COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5158, 29 July 1927, Page 2

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

CASE AGAINST DRAINAGE BOARD.

EROSION AND FLOODING

A claim for"compensation for land washed away by a drain the banks of which were continually slipping, and for damage caused by flooding, was heard at the Courthouse Thames, on Tuesday. Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., was on the Bench, and with him as assessor were Messrs W. G. Hayward (appointed by claimant) and W. E. Hale (appointed by the Drainage Board). The claimant, Mrs T. Scott, of Turua (Mr Clendon), sought to obtain from the Hauraki United Drainage Board (Mr E. L. Walton) the sum of £lOO, being £25 for land alleged to have been washed away and £75 for damigo alleged to have been done to crops and pastures by flooding from the Willow Tree. Drain.

Mrs T. Scott, claimant, owner of the section of 50-odd acres on which 40 cows were wintered, contended that largely by reason of certain bl stin.:' work done in thte- Willow dr. in the banks were shattered -and slips- were frequent, with the result that much land was lost and the drain v.ater was permitted to flow on to the. farm, where pasture and crops or turnips and maize had been damaged.

Examined by Mr Walton, Mrs Scott admitted that beyond a litttle cropping little use was made of the land. She had not had the drain fenced, as she contended it was the board’s duty to protect the outlet and because the banks slipped so frequently that it was impossible to know where to place a fence with a chance of it being permanent. The drain had not been surveyed prior to the alleged damage. The original drain width prior to the damage was 14ft, according to the Drainage Board’s plans. Water from the river could flow to a certain extent up a drain on the native- reserve and overflow on to her land. The spoil from the Willow drain formed an efficient stop-bank which kept back the water in time of flood but there were no flaps on the internal drains, and the land b'e-ing lower than the water in the drain, flooding was caused. The Willow drain stop-bank was used as a road for her cows, and as: a result the efficiency of the stop-bank was impaired. To Mr Clendon witness stated that during wet weather there was a big body of water in the Willow drain. She had inspected thte • banks after the blasting and had found numerous cracks which would cause serious slipping. The flooding of her land was by water from the Willow drain and not from the depressions near the. trees. .

T. Scott, husband of the previous witness, confirmed what she had said. He. contended that blasting operations had shaken the banks, and they liad since slipped, with the result that the water now r came over the paddocks. Prior to the blasting there was no flooding, as the stopbank was efficient. A crop of turnips and a erop of maize had been spoilt by the flooding. This was. the best part of the farm, and it would not be sold at less than £BO an acre. To Mr Walton witness stated that t-li'c. land now in turnips had been cropped for the last three years. He would not sell the farm for less than £BO an acre, but would not pay that much for any other land on the Plains. The unimproved valuation of the section was £2O an acre. The grass had been sown after the land had been disced and harrowed. His son ran the farm, and witness could not say what- the cost of grassing had been. He was of opinion that the explosions had caused holes 10 feel deep at each place where blasting occurred. The concrete block was three-quarters of a chain away from the drain bank, and is now about three feet awa.y.

Re-examined by Mr Clendon, wit-ne-s stated that.sincte- the blasting tlie Drainage Board had not done anything to remedy the slipping of the banks.

T. Kenny, licensed surveyor, Paeroa, put in a plan showing the present widths of tlie drain which varied up to '5l feet, and the previous width which, according to information received, was .14' fetet. From these measurements he concluded that 47.2 perches of land had slipped into the drain and been- washed away.

Fred. Scott, son of the- claimant, stated that he had farmed the land for the past three years. Water came on to the farm at high spring tides, and at ordinary high tides, when there- was a quantity of water coming down the Willow Drain. Flooding came only from the Willow Drain. Three acres of crop had been destroyed by flooding.

In reply to Mr Walton witness* stated that he- had harrowed all the farm, and grassed certain portions. He estimated that it cost £7 or £8 to harrow and grass an acre of land. When the farm was bought seven years ago there was only one decent paddock. Since the blasting the slipping had been much worse. Chas. Dean, farmer, Orongo, gave evidence, of having ploughed parts of the farm. On one occasion the water came on to the land, and in a couple of hours the head of the plough was under water. Since the blasting the slipping had been frequent. A. C. Ansford, farmer, Turua, said that he knew Scott’s farm well. It was a. good property, worth as a farming proposition about £5O an acre. Outside the stop bank there was a considerable amount of erosion and more slips were likely to occur. As far as he could see. nothing had been done to prevent the flooding. The soil was exceptionally good, being blaelt loam with a quantity of shell. He did not think £25 was beyond the value of the 47 perches washed away. Treating it generally, he would say that the damage wa.s worth £4O. In reply to Mr Walton witness stated that the. particular land near the drain was very valuable, being composed of black soil and shell. He was of opinion the whole farm was well worth £5O an acre-. The unimproved valuation of £2O an acre was fair, and grassing could be done for £5 m- £6 an acre. Except for the

shell on the land near the drain the value, in his opinion, was £26 an acre. About four years ago the Willow Drain was about 14 feet wide. Wm. Madgwick farmer, Huirau Road, said that in his opinion the land washed away was worth from £5O to £55 an acre. If all the damage had been done to pasture the cost of renewing it would have been about £3O an acre a year. However, a stop bank could be erected for £lO, provided the erosion of the drain banks was stopped. To Mr Walton witness said that he would value- the farm at £5O an acre. All drain banks were subject to erosion, and in his opinion the erosion on the Willow Drain had been going on since the drain was made. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Opening the case for the defence, Mr E. Walton explained that the outlet for the Willow Drain was originally an old tidal creek. It had been straightened for a drain. As in all such eases slipping occurred more then in a newly dug drain. The Hauraki Drainage Board had constructed the outlet in 1917 to a 17ft top at the road, 24ft at the flodd-gate, and 25ft at the concrete block. In 1919 the flood-gate was installed, and later it was shallowed up a foot, as it had been placed too deep. Sime then only ordinary work had been done on the drain.

William Thomas Johnston stated that he had lived in Turua for 30 years and at one time had owned the land on the south side <ff the Willow drain and had resided there. In 191> he had laid back the drain from the road down to the concrete block. At that time the- drain was about ISft wide at the road and 25ft wide at the concrete block. It was very bad country for a drain, and in consequence the Drainage Board had decided on a one-to-one batter in an effort to get the banks- to stand up. No stop-banks were constructed, but the spoil was thrown on to the hanks. Since 1917 he had swilled out the drain channel, which was from two to three feet wide. The slurry, wiiicn was washed out to the river, was ■mostly dirt brought down by the rain from the banks, which cracked during a hot summer. At high spring tides when, there was an easterly wind the whole country was under ware”. Tn 1926, prior to the blasting, he bad sluiced out the channel, and again after the blasting. At that time there was no sign of the blasting on the banks. The holes were in the centre of the channel, and were about 15 or 18 inches deep. The old tidal creek -extended up past the place where the blasting had been done. There had not been much slipping in the drain in the last three years, and practically none since the blasting. The widening of the drain had been gradual over a number of years. At high tides water cams on to Scott’s land from near the trees, and even if the Willow drain was stop-banked the land would be liable to flooding at extra high tides'.

To Mr Clendon witness stated that the drain brought a large quantity of water from the- back country. The land would be flooded at extra high tides even if there was no water coming down the Willow drain-. A small amount of erosion took place every year, but it was very small. The drain was* made 25ft wide by him on instructions from a Drainage Board member. From observations mfide a fe-w days after the blasting no detrimental effect on the banks could be noted.

E. Fla veil, Hauraki United Drainage Board foreman, stated in I'eply to Mr Walton that he had inspected the drain in April of the years 1925, 1926, and 1927, but had not any great difference. Since last April he had inspected the area several times, and at high tides had seen Scott’s land being flooded by water which flowed over near the trees, but not from the drain. There was evidence to show that water had come over the land from the river on the northern side of the. outlet. The method used in removing the shell bar from the drain bottom was the only way. The blasting did not injure. the drain banks. On the southern drain-hank there was considerable evidence of tramping by titock, and this contributed very largely to the damage done. Slips were expected in most drains in the early winter, when the rain water soaked into the summer cracks. The slipping on the Willow drain was what wasj to be normally expected. To Mr Hayward witness said that in his opinion the country was lower along the riverbank than at the lowest part of the drain bank.

John McConnell, of Turua, an employee of the Hauraki Drainage Board for a number of years, stated iu- reply to Mr Walton that since the floodgate was. installed and shallowed the only work done had been sluicing the outlet. He remembered the place before the drain was constructed. It w f as a blind creek, practically the same as at present. At no time was the drain efficientl-- stop-banked. He had used 61b of explosives altogether. Tw;o or three plugs at a time were used, and about 30 shots were fired. None of the holes was more than 2ft deep, and no damage was done to the banks. Erosion had been going on steadily during the last ten years, and nothing out of the ordinary had occurred since the blasting. At the place where the blasting had occurred there was vegetation on the banks, showing that no slips had occurred. Mr Walton stated that he- was prepared to accept the valuation of £26 an acre given by Mr Ansford, witness for the claimant, and would not call evidence on the point. Evidence on the levels of the land in the district was given by Mr J. H. Adams, licensed surveyor, who produced a plan showing contours which proved that water would flow on- to the land near the trees before it would overflow from the drain, and that provided the original drain was 25ft wide the amount of eros-ion was only 26.9 perches.

The hearing was adjourned until Thursday, August 4.