COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5029, 20 September 1926, Page 4

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

THE. NGATEA SITTING. FLOOD OF 1924. The Commisson which been inquiring into Patetonga drainage and reading matters during the last few days commenced its Ngatea sitting, to hear evidence concerning flooding between Ngatea and Kerepeehi in 1924, at the County Office on Friday afternoon. The. Lands Drainage Department was represented by Mr 0. N. Campbell, Chief Drainage Engineer, and Mr E. Taylor, local land drainage engineer.

Mr E. Walton appeared for a number of the settlers, and stated that in May, 1924, there was heayy rain, which caused a flood. The mattei was mentioned in Parliament and efforts made to have redress granted, but the. terms were not acceptable. The matter was brought before the Minister of Lands on his visit to the Plains when a, representative of the settlers made allegations against tire Lands Department. The settlers had thereby made reasonable and prompt claims for relief, and the Minister promised careful consideration. With that the matter had rested for some time, though many letters were-sent to the Minister and represenations made by the Ideal members of Parliament. Mr Walton said .that the instance did not reflect on the general efficiency of the drainage, scheme, but was one of the isolated difficulties. Competent legal advice had held that under the circumstances, the Government was guilty of negligence and should make restitution. The Minister had exercised his powers without due regard to privatei rights, and it had been held that the Minister was in the same category as a private individual.

Outlining the evidence which would be called Mr Walton said that after a meeting of the Ngatea Farmers’ Union Messrs Hayward, Schultz, and Lawrence had met the Lands Drainage Engineer on the stop-bank at a point where gaps existed 13 months before the flood. The engineer did not appear to know that there had been a cut made, and it was pointed out by one of the settlers that the department’s employees had removed a floodgate. The engineer promised to have a new flood-gate installed. The party had then visited other parts of the stop-bank, and arguments ha,d eventuated between the engineer and Mr Louch as to the. ownership and responsibility of certain stop-banks. Mr Taylor (the engineer) had promised that if Louch produced a certain letter which he alleged showed that the stop-bank had been taken over by the Government he would fix up the bank a.nd otherwise protect the settlers by extending the Government bank, shutting Louch out. The settlers were satisfied with this. Instead, of these promises being kept a drain inside the stop-bank wa& deepened and the spoil put on the side awhy from the stop-bank, and another flood-gate was removed, leaving a second gap in the stop-bank. This ajl heppened in .the autumn prior to the flood. On May 30, 1924, the’ flood came dawn, and while there was yet time for repairs to have been effected word of the danger was sent to the drainage engineer. The settlers commenced to fill in the. gaps. During the afternoon the drainage engineer arrived and said that workmen would shortly be there. The settlers were advised to remove their stock, as the flood was. expected to be worse. Five or six department employees worked for about an hour on May 30, but not on the following day (Saturday), and on Saturday night their work was washed away by the -rising water. On Sunday, June 1, the water wa.s - coining over, the low places on Loach’s stop-bank. The rush of water was. so great that men could not walk along the bank. Water was'getting in through the two gaps, and tour or five farms were inundated.

On the Monday the water rose high enough to' flow over Orchard. East Road, and was'then 18 inches higher on the. farms than in the river. The department’s, overseer disagreed with this, and would not permit the stopbanks to be cut to let the water out until later on. By Thursday the water ceased flowing over Orchard East Road. On the same day or the next the department commenced, placing fascines on Loach's stop-bank and the inflow of water was stopped. These statements were , confirmed on oath by the witnesses; called by Mr Walton.

H. F. Louch, in reply to the Commissioners, stated that in April, 1923,

he had met Mr Taylor, who had complained about the five cuts he had made in his stop-bank to *et his land drain.

In reply to a question by Mr O. N. Campbell witness said that the Undersecretary had stated that eight chains of river bank would be made, a floodgate installed, and his bpjnk taken over and improved. He. ha,d correspondence to that effect from Wellington and could produce it. Mr Campbell said he could not understand this at all, and had not been advised of the arrangement. In reply to the Commissioners witness said tha,t he had nothing to prove that the. stop-bank had been taken over by the department except its subsequent actions. By instructions from the department the cuts in the Government bank were once cleaned out.

Mr Campbell stated that, no one in the department knew of thr cleaning. Continuing, witness stated that the gaps were in the stop-bank for 12 years. He did not agree that they constituted a danger, as there, was a Government stop-bank along the river .with gaps at each end. After considerable cross-examina-tion relative to past negotiations Mr Louch was instructed to produce the correspondence referred to as soon as possible.

It was decided not to take evidence on the subject of compensation until a decision had been cofme to as to whether compensation was due or nbt.

Mr C. W. Schultz’s evidence was on the lines of his. counsel’s statement. He said that the water was on his farm for from six to twelve daysand varied in depth from six to fifteen inches. As a result efl’ the flooding his. cows had to be removed until they calved, and two-thirds of the farm had to be regrassed. >

The inquiry was then adjourned until 9 a.m. on Wednesday next.