PIAKO RIVER WHARVES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5052, 15 November 1926, Page 2

PIAKO RIVER WHARVES.

ATTITUDE OF DEPAiRTiMEiNT. LITTLE PROGRESS MADE. For. some considerable time the Lands Drainage ’ Department has been endeavouring to dispose of the wharves built by jt on Piako bridge and at Waitakaruru. The Hauraki Plains County Council, was .asked to purchase these wharves, ajnd after, much negotiation the price was fixed at £3500.

The council at no time has sought the wharves, but it has stated the very strong objection of the settlers to the Thames Harbour Board being granted the control, and for the purpose of preventing this, has continued the negotiations and made certain investigations. The matter was not hurried, but at the July meeting of the council the chairman reported that: he had interviewed the chief drainage engineer, Mr O. N. Campbell, and had asked him to consider the tollowing questions: (1) to reduce the price; (2) to undertake legislation giving the County Council power to collect dues on all goods arriving into or shipped from the river ; and (3) to put all the wharves in working order. The following reply was received at Thursday’s meeting of the council from the chief drainage engineer:—

“This department is not prepared to consider any further reduction in the price of .these wharves; Please see my letter of May 8 (fixing the price and terms of payment), and also section 15 of the ‘Hauraki Plains! Act.’

“Legal advice has been sought in connection with the matter of making a charge against all freight entering the river. This advice is as follows.: ‘I am asked whether, if, under section 11 of the Harbours Act, 1923, the powers of a harbour board are conferred on the Haunaki Plains County Council with respect to the navigable portion of the Piako River, the County Council can impose a toll on all cargo trajnsported on the Piako River, whether it is landed at a recognised wharf or not. I am of opinion that it cannot. There does not appear to be any provision in the Harbo'urs Act which enables a harbour board to levy a toll on all cargo coming within the limits of a harbour over which it exercises control. I agree with your view that the County Council can levy the harbourmaster’s fees and port charges authorised by section 226 (10), but that sub-section does not authorise a toll on all cargo carried within the limits of the .harbour. The County Council has, I think, power under .section 226 to make, by-laws which would compel shippers to land all cargo on the County Council’s wharves, and if it did this, then under sub-section 12 it could fix scales of dues, tolls, and charges to be paid for the use of such wharves.’ It may, therefore, continued the chief drainage engineer, be possible, to do> something in this direction. ’’The department is. prepared, in theievent of your council purchasing the wharves, to expend a sum not exceeding £2so' in putting them in good running order.” Cr. Mayn said that the council did not”want the wharves, but it certainly did not want the Thames Harbour Board to get the control. Cf|s. Madgwick and Harris did not see why the Harbour Board should not have the wharves.

In view of the contentions nature of the matter it was agreed that the letter be received, and that the question could be opened at some later date by notice dt motion.