correspond with the Horahia Board any further as to prospective or suggested dual drains until such time as the defiite proposals and information asked for in the board’s letter of August 1 last has been attended to, excepting in the ease of definite arrangements made as to existing dual drains.” “SNEAKING” DRAINAGE. A ratepayers of the board forwarded a letter he had received from a legal firm acting on behalf of a settler whose land was situated in the Horahia Board’s area. He was called upon to remove a dam in a drain near the boundary so that the client of the firm coukl get drainage to the Waihou River, and was threatened that unless this was done an action for damages would result. The ratepayer also forwarded a copy of his reply, in which he had pointed out that the drain was not on the boundary but on his laud, and that his neighbour was attempting to “sneak” water into the Hauraki Board’s drains though he paid rates not to the Hauraki Board but to the Horahia Board. The dam would not be removed, and the action for damages would be welcomed. He had advised the lawyer that copies of the letter had been forwarded to the Hauraki- Board so that it coukl protect its interests. It was decided to inform die ratepayer that the board would take the necessary steps to safeguard his interests in regard to the threatened legal action. LACK OF DRAINAGE.

Mr W. McKee wrote on behalf of f himself and, five other settlers drawing attention to the lack of adequate drainage facilities despite the improvements that had been carried put in the Thames Valley outlet, the continuation at tiie back of Robinson’s and Clark’s sections, and in the Te Kauri No, 1. When the improvement scheme was contemplatde the board had been urged by the writer and others to see that as much depth as possible was obtained at the back of Mr Clark’s section and in the Te Kauri No. 1. The board was asked to inspect the work and the properties of the complainants, as the position was desperate. Mr McMillan explained that one of the settlers supporting the letter had not carried out his agreement in regard to work in the drain, with the result that there was dead water in the drain. This had permitted weeds to grow, and these were impeding the flow of water. Members- agreed that the position was very bad, and it was decided that Messrs McMillan and Baker go into the matter and try to give relief. DAMAGE TO DRAIN. It was decided that Messrs Brenan and Co. be informed that they would be held responsible for the damage done to the Turua-Netherton roadside drain when a motor-car was being removed.