DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5023, 6 September 1926, Page 3

DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

CONTINUATION OF EVIDENCE.

SUPPORT FOR AMALGAMATION.

The Commission to adjudicate on the question of amalgamation of the Horahia and Hauraki Drainage Boards was continued on Thursday, before Mr L. B. Campbell. Mr E. L. Walton appeared for the Horahia Board and Mr C. J. Garland opposed the request on behalf of the Hauraki Board.

DRAINAGE ENGINEER’S EVIDENCE,

Mr E. Taylor, lands drainage engineer, officer in charge of the Government land drainage operations on the Ha.uraki Plains-, stated that he was prepared to supply any data that might be of use to the Commission. He supplied a plan showing the surface levels of the land between the rivers. Generality, the fall was to the rivers from about the KerepeehiKopuaiahi road. He had not officially discussed amalgamation with the Hauraki Board, but had dolne so unofficially and had found the board agreeable provided satisfactory terms were secured. He had often met the Hauraki Board on the question of dual drains. It ha.d always- wanted as much money as possible, but there was never much dispute as past experience had determined the proportions to be granted and expected. He favoured draining the land to both rivers, and had he been admininsteiing the area he would not have blocked" the Wairau Road water from getting to the Monganui outlet. River frontage di ains should be big enough to cope with back country water.

In regard to allocating the cost of constructing new drains or improving old ones, he favoured charging according to the benefit received. He favoured allowing for existing drains a,nd deducting the amount from the share of the area which had the drain. He would make allowance for what had been spent. The artificiial boundary had been a cause df trouble and inefficiency, and in arriving at a proportion of cost he would disregard it.

Classification and one; control would overcome much of the present difficulties. At the recent meeting of settlers of both areas held at Huirall Road there was a stregig feeling in favour of amalgamation. The meeting was strongly in fayour of improved drainage. He did not think theie would be any dire results if Horahia settlers dominated on the united board, as the interests, were practically identical. The department had always favoured amalgamation, and had no fears of it not being a success.

Replying to Mr Garland Mr Tayloi said he did not work under the Lands Drainage Act. Mr Garland asked if there was any means of the present Hauraki area getting compen&taion should the Monganui drain be utilised. Mr Taylor said that the area would be represented. The matter could be made a condition of amalgamation. The Monganui drain should be enlarged before being extended, but he .could not agree that it was essential for the matter to be settled before amalgamation was effected. He, did not think the change of control would matter much, though it could undoubtedly be definitely settled by the provisions stipulated in the Act. The dual-con-trollel drains, benefited both areas. They had been improved by the department for the benefit Of what was now the Horahia Board’s district. The Hauraki district derived a. benefit from the drains to the Piako River, as they took water which would otherwise flood that district’s lands. He considered - the best subdivisions would be from river to river so that the wards would be watertight compartments. He could not say what the. i epresentation should be.

Replying to Mr Waltc-n Mr Taylor said that as the Hauraki Board had received £4OOO from the Gover ( nment out of a total cost foi* drainage of £lO,OOO he considered it had been fa'ily treated. However, as the Horahia area, had paid .for its dilains he thought .the slate should be wiped cleati.

Questioned by the Commissioner, Mr Taylor said that certain drains were put through the; Hauraki area solely for the benefit of the Horahia .area. AH the existing dual drains, had been assisted by thei Government, and we,re now essential to .the Hauraki Board’s drainage scheme. Generally there was little difference in the tidal, effects of the two rivers below' Rawe,rawe in the Piako. Floods did not always synchronise, as the Waihou emptied quicker. MR. /JOHNSON’S OPINIONS. ■ Mr W. R. G. Johnson, registered land drainage engineer, employed by the Waitoa, and El&tow Drainage Roar'd and other boards, stated that he was the first engineer employed by the Hauraki Board and had propounded a scheme of drainage, for its district. Generally speaking, he was well acquainted with the districts of both boards. While employed by the Hajiiraki Board he had several times, pointed out, and the board had unanimously agreed, that Horahia should be brought into the drainage district, as a large quantity of water had,to drain through to the Waihou river. A number of drains ran through the Hauraki Board’s district to the Waihou, and on that account the board applied for and received a number of Government grants, in recognition of its liability to assist with these outlets. In the spring of 1917 a cafaference was held with the Lands Department, and it was pointed out to Mr J. B. Thompson that water from the back country was. causing a good deal of flooding in the Hauraki area. Witness had suggested that it would be better to more evenly distribute the drainage from these la.hds Into a, number of outlets rather than into one or two. Mr Thompson had agreed with the reasons- advanced and had subsidised certain other drains. The land in both districts was so flat that either river could be used as a.n outlet. If the lands in both districts were under one board it would be an advantage, for the reason that when one river w r as in flood the other could

be used. He believed that the floods in the two rivers rarely synchronised. Replying to Mr Garland witness said that the Hauraki district would get greater benefit by the: Horahia Board taking over and improving existing outlets than by the construction of new outlets-.

To the Commissioner- witness stated that the flood-gates were subsidised as part of the drains.

CIVIL ENGINEER’S VIEWS,

Mr E. F. Adams, civil engineer, o'f Thames, explained the area administered by the two boards ,adn stated tha.t the division between was, from a land drainage point of view, an arbitrary one which did not follow any natural features. The whole area was flat and low-lying, having a. slight general fall northwards towards the sea and from the middle towards each river. The land was- so nearly flat that drainage operations- had proved the necessity of what amounted to through drainage—river to river —to take advantage of flofod differences occurring between the rivers. The tidal action varied from six to eight feet, and high tides’ reached the tops of the natural banks, overtopping them in times of river floods at spring tides, To combat this the whole of the Horahia and seaward frontage and part of the Haura.ki frontage had been stop-banked. The drainage system was fairly extensive but not adequate. It was satisfactory until 1923, when the average annual: rainfall was 38 inches, but it ha,d proved quite inadequate in the two following years, when the fall was over 52 inches. The drainage improvements- and the lower rainfall of 40 inches last year permitted an improvement. A feature of the problem was the freeing of the central area without injuring the propertiies nearer the rivers. This central area was practically all in the Horahia district, and the natural outlet was, to a large extent, the Waihou River through outlets in the: Hauraki district. The, whole system was- dependent on automatic . flood-gates, more or less defective in operation, which functioned least when most required. Owing to the resultant high water-table of wet seasons the land was kept in a state ranging from partial to total saturation. Progressive improvements were impossible while these conditions pertained. The remedy must be ’an all-round improvement in the efficiency of the dra.ins, and this brought up the question of mechanical assistance to gravity drainage. Witness stated that lie considered the administration of the whole area under one control should be the first step towards improved, conditions. The districts were one physically, and it was unfortuna.te that they were not so administered from the beginning. He considered that when the Horahia Board had -completed its scheme the drainage areas of Hauraki and Horahia, would have a full provision of main drains and outlets competent to cope promptly and efficiently with any rainfall which might be anticipated, so long -as- the discharge of these drains was arranged for in keeping with their ca.rrying capacity. The subdivisions of the united area he would suggest were bounded by the Piako, Orchard East, and Whar'epoa roads. They were as natural as he could find. In his considered opinion the advantages of amalgamation very much outweighed the disadvantages. Witness- agreed that the riverside settiers would require protection from the central area settlers who desired access to the rivers. The Commission then adjourned. ’ MORE HORAHIA OPINIONS. On resuming on Thursday, H. H. Hicks, Piako Road, Hora.hia, stated that amalgamation would be beneficial to his locality. The land was now fairly well drained -through the. efforts of himself and neighbours. He had to drain through the Haura.ki Board’s area and had been opposed. To get this drainage the settlers had "to pay the cost of improving a drain through the Hauraki Board’s area, and the whole cost of a new flood-gat» and the board reserved the right to block the drain at any time. His land w-as also included in a special racing area for work which only gave an indirect benefit.

In reply to- Mr Garland witness said that the land got no benefit from the Hauraki Board’s works except that which he had directly p.aid for. He and his neighbours had spent over £loo' in improving a drain through the Hauraki area anid Hauraki settlers derived a benefit. In relpy to the Commissioner witness said that his butter-fat returns were much lower than the .average bn accolunt of the lack of drainage due to the blocking of his drains. A. H. Rogers, also of Piako Road, ‘favoured amalgamation, and said tha.t the whole area between the tw'o rivers was industraUly one and there was no: feeling of animosity between- sections. To Mr Garland witness sajd that up to a point he was in favour of allowing the Hauraki Area compensation for the use of its drains. He was of the opinion that the new board w'ould give as much l justice as- an outside tribunal. He thought the bulk of the settlers were on the side of fairness and justice. HAURAKI SETTLERS’ OPINIONS. W. Madgwick, of Huirau Road, Hau-

raki district, said he had come to the conclusion tha,t the body’ of opinion was for amalgamation with certain reservations. He would vote for the best men irrespective of where they resided, but he pointed out .that this had not always been done in the past. There had been plumping in previous drainage board electiosn, but the result had turned out satisfactorily and fair. Adjustments should be made before amalgamating, as the Hauraki Boa,rd was in the better position. He agreed with Mr Garland that. undei the block voting that prevailed at the first Horahia Board election the best men were not elected. Land near the river was liable to injury from ba.ck country water, and therefore the river frontage settlers should be consulted before drains were brought from the back country.

In reply to the Commissioner witness said the Piako Rivor settleis were in the same position, but the situation was- not so bad, as the Waihou was the better outlet and not so much affected by flooding. The reservations he would like to see were that the Horahia scheme should be completed before amalgamation, and that the Hauraki Board received compensation for the use of drains which were to be used. The, Horahia district should pay for the enlargements necessary or make an allowance fbi the work already done.

H. Markham favoured Amalgamation, as he hoped thereby to< obtain better drainage for his land. _ C. F. Pearse favoured amalgamation subject to equitable Adjustments. His land would only get drainage, by the work suggested to be done by the Horahia. Board. The opinion in hisdistrict was that amalgamation must come. VOTING STRENGTH. As it had been asserted several times that the. Horahia district could outvote the Hauraki district a statement was- made by Mr Walton that the voting strength in the Horahia area was 225 and in the Haura.ki area 208. BOARD MEMBERS’ VIEWS. F. A. Kneebone, chairman of the Horahia Drainage Board, said that his board favoured amalgamation. A 4 to 3 division in favour of asking for amalgamation had once happened, but the opposition on that occasion was because the three members desired to have, the question deferred until the loan was carried. The loan had been carried and the board was now unani-

■mous. Witness was questioned at length oh the lines used with Mr W. El G. Willy and his evidence was- similar to that given by Mr Willy. He was sure the Horahia. Board would be willing to pay reasonabe compehsatiion for the use of drains in,the Hauraki Board’s area if the amount was fixed by a.n .independent tribunal. Mr J. C. Miller, member of the Horahia Board, led by Mr Walton, corroborated the evidence of the previouswitness: and the clerk. He considered that the presetn dual drains were essentia], to the drainage of the Hauraki district. He favoured amalgamation. The Hauraki Board had made j -small drains from the river to the Tui Tuii.-Nctherton road. Tfie Government ■ had then contributed largely for the extension of these drains to deal with the, water from the back area and for I the necessary improvements to> the ■sections between the river and the ■road. ; W. E,. Hale, member of the Horiahia i 'Board, after being examined a.t lenth : Ky Mr Walton on the same lines as /previous witnesses, said he had not ■ 'heard any sett er of the. Horahia district express an opinion contrary to amalgamation. He did not think any could be made until the districts combined. Oil the question of -compensation, he considered that the Hauraki area had had a fair deal /from the Government, but he would ■ agree if an independent tribunal decided that more should be paid. He •considered the point of secondary ,-consideration to the progress of the ■district. To Mr Garland witness sajd that i the Commission should settle all the , differences between the two boards. I’He could not mention any instance where the Horahia land had been ■charged f(»r work from which it. did mot get a benefit. I Witness was examined at length (concerning the suggested subdivisions 1 -of the then Government aflea before •the formation of the. Hora.hia drainage district. He stated that the offers •of the Hauraki Board were not acceptable to the committee dealing with ■~the matter st the time and as a re:sult the Horahia district was formed. This concluded the evidence for the /Horahia Board.