HAURAKI UNITED AREA.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5067, 20 December 1926, Page 4

HAURAKI UNITED AREA.

DIVISION INTO DRAINAGE WARDS. / ■ LONG CONFERENCE BY BOARDS. The Hauraki and Horahia Drainage Boards met in conference at, Turua on Friday for the- purpose of arriving at an agreement ais. to the subdivision into wards pl the united district.

The matter had previously been dis.-

cusscd, but as no solution had been

arrived at the chairman and clerks of the two bodies were deputed to pro-

pound a system of subdivision and

submit it-to their respective boards. This was done, .and although the, Horahia; Board adopted the report, members were not, wholly satisfied. Tlier Hauraki Board did not agree witli or adopt the suggested subdivision.

The suggested subdivision placed the boundary of the Orongo estate as the boundary of the northern are.a, as it wag the boundary of the drainage districts. The next line proceeded up Ngataipua Road from the. Waihou River, thence along the northern boundary of sections 24 and 21 to the Kopuarahi-Kerepeehi road,. along which the line proceeded southward. The boundary o'f the next area was Piako Road and the Shell-bank Drain.

The line between the next two .areas followed up the Willow drain from the Waihou River to the Soldiers’ drain, and along that drain ,to the Piako River.

The, next line folio,wed the Thames Valley outlet to 'Huirau thence westward along that road .and between sections 27 and 29 to the Willow drain to the Loader-Greenway drain,, and along that drain and on to the Piako River. ' The Huirau Point formed p<n .area bounded by the lines mentioned and by the Te Kauri No. 2 drain. The next area ran 'from river to river, and was bounded on the south by the Wharepoa-Kerepeehi ’road .to the Kerepeehi corner, thence along Wair.au Road to and along the Racecourse drain.

.. The seventh inducted all the rest o'f the land.south of the Wharer. poa-Kerepeehi road to the boundary of the drainage district. Opening the conference, which was attended by all the members of the two boards with ,the exception 6f. Messrs McDuff, Thompson, and Davies, of the 'Horahia Board, Mr G. Gray, who presided, explained that his boa<rd (Hauraki) could not agree to the suggestion, but favoured its original suggestion of subdividing into seve.ll wards with a boundary along the watershed between - the .two rivers. The northern ward would have a frontage to both rivers, two wards would have a frontage to the Piako only, three wards were on the Waihou slope of the watershed/ and the southern ward was.from the Waihoir to the Els,tow Board’s area. ; ■ Continuing, Mr Gray said that at the meeting o'f the icommittee an agreement could not be- arrived at, so it was' agreed to differ- and leave the matter to the full conference.

In reply to Mr McMillan members of the. Horahia Board stated, indefinitely, that the committee’s conclusions had been adopted. Mr Heappey said that the recommended subdivision did not ’fulfil the Horahia Board’s policy of water-tight compartments. He quoted instances, and urged the adoption o'f drains as boundaries.

Mr McMillan criticised the design as creating more dual-coptrol drains.

Mr Miller said that the -only solatjon would be to go back to the Horahia Board’s recommendation of four wards bounded by ths Piako, Opchard East, and Wharepoa roads. •

Mr Hale pointed out .that the first members of the united board could recut the. area into- wards if they chose. 'As it seemed unlikely .that an would be reached he would suggest that each board submit its 'recommendation .to the Internal AfDepartment. That department could either cut up the area or order the., election to be taken over the whole area.

Mr Heappey said it would be a po«r lookout for ratepayers if it became necessary for the new board- to spend up to £lOO on special orde.rs' subdividing the district.

Mr McMillan suggested that each board appoint a representative, who would appoint an umpire. These three would be given a; free hand to draw up a subdivision scheme, which the. boards would accept without

cavil. It was obvious that the; members of the two board would be un-

likely to reach an agreement, even if

the conference lasted a month. TherQ was no'better man for the position of umpire than Mr E. Taylor, Wds drainage engineer.

Members agreed that the suggestion was a sound one, but an, argument ensued as to whethei - instructions should be given to divide the area int,o seven or any .other less number o’f wards. Mr McMillan moved that the cpihirmen of the two boards place the views; o'f their boards before Mr.®- Taylor, with the request that he subdivide t,hq area, and that’' his decision be final.

Mr Heappey seconded. Mi- Hale said he did not see how th© members of the Horahia; Board could vote on the matter, as that board had decided on an alternative in the event of no decision being arrived at.

Hauraki Board members criticised this as unfair. The Horahia members were at the conference with tied hands, and were not prepared tp give way to the other party on any point whatever.

Mr Kneebone explained that his bo'Ord had decided at tis last meeting that in the event o'f a disagreement at the conference the matter be referred to the Commissioner. Personally he was quite willing to refer the matter' to Mr E. Taylor, but the difficulty was to overcome the resolution in the minute book. The motion could not be rescinded, as all the members o’f the board were not present.

In reply to Mr Kneebone Mr Hale said that he could not see W solution out of the difficulty.

Mr Gray expressed the opinion that the resolution was out, of order, and Mr Heappey pointed out that it could be rescinded by the four members present if they were in agreement.

Mr McMillan said that it was. apparent the Horahia Board was naoie concerned with the number of than with the. boundaries.

Mr Miller said’he preferred to see four wards.

Mr McMillan asked why he did not raise an objection when the mattei’ came before the Horahia Board, meeting.

Mr Hale said that seeing the chairs man had given a, great deal o'f time and gone to much trouble in connection with The matter it would pot have been courteous .to raise an objection. Mr Hamilton asked why the fact of the motion having been carried Avas not made known earlier. As it av as, the whole Afternoon had been v/asted., ‘ 'Points of order having been raised, it was brought to light that the previous conference had passed resolutions which also required rescinding before progress, could be made. Mr Kneebone urged referring the matter, to the Commissioner.

Mr Hamilton voiced objection to this because, although the. Commissioner would probably refer the matter to Mr Taylor there Av'as no guarantee o-f this, and thus no way of ensuring that the representations of the .board would bo heard.

Mr McMillan suggested that his motion be altered to allow each board to submit its scheme to the Commissioner, AVith power to cut the area into seven wards if he thought fit.

Horahia members objected that they did not favour seven wards, but four. Their board had agreed to the seven wards; thinking it Avas meeting the AVishes of the Hauraki Board, but now that, arguments had arisen the four-ward division should be adhered to.

ilauraki members politted ovrt that the previous conference had agreed to seven subdivisions, and that the motion had not been rescinded.

Mr McMillan wanted to know what was behind the matter. It was obvious hat there' Avas, something. Mr-Miller said he was favourable to letting the, matter go to Mr Taylor for a straight seven wardsv though he djd not think the seven as good as ’four.

Pressure to finalise the matter led to the following motion being put to the vote :—

“That this conference of the Hauraki and Horahia Boards having failed to agree on the boundaries df the seven areas, the Hauraki Board and the Horahia Bo'aird submit their ideas of the boundaries to the .Commissioner for final decision.”

This Avas carried, as Messrs Kneebone, Gray, McMillan, Mules; Heappey; and Hamilton voted in support, while Messrs Miller, Hale, and Murray declined to vote.