DRAINAGE AREAS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5059, 1 December 1926, Page 3

DRAINAGE AREAS.

BASIS OF AMALGAMATION.

CONFERENCE (OF BOARDS.

A conference between the members of the Hauraki and Horahia drainage boards was held at Turua yesterday for the purpose of arriving at a basis of amalgamation, as desired by the Internal Affairs Department. The department suggested that the two . boards, should agree on the following points:— “The name-Of the united district, - and the - number of trustees on the nftw board. “That an agreement be made stipulating thait the existing loan rates shall continue to be a charge on the • same area~as hitherto. “Whether the district shall be sub-

divided prior io the first ejection, and, * if so, into what areas and with 1 what representation.” In connection with this clause the department drew attention to the following clause.in the report of the Commissioner: the subdivision off the united district, if such is considered necessary, shall be generally on east and west lines, and such that each subdivision has frontage to the Waihou River on fhft east and the Piako or Awaiti River on the west.” - “That! the boards agree on< a suitable person to act as a returning officer for the first election.” The, two boards were fully represented, and the two clerks were also present.

Mr G. Gray was elected chairman of the conference, and it was decided to take the items separately. Mr Hale moved, and Mr Mules seconded, that the number Of trustees be seven, and the name of the new board be “Hauraki United.”—Carried. The second clause was adopted without discussion. On the third point, that of subdivisions, it was moved by Mr Heappey, and seconded by Mr Hamilton, that the united district should be subdivided prior to the amalgamation into seveji wards. Members of the Horahia Board mentioned that it had .agreed on four subdivisions. Mr McDuff said he could not agree with the Commissioner’s finding that the area be divided from river to rivep.

Messrs Heappey and Mules pointed out .that such -a division would mean that a representative would have to attend to. a ward seven miles, long, and that there would not be a community of interest between the two sides. ......

Mr Miller explained the Horahia Board’s ideas, which were that the Whargpoa Road, Orchard East Road, Piako Road-S)hellbank, Te Kauri, and Thames Valley drains be the ward boundaries. These, with 1 1 the exception of the boundary which followed the Willow, Te Kauri No. 1, and Thames Valley drains,, wohld constitute watertight compartments. This latter boundary was discussed at length with a view to getting a watertight compartment, but no decision was arrived at Mr Gray changed the discussion by advocating a division along a watershed somewhere near the Kerepeehi Kopuarahi road. This would entail the constitution of two wards draining to the Piako River alone. A boundary could be'defined along section boundaries that would be near enough ‘for prajetica purposes. It was not possible to define the exact watershed, but there was no doubt that the area on each side o'f such a boundary drained generally ,tp its respective river. Mr McMillan supported the subdivision into seven wards as being the most likely to get the best representation. , -

Mr Hale opposed this, contending that the one man one area idea tended .to provoke intense parochialism. Each member would endeavour to get as much as possible ’for his ward. He was of opinion that ratepayers generally had sense enough to elect broad-minded men who would look to the, interests of the district, as a whole rather than to the interests of their own special ajreas. Mr Miller argued that dividing the area other than from river to river would be undesirable, as the,re would always be.arguments concerning the way the water flowed and the benefit received.

Discussion arose as to the voting strength Of the, two boards, and it was agreed that as one had seven members and the other five, in the event of the voting by boards each board should have one vote, in which case nd decision would be arrived at and the subdivision Would have to be referred to the neW board elected from the whole area.. It was thought that it would not be advisable to allow this, ajs the twelve experienced board present were better able to undertake the job than the s.eyen ink experienced members Of the united board. .. A large plan was produced ajnd a long informal discussion ensued. On an ajmendment that the district be divided into four wards the voting was four for-and seven against, and the; ■ motion to divide into seven wards was then carried on a seven to four division. . Mr Gray suggested that now it had been agreed that there should be seven subdivisions the two boards ' should divide the area and hold a further meeting to settle the matter. Mr Mi 11 Ar pointed out that the greatest obstacle had been overcome, and it should be easy to finalise the npiatter at the conference,. Further informal discussion followed, but as. time was getting on and no solution was arrived at it was, agreed that the two chairmen and the two clerks formulate a subdivision, refAr it to each board separately, and then the two boards meet to finalise the matter. .THE FIRST ELECTION. The next requirement was the appointment of a returning officer for ■.the first election. Mr McDuff moved that Mr W. E. G. Willy be appointed. This was seconded by Mr Mules and DATE OF FUSION. Mr Hale moved, and Mr Heappey seconded, that the amalgamation take ;place from April 1, 1927.—Carried.