RIVAL SCHEMES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5066, 17 December 1926, Page 2

RIVAL SCHEMES.

LIVELY DRAINAGE DEBATE. \ RESPONSIBILITY SHELVED. Drainage schemes for the Horahia drainage district’s end df the lowlying area of land near. Orchard East Road caused a long debate at yesterday’s meeting of the Horahia Drainage Board. BAGNALL’S DRAIN. A petition signed by Messrs. J. C. Miller, junr., N. Green, F. L. Hamilton, R. M. Hutchinson, E. C. Barriball, W. Greenwpy, J. C. Cleland, and H. Innes was handed in by Mr Davies, requesting the board to endeavour to co-operate with the, Hauraki Board in the construction of Bagnall’s drain, and the moneys savied on Price’s drain and Louch-McDuff drain be used for the construction of the said Baghall’s drain. Mr J. M. Thompson commented that it was a funny position that hq, as district representative, had not beein advised of the petition by the other member for the’ area. He would strenuously oppose transferring mW as suggested, as further work was necessary .on Price’s and the LouchMcDuff outlets. Pumps were very necessary. . The clerk stated that he had secured a legal opinion to the effect that the money could not be utilised for installing pumps. Mr Thompson asserted that it would be an imposition on the southern area to utilise, its moneys in Bagnall’s outlet, This proposed work had been, discussed on several occasions and had been turned down. The chairman asked how Mr Davies proposed to get ■ the Co-operation q® the Hauraki Bobird. It had also turned down the proposition. Mr Davies said that the board should take notice of the petition, as it was.signed by all the settlers from the Kerepeehi corner to the Te Kauri drain. Thq chairman said that some settlers would sign anything. There were some of the" same signatures on ■a. contrary-petition. Messrs Thompson and Davies argued at length on the merits and demerits of the proposed drain through Bagnall’s. Mr Davies contended that all the settlers would be given relief?, including Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson argued that the drain would only benefit the ffarm of Mr R._ L. Davies. In view of the fact that a further petition was to be received in an hour or two the chairman closed the argument till. then; f THE RIVAL SCHEME. The second petition was signed by Messrs A. E. Hunter, D. Shilton, J l . M. Thompson, H. Innes, C. Smith, and W. Greenway. Greenway had signed subject to the proviso that the board guaranteed to provide efficient outlets for water brought down to the proposed drain.

The petition asked the; board to improve the Loader-Greenway drain and continue sajne across sections 15 No. IL, No. 8, No. 9, No. 13 to No.. 10’. To give relief to some Of the farms which' were a mile and a half long the pqtitiohers were of the opinion that the drain suggested was the only solution. The petition > concluded: “And we would like to remind the mqmbers Of the board of the promise they made after the inspection, that if Te Kauri drain went in, relief would be given to this particular area, bind we hold you to your promise.” With t,he petition was a note from W. Greenway withdrawing his name from the petition for improving Bagdrain. He had been led to believe that this drain was to connect with the Zig-zag or Willow* Tree drains.

Mr A; E. Hunter waited upon the boajrd in support of this petition and in opposition to the Bagnall drain proposal. He reminded the r board of statements made during the tour of inspection agreeing on the necessity for an outlet to serve the area.

A plan was produced, and members crowded round it, but the discussion was impossible to report.. as drains were referred to as. “this” drajin or “that” outlet running from “herei” to “therq,” etc. Mr J. C. Miller advocated getting the report of an outside engineer, and in this was. supported by some of the other members, but the idqa was swamped in the endless argument between Messrs Davies and Thompson. Mr Thompson moved that the Loadey-Greenway drain be improved and extended to Mr H. Innes’ section.

Mr Kneebone urged employing an engineer to go into the matter. • Mr Thompson said that only 60' chains of new drain was necessary,, and the levels were available. ■ The chairman said that there was: such a diversity of opinion that a proper sjirvey would be desirable. Mr McDuff seconded the motion. Mr Kneebone said that ,the work; should not be done until the Te Kauri drain was improved. Mr Thompson said that one of the outlets would surely be cleaned next winter. After further discussion the motion was enlarged to read that .the Te Kauri No. 2-Loader-Greenway drain be improved and a new drain be made to go back to limes’ farm" across-country at the back o’f the'sections fronting Orchard East Road.

Mr Hale said he was not prepared to vote on this in view of the two opposing petitions. This was supported by Messrs Murray, McDuff, and Miller, and Mr Hale ■moved that an engineer be employed to bring forth a scheme Tor the area. Mr Murray seconded.

Mr Thompson considered this unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. The motion was carried, Mr Thompson voting against it. Mr Thompson moved that Mr E. F. Adams be employed as the engineer. On Mr Davies seconding the motion there were loud cheers from members,, the occasion being the first for some time that the two Kerepeehi members had been in agreement.