DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5024, 8 September 1926, Page 4

DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

SITTING AT TURUA. CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. The hearing of evidence by the Commission at Turua in connection with the’ question of amalgamation ot the Hauraki and Horahia drainage districts was concluded on Thursday. AN INDEPENDENT P. R. Henry, whose land is> in both districts, came forward to give evidence. He was of the opinion that amalgamation should be deferred until the Horajiia Board had expended its loan, failing which the amount of ■compensation, if any, should be settled by the Commission. Replying to the Commissioner witness said that he would be satisfied if the Horahia Board stated definitely what its scheme was and exactly what part was to be carried out. The Commissioner asked whether the Horahia loan could not be handled fairly aihd justly by. the combined board. • Witness stated that the Horahia Board had much to gain and was thus pushing amalgamation. The Commissioner stated that he could hot see that the combined board would not deal justly. There was no doubt of the benefit to the central area by the abolition of the unnatural boundary. To Mr Walton witness admitted that he would vote for the most capable members, but experience, had shown tha,t block voting prevailed. He was in favour of amalgamation subject to equitable adjustment. THE HAURAKI CASE. . In stating his case Mr Garland said that he knew of no. instance where amalgamation hafi been forced on a drainage board against its will. The Hauraki Board was out for the best interests of the whole, but it raised certain objections, and it had only been at the Commission that the Horahia, Board had given way on any point. The details of its scheme had never been placed before the Hauraki Board. The. Hauraki Board said that if the Horahia. Board wanted to come through the Hauraki area •it should, have an equal say in regard to. the position and size of the drains. The Hauraki Board was hot opposed to amalgamation, but wished ,to settle the differences while, both boards were on an equal basis. Thus it desired the differences settled before amalgamation took place,. The areas which would benefit from dual drains should be determined. Counsel stated-that the Horahia Board had said that it would not desire to use the Jubilee outlet, but his opinion was that it would be used eventually. A further objection to amalgamation was that compensation should be paid for the use of Hauraki drains, ahd this should be settled before amalgamation was ordered. Then there was the question of what areas should be rated for the dual dra.ins, what works were to be done, and what compensation, if any, should the Horahia Board allow for the use of Hauraki drains. These points should be settled. The Commission could not fix the compensation, as it did not know 1 the details of the proposed works. Another of the Hauraki Board’s serious objections to amalgamation had been waved aside for the first time that day when the statement had been made that no effort would be made to.rope in the Hauraki area to help pay off the Horahia Board’s loan. He wished to disagree with Mr Walton that the Hauraki. area was bound to take the drainage of the Horahia area east of the watershed. The Horahia Board could and should grade its drains to the Piako. HAURAKI. WITNESSES. W. H. Taylor, Hauraki area, was the first witness called by Mr Garland. He had been in the district since 1897. The Horahia district yas tliefti undrained swamp, and his section near Taylor’s outlet was drier then than: it was now. Later on Hie Towers outlet was extended to tap the back country, and since then the riverside lands had never been so dry. The same position applied to the lands aadjoining the Te Kauri No. 2 drain. The operations, of the Horahia Board in the. AVillow drain hafi also adversely affecte.d the lands in the lower areas. He could not now drain into the Willow outlet, as the water level was above his laud owing to the. water draining off the Horahia lands. The improvements suggested by the Horahia Board to the Te Kauri No. 1 drain would have the sa,me effect on the; Haursfki district settlers. The Hauraki area took more water now than it did years ago from the Horahia area, yet the land was now wetter. To Mr Walton witness said he was not in a position to say tha,t the flooding of the land near the Te Kauri outlet, which was. stop-banked, was due to gaps in the ba,nks. In reply to Mr Garland witness stated that his farm was drained into 5acre sections, yet it was wetter now than ever before.

J. A. BeiThett said tha,t he had beein on the Plains, since 1914 and had had considerable experience of drainage. He was the first chairman of thes Hauraki Drainage Board, and as far as he knew was the first map on the Plains to advocate a one-to-one batter. His present farm was- previously very dry, but since, the Te Kauri No. 2 had been widened and deepened to take water from the Horahia area his land had been flooded through his internal drains. If the Horahia, Board’s proposal in regard to the Te Kauri No. 1 was. carried out the Hauraki settlers would suffer. By reason of the overloading of the outlet drains with Horahia water a section owned by K. Fox which had big drains on three sides could not be drained properly. MR. GRAY’S EVIDENCE.

G. Gray, chairman Of the Hauraki Diainage Board, said that his board was unanimously opposed to amalgamation unless under conditions. It desired to know 1 the details of the Hoiahia Board’s scheme, as in the past drains had beejn extended to tap the Horahia area with disastrous results. The Towers drain and the No. 2 Te Kauri were instances o'f inadequate provision being provided. As

far as the Hauraki Board could tell from the few' details available of the Horahia scheme the worn proposed would also have the same disastrous effects. His board therefore desired details, and also an assurance that credit would be given for the Hauraki drains .to be used. He favoured a watershed subdivision of wards rather than a river to river division. The Hauraki Board contended that it was contributing more than its fair share towards'the maintenance of the dual drains. For instance, he contended that the Wharepoa Road drains dea.lt with 250' acres of Hauraki land and 750 acres of Horahia land. The Hauraki Board had spent £l'ss on the Piako Road drains, £'s4l on Te Kauri No. 1 ; Towers £4lO, Te Kauri No. 2 £530 (and £335 subsidy), Wilhw £785 (subsidy £120), Wharepoa Roads £5lO (subsidy £5O). Actually, the: Hauraki Board had spent more than half the value of the drains. In reply to the Commiissioner witness said th t the rest of the Government subsidies had been spent on the general scheme. The Hauraki Board preferred the Horahia w.ater'to come through new drains, and it had insisted that a new drain be made through Taipara’s rather than connect with the Towers outlet. In connection with .the Te Kauri No. 1 a.n offer had be.en made to give the land for a new drain rather than permit the use of an existing drain. The Te Kauri area member had offered to contribute £l5O towards the cost of an outlet. Witness asserted that Messrs Hicks and Kernick were receiving more benefit than Hauraki settlers. The Hauraki Board’s strongest objection to amalgamation was that it wanted to know what the Horahia Board’s proposals were. It had always been favourably disposed towards amalgamation. If the information asked for had been supplied there would have been no need for the Commission.

To Mr Walton witness agreed that the Hauraki area derived a benefit from the dual draips in that they kept the water from the central area off the Hauraki lands. Otherwise the dual drains were unnecessary, as there, were sufficient other drains to deal with local, water. The Hauraki Board had spent £530 on the Te Kauri and £750 Un the Willow drains while the settlers o- Horahia hafi contributed £2OOO. ■ He contended that this was fair to the Horahia settlers, who would be getting good vlaue had the Horahia Board not extended the drains and tapped a big area behind.

The Commissioner asked which was the cheaper, the whole of the cost of the old drains or half the cost of the new and larger drains. Mr Gray replied that the larger the drain the higher the cost, and whereas the old drains only went to the road the new drain went right through, thus.the half cost was greater than the whole cost of the, old small drains.. If the Hauraki area was allowed credit for drains utilised the money should be spent on improving the drainage of the, Hauraki area. This concluded the evidence for the Hauraki case.

Mr Garland said that the point wa,s that the Hauraki area should not be made to suffer through water from the back country. This area, had suffered in this way in the last two instances, and would suffer in the future unless the scheme was The Hauraki Board would like to have an equal say in the design of the drains coming through from the back country. The Horahia, Board now admitted that in respect to the drains to be used compensation should be paid. He submitted that there, was no power under amalgamation to determine the amount of compensation. The Hauraki. Board would agree to some independent man when the details of the scheme were known.

Speaking for the Horahia Board Mr Walton said that it had no desire to spread its loan over the Hauraki are.a. He contended that the Hauraki area had already Bad sufficient compensation. The Horahia Board was sincerely of .opinion that amalgamation was' essential for the progress of the, Plains.

In reply to the Commissioner Mr Walton said that the Ha.uraki Board was protected in regard to the Horahia loan by section 15 cf the Act, which provided that all special rates continued to be a liability on the special areas; The Commissioner said that from the evidence he had been led to belie,ve that’ some of the Horahia Board were agreeable to paying compensation.

Mr Walton agreed, but argued tha! sufficient compensation had already been paid. The differences nmild he overcome by classification of the land. The Commissioner state! that it would simplify matters if compensation was paid.

Mr Walton submitted that witnesses were agreeable to compensation provided the Commission decided it was due. The Commissioner intimated that he would desire further information regarding the ‘ capital expenditure of the two boards. He would consider the information and make his report to the Governor-General. It would be in his hand to reject or adopt the recommendation. Possibly other information would be desired. He wished to express his thanks, for the ful l and clear manner in which the evidence had been presented. His report would be made in about a fortnight.