THE 1924 FLOOD.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5031, 24 September 1926, Page 3

THE 1924 FLOOD.

INUNDATION OF NGATEA. INVESTIGATION BY COMMISSION. Further evidence in respect to the flooding of the land near Orchard East Road, Ngatea, in 1924; was heard by the Commissino set up to investigate the position.at the County Office, Ngatea, on Wednesday. The Commissioners were Messrs G. T. Murray (chairman)) F. W. Waiters, and A l . Sutherland. Mr E. Walton appeared on behalf of the settlers, while Messrs 0. N. Campbell and E. Taylor represented the Lands Drainage Deaprtment. Further evidence was. given by Mr W. G. Hayward relative to the damage sustained by his farm as a result of the flooding. He had had to dispose' of his 160 cows and regrass, the land. For one season he had not milked dn his farm. He estimated his total loss at £6OO. Evidence w also given by Mr C. W. Schultz as to his losses,. He gave details as to'his production over a period of years, showing that as a result of the flood he had losjt 45001 b of butter-fat, liberally estimated at £l5O, despite the fact that a hill farm ha ; d to be purchased. The regrassing of two-thirds of the farm cofet £23 for seed and £37 for labour. Stock lost and other expe.ns.es brought the tota ■ loss; to over £5OO, not counting a valuable pedigree bull, the loss of which was very hard to estimate. W. Lawrence, holding 111 acres, between Messrs Hayward and Schultz, gave similar evidence, and quoted flg- . ures making his total estimated loss £515 95,. Witness was examined at length by Mr Campbell respecting/the work of repiaring the stop-banks. Mr Campbell sought to show that the. settlers considered it would have been less trouble to build up Louch’s. bank than to repair the gaps in the Government ba ; nk. ■ Witness said that to block the S a P s would be to block the drain which was, the outlet for .the area. R. B. Hodgson, Puhanga, and E. A. Booth, gave evidence as to the inspection of the stop-bank with other settlers.. The water was not going over any portion of the Government bank, but it was passing in through the gaps in considerable volume. Mr Walters said that he was satisfied that the water was, cotming over Louch’s stop-bank and through the gaps in the Government bank. Mr Walton stated that he was endeavouring to prove tha-t the, water was, not going oVcr the Government stop-bank. After the luncheon adjournment Mr Walton said that in view of the. statement by the Commissioners as to being satisfied on the points mentioned the remaining .witnesses would only give evidence as to their losses. E. W. Martin, settler on the northern side of Orchard East'Road, estimated his loss, at £577 TOs. C. Dale, another pettier on the north side of Orchard East Road, stated that as a result of the flood he had to remove his ‘so’ cows to his, homestead section at Turua, bringing the total on tha.t farm of 160 acres to 260 head, with the result that it was seriously damaged by overstocking. Later he had secured grazing which had cost £lB5, but on their return the cows were not fit for milking. Fifteen head did not come back at ajl. He could not give an accurate estimate of his, loss in butter-fat,. but was of opinion that 20001 b butter-fat -would be about right. However, the chief loss was to the productivity of his Turua farm. The regrassing of his Ngatea. farm cost about £BO, but he could not estimate the less on his Tunua farm. Mr O. N. Campbell pointed out that Mr Dale was a freehold land owner. The land hajl not been loladed with any charge for the. construction of drainage Works, and it got the benefit of the works; which ha,d been provided dor Crown lands. If the LandsDepartment had not undertaken draiiiage works for the benefit of Crown settlers the freehold land would not have been more than a duck-pond. Ilnder the circumstances he did' not see that the settler had any claim ofa the Government. J, S. Me Watters, settler, whose 94 acres front Horahia Road, .was then called. Mr O. N. Campbell asked could witness state that the flooding of his land was. due' to the flooding south of the Orchard East Road. Witness, asserted that this was so, and that he could bring witnesses to prove that the stop-bank along his section had been topped. Mr Campbell, stated that he wduld call evidence to repute thiss, and to show that if the stop-bank had been topped the water would have been ■a. couple of feet deep on Orchard East Road. Questioned by Mr Campbell witness stated that there were, two low gaps behind McKercher’s section where the water came over the stop-bank in streams about five feet wide and six inches; deep. There were other gaps which he did not see, s.o it would have been useless blocking the two; gaps which he had seen. He«had notified the Lands Department foreman of the fajlure o¥ the stop-bank, but nothing was done. James McKerchar stated that the water came over the Government stopbank at two idw places, on his section, over three low places behind Mr Wheeler’s section, and als,o round the end. of the stop-bank. The Government employees had not taken steps, to repair the bank, but had followed the lead of the settlers and endeavoured to divert the flood back from Johnston’s to the river by means of gaps cut in Johnston’s river stop-bank. He estimated his losses a.t about £lOO. Cross-examined by Mr O. N. Campbell witness stated that when" the news of the flooding further up the river arrived the settlers endeavoured to improve their stop-bank, which was over a mile lolng. About half his. farm was under water for a week. Thomas Wheeler, an adjoining landowner, stated that the settlers were able to keep the flood from crossing the bank until about 6 p.m., when it

was found that water was crossing the ridge a.t the end of the stop-bank. It was useless attempting to block it there, and by 8 o’clock the stop-bank was topped in several places. He did not see any Lands Department employees o'n Johnston’s Sjtop-bank. He estimated his loss, at £2OO, but would be satisfied if the Government remitted the £4O drainage rates. This, closed Mr Walton’s ca.se. DRAINAGE ENGINEER’S EVIDENCE. Mr E. Taylor, Lands Drainage Engineer, said that the trouble with Louch’s stop-bank commenced in 1916, when the' then department s engineer, Mr Logan, reported that Louch had cut his bank. Since then the cuts had at times been filled. About 1920 s,ome arrangement was apparently made with Mr Logan in regard to taking over the bank. It was later inspected and condemned. In 1917 the Government erected the; river stopbank. Louch’s land was freehold, but it was contended that the Government stop-bapk had injured Louch, so, as compensation, an outlet was. provided. Since he had been in chaige a itvei improvement scheme had been undertaken. This included providing new flood-gates, and such a flobd-gate was provided in place of the wooden gate previously given Mr Louch. As the gate had a very large capacity it did away with the. necessity for others. On an inspection later there were found to be six gaps in the bank, and five of them Louch had admitted making. Louch had asserted that Mr Logan ha.d taken over his bank. Witness. said he could not see how' an engineer would have taken over the bank in its then bad state. On numerous occasions he had seen Louch, and each time there had been a row. Louch had made various statements attributing the action of taking over the bank to various, officers of the department. Since then Louch had improved the bank and requested witness to take it over.

Later on, continued witness;, an old wooden flood-gate had collapsed, and to effect adequate protection therO were three courses open: (1) to replace the stop-bank which was to cldse the gaps, thereby closing all the outlets from the area; (2) to shift the bank from one side of a drain to the other or about I's chains, thereby closing all Mr Louch’s drans ; and (3) to make the. man (Louch) who had caused all the trouble fulfil his obligations. The two first works would have been useless when the river improvement scheme came along. Therefore he had endeavoured to get Louch to move, and at the time of the flobd had got him moving. Th'e flood was due to the flow from the Waihou River, and some thousands of acres were inundated, yet these, few settlers on Orchard East Road, knowing that there was a disagreement between the department and a settler, had utilised it as a peg to hang a case again.s|t the department on. They had secured the services of a lawyer to endeavour to show' that their case was. exceptional. The department repaired Loach’s stopbank when the flood threatened, thus giving the same protection a.s hitherto, and the flood topped the Government stop-bank as it did elsewhere, s« the settlers had no claim for special treatment. When the bank was first topped workmen were sent to effect improvements, and before th'ey left it was reasonably safe. Later, when the flood rose higher, the 35 chains of bank was; topped aihd it was useless attempting to stem the flow. At the same time miles of stop-bank elsewhere had been topped. The floodwater went over .the whoil, of Louch’s stop-bank, and- also over the Government from the angle inwards.' Evidence to that effect would be called, but as the incident was only one in the very many which occurred during the flooding of the whole of the, Plains two and a half years ago, exact dates and times could not be given. At a time between June 1 and 5 the water was noticed to be flowing back over the .-top-bank to the river. This showed why' the inland stopbank h’a,d been topped when the river had fallen below the level of the river stop-bank. Mr Tayl<>r produced numerous plans and graphs showing flood levels at various place’. He said that it was not generally understood that the flood-water which topped the< inland stop-bank had flowed in near Kerepeehi where the flood level was 2% feet higher than in the river at Louch’s. This fact wh,s not realised until much later, when the flood levels had been graphed. From Louch’s to Kerepeehi there were imperfect and irregular stop-banks constructed by the private freeholders. The flood level' at Ngatea did not rise above spring-tide level, but at Kerepeehi the flood was, 2ft higher than springtide level. The water flowed on to the land near Kerepeehi and maintained its level.

Continuing, Mr Taylor said that he did not dispute any of the evidence of .the settlers with the exception of Mr Louch’s, which, it was generally recognised, was. unsatisfactory. Since then the river channel had been enlarged by two-thirds and the Puhanga canal channel, almost doubled. The staff of the Lands Department during the flood were working day and night for w«jeks, opening and closing gaps in stop-banks, rescuing settlers’ stock, getting grazing for stock, collecting flood data, effecting temporary repairs, and doing all they could to cope with the situation. Many of them very little of their beds, for weeks. The department had to look after 160,000 acres;, aiid miles of stop-bank had been topped.

Examined by Mr O. N. Campbell Mr Taylor said that of the 163,000 acres under the care of the department about 70,000 were flooded in 1924. The present case concerned the flooding of 500-odd acres. The flood was an exceptional one, due to the foreign water which came in on account of the uncompleted state, of the drainage works on the Waihou River. The works about Louch’s; were temporary, and sooner or later would become, useless;, when the permanent scheme was completed. He did not think the department had any control over Mr Louch, but the department woud not relieve him of the responsibility of

the stop-bank until he had put it in a suitable state. From his gauging of the flood level at Ngatea and at Kerepeehi he assumed that the level at peak flobd at Louch’s was 99.5, the same height as. the lowest spot in the Government stop-bank. The department had four responsible officers on the Plains, and hundreds, of miles of S|top-bank, thus it was unreasonable for the three Horahia settlers to expect that the department would know all about the trouble on their stop-bank unless attention was particularly drawn to it. To Mr Walton witness sta,ted. that after the interview with Messrs Hayward, Schultz, and Lawrence 15 months before the flood much work had been done. Louch had shifted his fence; a depression near the south of Louch’s section had been filled and, as previously explained, a. flood-gate removed. Nothing had been ddne to Louch’s bank before the flood, but repairs were made during the flood. All arguments, were then dropped and the work undertaken. Witness was examined at length in regard to the flow of the Piako river. He stated that nol data Was available. Prior to his arrival the department ha,d reliable levels, but they were not co-ordinated. The levels were how coordinated, and the completed scheme had recently been developed. The banks now being completed were at final levels, but fe>w stopbanks were finally completed. The work upstream had not been at the expense of the lower, reaches, and the water from Kaihere was n’dw coming down quicker than it did yefi.rs ago, but this did not apply above Kaihere Landing, at which point the flow was controlled. The water which caused the flood came from the Waihou River to the Awaiti basin.

Witness said he did not knoKv whether he had any power to compel Mr Louch to do anything on his stop-bank until 1923, when he ascertained the position in regard to the ownership of the stop-bank. The department had no power to deal with private stop-banks. He had caused inquiries to be made and had ascertained that there was no record the department having taken over the stop-bank. Mo attempt was made to block the cuts in the Government bank, as it would

not have improved the position. It would have been an advantage to have cut Louch’s stop-bank, but this fact had not become- apparent’ until the levels were taken a,nd tabulated, and it was showm that the flood came in elsewhere and was confined between the two banks. It had not been reported to him that the water was flowing from Robinson’s land to the river, therefore it was not reasonable for him to realise the advantage of cutting gaps to let .the same process occur. The normal flow in the Piako River varied from nothing to five, feet per second, and reversed direction twice daily. Mr Walton submitted that asspining the flow through the two cuts to be four feet per second, the three farms would be covered to a depth of one inch every three hours-. Mr Taylor pointed out that it was not known what size the cuts were at the time of the flood. Mr Walton submitted that on the evidence water was entering through the cuts for 30 hours. Mr Taylor stated that three floodgates were operating, and there was a foot of .tidal auction. Mr Walton contested the latter assertion, contending that the Ngatea bridge held up the flolw and restricted tidal aption. Mr Taylor stated that this had been assumed in the past, but investigation had shown that the blockage wa» near the mouth of the Puhanga canal. In reply to Mr Hayward Mr Taylor stated that the settlers had taken a considerable risk in opening stopbanks. As it turned out the time was opportune. Mr Hayward endeavoured- to show that the department had not .taken reasonable care to safeguard country hot then flooded. Mr Taylor argued that an honest attempt had been made to cope with an exceptional situation. It would have been of very great benefit if more attention had been given during the flood to the collection of data and less time spent in attending to' the grievances of settlers. As it was, the staff worked day and night attempting to do everything. A responsible officer was placed in change of -each danger spot, and he was- quite satisfied that they had done all that could reasonably be expected. Mr Hay ward ■ pointed out that in 1923 a very small expenditure would have protected the settlers and permitted touch’s land to dr a,in. He submitted that the department had been negligent in not undertaking this. After the tea adjournment Mr Taylor was questioned by the Commission on points o-f his evidence. He stated that the river would be very considerably enlarged under the improvement scheme and would be made capable of carrying a much greater volume of water, but not as much as during the 1924 flood. The was no> chS-nce of another flood at the same point, as the stop-bank was being made much higher than was necessary. The reMmBMHMBnMMORKR 11111 l 11111 l llMlfllinwrJ

lief work carried out during the Friday of the. flood was to build the low spots up to the general level. The new filling was naturally spfter tha,n the old bank and soon washed out wheih the water flowed over. - , CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. James Kidd, head overseer since 1908 for the department, gave the history of the negotiations from the time when there were not stop-banks. In 1920 there was a big flood which inundated t'he Crown settlors;, as Mr Louch had cut gaps, in the stop-bank. The controversy between Mr Louch and the department had then started, and Mr Louch had been told that if he did-certain work the stop-bank would be taken over. The work done was not sufficient, and the stop-bank was not taken over. Lat'e.r on he reported tba,t the wooden flood-gate had collapsed, and it was taken out altogethei to permit se.tflei's to get an outlet. He was sure the Government stop-bank had been topped during the flood. Witness was subjected to a long examination. T. H. Waud, a department foreman, gave evidence of the. nature of the work carried out on the stop-bank during the Friday of the flood. The low places, were built up to the. general level, and Mr Lohch had expressed the opinion that nothing more could have been done. On the following Thursday he had taken fascines to repair the gaps caused by thte water rusihing over. John Murdock, department overseer, stated thatffie had inspected the stopbank .the day after the repairs had been made and htffi found it safe. The water Was going over the Government bank in places when he made one inspection, but he could not say which day. - In reply to the Commissjiion witness stated that at times he was wot king near Johnston’s stop-bank, but at no time did he see the fajms, of McWatters, McKerchar, or Wheeler flooded. The settlers were congratulating themselves On escaping from the flood. C. Bertelsen, foreman, stated that on the Sunday he inspected Louch’s stop-bank. At that thime parts of the Government bank were submerged. On the Monday levels were taken and as a result cuts were made in the river stop-bank above 'and below the Ngatea bridge. His gang was engaged in opening and closing these gaps according to the tide. This took him to within sight of the farms, of Messrs McWatters, McKerchar, and Wheeler ,twice a day, and he would swear that there was no flood-water on the land, and that Johnston’s stop-bank had not been topped as far as he could see. Thomas Wheeler stated that he could bring five witnesses to say that the stop-bank on Johnston’s boundary had been topped. ' John Connor, launchman, stated that his attention had been drawn to Louch’s stop-bank, which was under water, a,nd to the Government stophank, which was partly under water. This compelled the evidence, and the chairman ’Stated that after considering it a report would be submitted to the Minister of Lands as soon as possible.