DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5022, 3 September 1926, Page 3

DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

AMALGAMATION OF DISTRICTS.

CASE FOR HORAHIA BOARD.

The Commission under the Lands Draingage Act to adjudicate on the question of the amalgamation or otherwise of the Horahia .and Hauraki Drainage Boards continued its sitting at -Turua on Wednesday. Mr L. B.

Campbell, of the Public Works Department, is the Commissioner, Mr E. L. Walton is appearing for the Horahia Board, and Mr C. J. Garland is opposing .the amalgamation on behalf of the Hauraki Board. Addressing the Commissioner, Mr

Walton said that as the Horahia. Board had asked for the Commission he would begin by stating its case. The Horahia Board had asked for the Commission to be set up because its members were genuinely and unanimously of the opinion that amalgamation was desirable in the interests'of the whole .area, which was" geographically and physically one area. It had given the .matter very careful, consideration for a long time and could find no other satisfactory solution. In its opinion the board was supported by the unanimous voice of the settlers of the. Horahia district, and by many ratepayers in the' Hauraki district ' also. The board was convinced that the whole area could be more economically and efficiently administered as one united drainage district. In tracing the history of the district Mr Walton pointed out that but for the work of the Government in draining the Horahia district the flaji’aki district wovl’ have been un- ■ drainable. . The Hauraki Bolard’s- dis’trict’s physical position was such that it must take and provide for the floodwaters of the Horahia, district in just the same way as riverside sections must take water from land lying fnrther back from the river. The drain- . age system of the Horahia district made possible the settlement of the • Hauraki district. . The engineers concerned, both Government and Hauraki Drainage Board, recognised the fact, and agreed that as soon as the Goveminent had flnishpd its work in the Horahia district there would have to be a readjustment. In fact, this reason was strongly advanced by tne Hauraki Board in its demands on the Government for grants and subsidies. The Government gave these grants and subsidies on the admitted assumption that there would one day be one board administering the area between the two rivers—an area physically one. The Horahia district wa'.s formed expressly Wr the purpose of amalgamation with the Hauraki district. Just prior to the formation of the Horahia district the Hauraki Board, by resolution, asked for the inclusionkitHorahla, an area one and a half times its own size a.nd ►-valuation, on the basis that the Hauraki district should retain its five members and that the Horahia area - should be allotted two members. It wished to .perpetrate this injustice on the district the development of which had made possible the settlement of the Hauraki district. The Ha.uraki Board, having injustice in its mind, could only see injustice in the minds of other people. It feared that Hora- ' hia would be. as unjust as. itself, and would-do to it what it wanted to do to Horahia. That was the crux of the position. But Horahia did not seek any injustice; it honestly believed tha,t amalgamation was the right thing, and it now asked for amalgamation on fair terms, considering the relative size and value'of the two districts. THE ISSUES. The Horahia Board having under- - taken the burden of proof, Mr Walton submitted that it would be necessary the board .to prove: (1). That there is a. need for the change; and (2) that amalgamation will work in practice, and that it is more just than divided control. * These were the; potential issues, and in support of the first he would lead evidence to show that the two areas were physica-ly onie ; that as a united area the two districts could be more economically and efficiently administered,: and that amalgamation would remove the present friction and clashes of opinion between the two boards. ■ which promote a growth’ of ill-feeling. With regard to* the second issue, Mr Walton submitted that amalgamation was sound iti .principle and that all measures which were sound in principle would work in actual practice. Amalgamation was alsoi more just than divided control. He submitted that it was. not necessary for him to show absolute justness, because in life there was- nothing that was absolutely just. He would submit that amalgamation was more just thap present conditions, and that having done so, it would be for the Hauraki Board to show that its objections were so vital that they would out,weigh the advantages of amalgamation. Evidence would ’ be produced to show the present injustice, and that amalgamation was the best means of affording relief and would permit Of co-ordination in the two drainage systems which 'wopld materially advance the welfare and progress of the district. A copy of the correspondence which had passed between the two boards .was handed in by Mr WaJton. Reading from the letters, Mr Walton s-howed the differences of opinion that •ft had arisen between the two boards, and that the Hauraki Board recognised that the dual drains were of benefit to its area. He drew attention to statements in the Haura.ki Board’s letters asserting that its system was complete and that no new drains were necessary ; also that it was pre pared to abandon the dual-controlled drains. Quoting 'further arguments, Mr Walton submitted that they were actually strong points in favour Of the suggestions. He emphasised another statement .that unless the. cleaning Of the dual drains was commenced immediately the settlers of the Hauraki area would be jeopardised. This showed that the Hauraki Board 'realised the necessity of the drains, a,nd that its letters were inconsistent. It was only to co-operate when there was some advantage to be got, and was. opposed to everything from which no great benefit could be derived. Being

in the key position, it would only allow the. Horahia Board to get drainage if it paid sufficiently. It offered to abandon the dual drains-, well knowing thUft the Horahia Board would have to maintain them and that thereby the Hauraki settlers would continue to get efficient service at no cost.

In all, Mr . Walton quoted from some eighteen letters to show the attitude of the Hauraki Board. This, he said, could be summed up in the. question “What are you going to give us ? and the statement “that the requests of the Horahia Board could not be met in any manner whatever.” Mr Walton mentioned that he proposed to call witnesses from among the farming community of the two board districts. When tne Hauraki Board admitted that sufficient evidence had been called he would and if the Hauraki Board admitted that amalgamation was desirable there would be no need toi take -up the .time of the Commission.

Mr Walton then briefly mentioned the details of the evidence he would produce, and said .that in view of the fact that the Hauraki Board had withdrawn its stated intention of seeking an interpretation of sections of the Lands Drainage Act by the Supreme Court he anticipated that the Hauraki Board’s counsel would wish to argue points of lav/. He would deal with this- at a later stage. MR. WILLY’S EVIDENCE.

The first witnes&.caDed by Mr Walton was Mr W. E. G. Willy, clerk, and one of the leading promoters of the Horahia Drainage Board,’ and an old settler.

Mr Willy stated that the Horahia, Board and the settlers were unanimously of opinion that the two boards should amalgamate because the district was geographically one which could be more economically administered as a united district. The Horahia Board ha,d come to .this conclusion on many grounds. The first was that at the present time neither of the boards was in a position to employ a, permanent overseer, as was necessary to ensure constant supervision and care of outlets and flood-gates. If the two boards were united they could afford this, but at the present time considerable losses, were suffered through not having a capable man available when most required. Casu.a > labour was unsatisfactory.

The second point was that amalgamation would do a,way with dual-con-trolled drains. These were; Ngataipua Road drain, two Piako Road drains, Willow drain, Te Kauri No. 2, and two Whai’epoa Road draips. The question of the maintenance of these outlets had been a constant cause of irritatin between the two boards. The Horahia Board maintained that these dual drains were essential to the drainage of the two districts, but in the past the Hauraki Board had contended that its district wa?. sufficiently" drained without the dual drains. It said that it got very little benefit, and that it-was not prepared to pay a fair share of the cost of maintenance. The Hauraki Board controlled the outlets of these drains, and was very jeajous of anything being done to them without its sanction. The natural fall" of the country along the eastern side of the Horahia district was to the Waihou River, and the policy of irritation and delay by the Hauraki Board was the cause of considerable injustice to the settlers whose sections- were situated on the boundary between the two districts. This boundary w.as purely an artificial one, as was seen during floods, when the water ran towards the river which provided the best outlet by reason of the difference in the times of tides. A bad feature of divided control was that the Horahia Board must wait until the Hauraki Board had its outlets cleaned before the. back country drains could function. The whole of .the dual drains should be cleaned at the same time. It had been found that, the Hauraki Board. ha,d had work done on these dual drains at a higher cost than similar work done fw tfi e Horahia Board. It did not matter who the members of the two- boards might be, they had to realise that the Hauraki Board was in a, position, geographically, to dictate, terms to the Horahia Board. It was not difficult to imagine cases: oUfriction between the two boards when these outlets were not cleaned .possibly deliberately, with a view to striking a harder bargain with the Horahia Board. Just at present, and in view of the Commission, the Hauraki Board had changed its attitude on the question of dual drains. The Willow drain was ap 1 example of dual control. A section, while actually in the Hauraki district, wa,s on the boundary between the two districts. The Hauraki district benefited but would not pay towards the upkeep and the Horahia' Board had to do all the maintenance.

The third point, was that .the settlers of ' the Horahia district were unanimously in favour of the amalgamation, while the Hauraki district was divided against itself and a considerable number of the- settlers- in the Hauraki district desired amalgamation.

The fourth point concerned the present artificial boundary, which acted most unjustly to the settlers on the Horahia side. The were in a position which required that the utmost facility must be provided for the water to get away to either of the rivers, but more generally to the Waihou. On amalgamation and with the removal of the present restrictions their drainage could be immeasurably improved at small cost.

The fifth point was that with amalgamation the costs of administration over the whole area, would be proportionately less, for there would be; only one instead of two sets of administration expenses. t In regard to loan areas, w'hieh constituted the sixth point, witness pointed out that in the past and! until a- rtV cent flood the Hauraki Board contended that its area was well and suffi“ciently drained, and that more drains were hot necessary. It further contended that, compared with its district, the Horahia area was not drained and only wanted to g«t amalgamation to improve, its drainage scheme, at the expense of the Hauraki Board. Since the flood there had, been

a complete change in the Hauraki Board’s attitude, while the present •hue and cry was for more drains. At a, recent meeting at Huirau Road factdry many of the Hauraki Board’s settlers had stressed the, urgency of more outlets, and had even advocated a huge canal. A member of the Haunaki Board had advocated it, and other members present had not spoken against the suggestion. Hauraki district settlers had urged the Hoirahia Board to expend money, as the Hauraki district would derive a benefit. The Horahia Board contended that its area was better drained than the Hauraki a : rea, and that it was improving its own drainage at its own expense ; that it was providing out of loan money over the Horahia district improved drainage for the Hauraki district, and that amalgama r tion would not put any further burden on the. Hauraki Board, but would enable an improved system to be developed for the whole, area. The seventh point was that the Hauraki district did not lend itself to making the best use of the existing drains. It was divided into five wa,rds, each iepresented by a member who had full control, so that instead of the Horahia Board having to deal with one board it practically had to deal with five little wards, with the result that in some cases an agreement could be arrived at while in others the ward members- h.ad proved obstinate, and would not come to an agreement on any terms.

Concluding his evidence, Mr, Willy stated that before the Horahia Board was constituted the Hauraki Board desired amalgamation, and asked the. Government if it could take Horahia in. This happened just before the Horahia Board was formed, and the terms desired were that Hauraki should have five members and Horahia two, so that the Hauraki Board could dominate a.n area half as big again as itself. The Horahia Board had taken steps to obtain amalgamation on fair and equitable terms, considering the size and relative importance of the two districts.

In reply to the Commissioner Mr Willy explained how the dual control of drains operated. The Horahia. Board had never attempted -to do work in the Hauraki area. There had never been an attempt to place the whole of the drains under the control of one board. The Horahia. Board h'a.d taken over the arrangement previously carried on with the Government. To Mr Garland witness said that all board members had voted in favour of amalgamation. He agreed tha.t the Horahia area had the voting power in the flits,t election over the whole, area and could possibly have elected its own members. He considered that the Horahia Board should have more members on the new board because it had a. large,r and more valuable area. On the Te Kauri No. 1 drain the Horahia Board desired improvements and extension for which £1320 was included in the. loan. The Horahia Board did. not propose to spend this unless the Hauraki area found a,.n equal amount. He could not say ho ; w the Hauraki area should find this money —he had not considered the question. The attitude of the Hauraki Board was to oppose extending the Te Kauri No. 1 drain. If amalgamation was effected and a majority of Horajiia members were elected they could have-the work done, but the present board did not advocate spreading its present loan over an extended area. There had net been time to refer the matter the extension toi a magistrate, as provided by the'- Act. His board was agreeable to the Commission deciding the matter. The Horajiia Board was not prepared to contribute for the use made of Hauraki drains, as the Hauraki Board had received subsidies from the Hauraki Plain's Settlement Account, to which the Horahia settlers contributed. Thei Horahia Board had had to exercise legaj. power to enable it to construct drains through the Hauraki area. It might yet use legal power to compel the, Hauraki area tb contribute, but it would prefer to deal amicably with • the Hauraki Board. It was a safe assumption to say that more drains would be required, but he could not say where they would be or whether the. Hauraki Board’s drains would he utilised. It had been proposed in the engineer’s scheme to utilise Hauraki drains. Of the £15,000 loan £3OOO had been spent and provision had beejh made to raise £lO,OOO.

Witness agreed, with Mr Garland that if the new board abandoned the £lO,OOO not yet committed it would be possible to take, a poll over the whole area, but the new board would not do that, as it was a condition: of amalgamation that ’ the loan would not be spread over the Hauraki area. He disagreed with ' counsel’s suggestion that this spreading of loan liability or making the. Hauraki. area contribute was the purpose of the Horahia Board. He did not know the particulars. of the proposal of the Hauraki Board to include the Hoflahia area. If he had the cutting up of the area under amalgamation he would make four wards, bounded by the Piako Orchard East, and Wharepoa roads. The three northern wards would have two representatives and the southern, ward one member. He would not favour the Horahia area having three members and the Hauraki area four, <, Replying to the Commissioner witness stated that the Horahia area had been classified for rating purposes according to the; benefit received from drainage works. HAURAKI SETTLERS' VIEWS'.

After the luncheon adjournment the evidence of farmers was taken. Mr J. Hamilton) settler, of TuruaNetherton Road, Hauraki Drainage District, stated that his land was not sufficiently drained. He was not afraid of any more injustice being inflicted on him if amalgamation was effected. The Te Kauri No. 1 drain improvement would be of benefit to his farm. He agreed that the Horahia Board should compensate the Hauraki Board if it desired to use the outlet. E, A. Clattk, whose la-tln adjoined

tnatof the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. He favoured amalgamation, and was prepared to leave all questions concerning the financing of the work to the sense of fairness of the new board. He would prefer the question of compensation ot be referred toi an independent tribunal.

C. K. Fox, another settler of the locality, afvoured amalgamation. The Hauraki Board did not give sufficient -attentiion to hs locality, though some work had been done from which more Horahia settlers would benefit than Hauraki settlers.

W. C. Urquhart also of the same locality, gave similar evidence. He was prepared to be rated for the Te Kauri improvements. More Horania settlers would benefit, but that district should not pay more than the Hauraki district, as the water would naturally flow off the Horahia. to the Hauraki lands. HORAHIA SETTLERS’ VIEWS. F. L. Hamilton, settler in the Horahia district, favoured amalgamation or wiping out both boards., as neither of them had given him much benefit. Tn his opinion the proposed Te Kauri drain would benefit both districts. He favoured enlarging the Te Kauri to constructing new drains, end considered that the Hauraki Board should get credit for the work done. J. C. Miller, junr., favoured amalgamation. All the land in his locality was liable to flooding, and this would be lessened, by improving the Te Kauri and Willow drains. Hauraki settlers benefited by the Willow drain. He favoured the Hauraki Board getting some allowance for the use, of its -drains.

W- McComb, of the same district, also favoured amalgamation.

A Chatfield, Wharepoa Road, said that the longer amalgamation was postponed the worse it would be for the district.

To Mr Garland witness said that in his immediate locality Hdrahia settlers would receive more benefit than would Hauraki settlers by an amalgamation. He. considered that whatever enlargement was necessary to effect drainage for . the Horahia settlers should be paid Tor by those settlers. Frank Loader favoured amalgamation and the proposed Te Kauri outlet. He said that the Hauraki Board had made it clear that it did not want to de.al with water from his locality.

Further evidence will appear in our next issue.