DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5047, 3 November 1926, Page 3

DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

HORAHIA AND HAURAKI AREAS.

AMALGAMATION RECOMMENDED.

COMPENSATION NOT SUGGESTED.

The Commission which recently sat

in Turua for the purpose of inquiring into the proposed union of the Hauraki and Hor.ahia drainage districts has reported to the Government recommending amalgamation.

Conditions were laid down regarding the existing loans, but the .Commissioner (Mr L, B. Campbell) 'found that the only obstacle, that of compensation, disappeared on close examination, and it was not mentioned in. the recommendation.

A copy of the report has been sent by the Internal Affairs Department to Mr E. Walton, solicitor, for the Hprahia Board, together with a covering letter suggesting that the two boards confer as to a suitable date for union. THE REPORT. ASter. formally dealing with the procedure adopted at the inquiry, and the examination of the area, the re port continues as follows: “These two drainage districts he alongside one another, occupying the tongue of land between the Piako and Waihou rivers, which flow in .a northerly direction into the Hauraki Gulf, and they extend from the .gulf on the north to an east and wept line approximately nine miles to the sou The Hauraki district, with an aijea of roughly 9,000 acres, and unimproved value of £lBB,OOO, occupies the Waihou river ’frontage, and the Horahia district ,with an area of 14,20 v acre£, and unimproved value df £300,000, occupies the Piako river, frontage, and the boundary between the districts generally follows the, direction of the two rivers.

"The land is a vast alluvial flat, varying in level from 2ft below to 3ft above the highest spring tides,. and without stop-banking and drainage would be unhabitable. The Piakd river in its natural state* was tortuous and inefficient as a waterway, and was more subject to overflow -than the Waihou, which is 'vide, and es-tuary-like, so : that in time of heavy flooding, flood waters crossed the land from the Piako into the Waihou. The Lands Department, working under the Hauraki Plains Act, 1908, undertook the straightening and improving of the Piako river and built stopbanks to confine its flood waters, and it is these works which have made the drainage of the two districts concerned possible. . "It is. important to note how there came to be two'drainage districts in this area, anl also how the dividing line between the two districts came to be fixed. The Hauraki district is the; older settlement, and is practically the. Bagnall estate as subdivided and sold by the owners. The Ho'rahia district, of more recent growth, was mostly Government land which came under the< Hauraki Plains Act, 1908, and was roaded and partly drained before being offered for settlement. The. boundary between the districts was therefore fixed because df it being the boundary between Government and freehold land, and without any consideration as to its. suitability from a drainage standpoint. “The Hauraki district was constituted in 1916, .and a loan of £lO,OOO wag immediately raised and drainage operations commenced. At the same time the Government was stop-bank-ing and draining the Horahia area it was quickly found that much of the Horahia land abutting the boundary ..had to be drained into the Waihou IRiver through .the Hauraki district, the natural fall being in that direction, and then there arose a system of •‘dual’ drains, serving to discharge ■water from the Horahia district through the Hauraki district into the Waihou River. As fa.r as maintenance of these drains is .concerned, it was arranged that the cost was to be equally divided between the Government and the Hauraki Drainage Board. It is not clear, how the capital cost of these dual drains was . found, but it is certain tba.t the Government contributed heavily .to their cost, and, in some cases, as in the case of the Willow and the Te Kauri No. 2 drains, the Government appears to have found the whole, or very nearly the whole, of the cost. “In 1924, the Government having finished its expenditure in the Horahia 'area, and the settlement being wejl established, the Horahia drainage district was constituted, .and .took •over the drainage system provided by the Government, also the Government responsibility for contributing to the Hauraki Board 50 pen cent, of the maintenance of the dual drains. As before, the maintenance of .these •drains was to be carried out by the /Hauraki Board.

"The Horahia Board-lost no time -in bringing forward a scheme for -more thorough drainage of its district, and eariy in 1926 a loan over the whole district for £15,500' was carried and work commenced. This loan provided for more expenditure on dual drains, and it was the negotiations with the Hauraki Board on the mat*ter df .these drains which brought the question of amalgamation to a head. It was found so difficult to get forward with the arrangements between the two boards that the solution of joining them up into one board appeared to offer the best cha,nce for getting on with the work. EVIDENCE. "Extensive evidence was taken from the members and officers of both boards, from representative settlers, and from three engineers, namely, the ■ Government Land Drainage Engineer rin Hauraki Plains settlement; Mr. E. jr Adams, of Thames ; and Mr W. R. . Johnson, the first engineer to the ' Hauraki Drainage Board a ; nd at present engineer to several drainage ■ boards in the Waikato and Thames Valley.

"The engineering evidence was all in favour of amalgamation. It was jijidwh that the two areas were geographically and, physic ally one, and

that any attempt to drain the two areas by independent schemes would be uneconomical, i£ not impossible. Also, it was shown that the best results could be obtained by having one control, so that the work could be properly co-ordinated and mainten-

ance arranged in proper sequence so that full benefit could be obtained from 'drains which are continuous throughout both areas. The combined district would be large enough to employ a permanent overseer, and alsp would be in a better position flnanicajly to obtain gobd engineering services than would two separate smaller districts.

“The engineering evidence was also unanimous on the matter in which the combined district should be subdivided if such were found advisable. The opinion was that subdivision should be by roughly east and west lines, so that each subdivision would have frontage on .the Waihou River on the east side ajid the Piako or Awaiti River .on the west side ; the reason being that all drains must take this general direction, as it is; not possible to get satisfactory outlets in a northerly direction into the Hauraki Gulf.

“A most important point in the evidence was. that the Horahia Board indicated its readiness to carry the whole burden of its present loan of £15,'500, and also its intention of carrying out the work for which the loan was raised. Counsel for the Hauraki Board stated that had this been known earlier there would have been no need for the Commission.

“The settlers’ evidence also largely favoured amalgamation, but a number of the Hauraki ratepayers thought .that where Hprahia wished to use any of their drains aS; dual drains compensation should, be paid up to the original cost of these drains. Several, of the Hor.ahia ratepayers expressed their willingness .to pay this compensation. ; REVIEW OF EVIDENCE. “In reviewing the evidence the; only obstacle I can see to amalgamation' is the matter of compensaion above ieferred to, and it seems to be that on close examination this obstacle disappears. There is no dofubt that the dual, drains now existing are of considerable value to the Hauraki Board; in fact, .they are an essential part of that board’s drainage; system, in that in addition to carrying Horahia water they give outlets for land thrdugh which they pass. No combined board would lead additional water'from the present Horahia area, into the existing Hauraki drains without enlarging them propprionally, and the cost of enlarging these existing drains or d£ building., new drains similar to the existing dual drains to carry backcountry water to the Waihou would be the system of classification provided for under the Act, become a charge on the people who receive benefit therefrom, and consequently no injustice would be done, to the ratepayers of the existing Haurajki area. “I consider the following facts have been established: — “1. That the area covered by the two boards was originally all swamp.

“2. That it is not possible, to accurately define the watershed between the two rivers.

“3. That the Piako River in time> of heavy flood used to flow over across the two areas into the Waihou. River, and it is the improving of the Piako River and the building of stop-banks on its right bank that has made the drainage of the- two districts possible.

“4. That the maintenance of these stop-banks on the Piako River is now ■a ; charge on the Horahia drainage district.

“5. That the existing boundary between the two districts was fixed, by chance without any consideration as to its suitability for dividing two drainage systems.

“6. That it is necessary for part of the existing Horahia district to drain through the Hauraki district into the Waihou River, and this is now being done by'means of certain, dual drains, the maintenance of which is carried out by the Hauraki Board .and 50 per cent, thereof charged to the Horahia Board.

“7. That .the dual drains system was proved inefficient and a hindrance to the progress of the district, due to one board being dependent on the other for performance of the annual cleaning up, and, moreover, was cumber-, some and difficult of administration owing to two boards having to be in agreement. "8. That the two districts are comparable in their valuation and loan indebtedness, as the; following figures will show: Horahia Drainage District : Area, 14,200 acres ; unimproved value, £30.0,000 ; loan; £15,500. Hauraki Drainage District: Area, 90.00 acres ; unimproved value, £lBB,OOO ;■ loan, £lO,OOO. RECOMMENDATION. *‘l therefore have to recommend tha.t the existing Horahia drainage district and the Hauraki drainage district should be formed into one united district, and also that the following conditions should be laid down precedent to amalgamation :— "1. That the rates for the leans now expended or authorised to he expended in each existing district should continue to be collected over the same rating area as at present. “2. That the united board shall fully carry put the loan expenditure of £15,500 in accordance with the scheme authorised by the ratepayers of the existing Horahia drainage district on January 21, 1926. "3. That the subdivision of the united district, if such is considered, necessary, should be generally on east and west line, and such that each subdivision has frontage to the Waihou River on the east and the Piakc or Awaitl River on the west. COSTS. "The costs incurred by the Government in making the- inquriy amounij to £43 12s 4d, and I have made an order whereby this, sum is to be paid in equal shares by tire two boards concerned. This order is being seived oh the, solicitors for the respective boards,.”