DRAINAGE APPEALS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5182, 23 September 1927, Page 3

DRAINAGE APPEALS.

OBJECTIONS TO CLASSIFICATION. CONTINUATION OF HEARING. The hearing of the appeals by settlers of the Hauraki United Drainage District against the classification recently made of their 1 art d s for rating purposes was continued at the Magistrate’s Court, Thames, yesterday. The (hearing was commenced on August 5, when ten of the 40-odd appeals were stated. On August 17 Mr E. L. Walton stated the case for the. defence of the board and its classifier (Mr W. E. G. Willy), apd yesterday Mr E. J. Clendon, on behalf of the objectors, answered Mr Walton and closed the case, of the appeals then stated. In opening Mr Clendon expressed regret that he had not had an opportunity of conferring with his clients since the previous hearing. Mr W. R. Johnson, drainage engineer, Waihou, was; the first witness called by Mr Clendon. He states that when preparing the statement'of classification put in at thQ previous hearing he had taken the amount, of benefit received from the drainage works as the basis for his classifications. The nature of the works had teen briefly explained on the; statement. He now wished to illustrate the subject, and would quote as a typical case the sections of A. C. Ansford, which had a 20-chain frontage to the TuruaNetherton road, on which there was a drainage board drain. This was the only board drain for a 156%-acrei farm which was a mile deep. The landowner had had to construct three longitudinal drains and four cross drains totalling 240 'chains and costing with the necessary bridges about £440, or £2 17s an acre. In addition to this capital cost there was the cost of annual maintenance. He also quoted another case, in which there were board drains on three sides of the farm, yet internal drains costing £1 14s 4d an acre to construct had been made. Both these farms had been classed A under the recejit classification.

From a balance-sheet of the late Hauraki Drainage Board Mr Johnson quoted figures, relative to the> valuation of the land in the various classifications, ’ thereby showing thej revenue of the board. Esti,mating that it cost 4s a chain to maintain the 2369 chains of drains, and that administration cost £196 17s 2d and supervision £2OO, he showed that there would be an excess of £169 Ils 7d, 'which was plenty of margin. To Mr Walton witness admitted that if some land was wrongly classifieri lower than it deserved an injustice would be done the other lands in the which would have to be rated higher to produce the necessary revenue for the, board. Mr Walton observed that this showed that a universal classification of “A” would be fairer than a faulty division into four classes. Witness was examined at length by Mr Walton concerning his inspection of several farms belonging to absentee owners. Witness had not re-

c&ived instructions from these men, but only from the committee, Messrs G. Gray, R. Baker, and R. Heappey, whom he understood were acting for the obj°jctors\ Referring to witness’s previous evidence Mr Walton .suggested that the examination of the Gumtown Road area had been made at the time of high tide, and whem there was a blockage in a certain drain. On Mr Johnson quoting a certain writer as a recognised authority on drainage matters Mr Walton a&ked if the book could be produced, and on this being done Mr Walton drew his attention to a certain diagram dealing with classification showing that all flat swamps such as Hauraki Plains should be classed as A. :■ To Mr Clendon witness stated that he had classified the lands of the objectors as enumerated: in a list supplied by the objectors’ solicitor. An adjournment of the Court was then granted Mr Clejidon to enable him to confer with his clients. On resuming Mr Olendon stated that with the exception of Messrs W. G. Hayward arid W. Lawr&nce his clients were satisfied. Mr W. G. Hayward was then examined- He contended that his case was quite different from the rest, as the location prevented, gravity drainageand a pump costing £230 had had to be installed to shift the water which flowed off the higher land by way of the board drains and flooded his land. In normal times the board drains were sufficient, but in wet spells pumping was essential to prevent flooding. This fact was recognised by the members of the old Horahia Drainage Board, which body had taken, steps to raise a loan for pumps in the area. To Mr Walton witness said he felt that he was suffering an injustice as a promise to have a flap installed had not been kept. His land would not be farmable but for thei arterial drains and the river stop-banks. The Government had not made an allowance in the matter of classification for the land on the Puhanga Island block, which was served by a privately owned pump, and the settlers on the northern side of Orchard East Road who had invested in a pump had not objected to their classification. He had not objected to the “A” classification of his farm by the Horahia Drainage Board as he had not known that he had the, opportunity of doing so. To Mr Clendon witness stated that his farm was stop-banked on two Sides. He claimed that as the board was leading water from the high land it should have made provision to put it into the river. Mr W- Lawrence, an adjoining landowner and an objector, endorsed and admitted that all Mr Hayward had baid applied to his case. This closed the evidence for th& applicants. Summing up, Mr. Clendon said.that the matter was of the utmost importance to the unfortunate settlers concerned, to the Drainage Board, and to all the’drainage boards, in the Dominion. Much extraneous argument and evidence had beejn submitted, possibly with the idea of smothering the point. The classification made was arbitrary, unfair, and directly opposed to the

practice which had obtained in the past in every drainage district in New Zealand. The question which had been submitted to the Court was the basis of 'classification, whereas what should be determined was the purpose of the legislation. All the obwere made on the ground that the classification was unfair. Statutes were to be construed on their fairne.ss. The classification was for taxation purposes;, and the Court must accept the rule in favour of ratepayers rather than in favour of the taxing body. It was laid down that in all cases of doubt the construction most, beneficial to the subject must be adopted. ! If the system suggested was approved by the Court it would mean upsetting the practice of all othbr drainage boards. Dealing with sections of the Act, Mr Clendon submitted that provision for the four classes was not made with purpose, but was intended to be used. A classification was to be made to sort out the lands into the four classes, and the Act expressed the graduations to be adopted as being the amount of benefit received from the works of drainage boards. Natural draining facilities were not to be considered.

A section of the Act stated, that every rate* was; to be levied on a graduated scale, but it provided that where special conditions prevailed a drainage board could be authorised by the Govqrnor-Gen&ral-in-Council to make a uniform rate over the whole district. By classifying all the land in the Hauraki United Board’s district as, A, the classifier was making a fiat rate. The board had no right to impose a flat rate without the consent of the Govejrnor-General-in-Coun-cil, arid had it desired a flat rate it should have gone about it in a proper way, without seeking a. back-door method.

Still reviewing sections of the Act, Mr Clendon said that the pointsi were: (1) difference in benefit; (2) difference in classification; and (3) difference in rate. This construction had been adopted by all boards since 1908. It was not possible for anyone to believe that all the land in thtei Hauraki United Drainage District received the same benefit. The point was very obvious.

Mr Clendon then dealt with the wording of the sections which stiuplated the means of determniing the graduation, contending that it was quite clear and could not be overcome legally. It was intended that the guiding point in making classifications was to be the proximity to board drains.

Mr Walton’s contentions apd references were then examined by Mr ‘‘Clendon, who contended that they were without substantiation, and the previous cases were not on a par and were therefore of no, value.

Dealing with the evidence submitted, Mr Clendon claimed that the Court should decide in favour of the appellants, as the weight of their evidence had overwhelmed that of the defendant board. The five-wit-nesses for the objectors; were disinterested men of vast experience, and had detailed the usual procedure, and supported the practice, . contending that Mr Willy’s classification was not a. classification at all. He was prob--aby the tool of .the board. Referring briefly to particular cases Mr Clendon contended it was scandalous that lands which had been stop-banked and provided with outlets, rind in some cases even floodgates, by the owners, had been classified “A,” as though receiving immediate and direct benefit from works of the board. Likewise the stop-banks being erected by the Public Works Department should not be taken into consideration as works of the board. Concluding,'Mr Clendon urged that in arriving at a decision the Court should, support the usual method of classification, thereby deciding fairly, according to the benefits received. Mr Walton pointed out that should the Court not decicte on the general principles in his favour, he had reserved the right to lead evidence in combat of that of Mr Johnston on the individual cases.

The Magistrate stated that he would go through the question and see if he could come to a decision on the general principles. If not, counsel would be advised.