HORAHIA-OPOU DRAINAGE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5243, 24 February 1928, Page 4

HORAHIA-OPOU DRAINAGE

BOARD’S PROPOSAL OPPOSED.

DECISION DEFERRED. ■The vexed question of the drainage of the Opbu district, lying between the Orchard East and Wharepoa roads and the Turua-Netherton and Kere-peehi-Kopuaralii roads, which lias been under discussion for very many years, had another good innings u,t the meeting of the Hauraki United Board on Friday last bur no finality was reached. OPPONENTS’ PETITION. A petition was received from J. (’• Miller, junr., R. L. Davis, E. C. Barriball, R. Hutchinson, M. Alack, W. McComb, F. L. Loader, A. A. Fisher, W. Greenway, S. 0. Phelps, and A. H. Green protesting against the board’s proposal to construct a drain from the south-west corner of Mr Loader’s section to the northern boundary of section 13. The protest was made on the grounds that excessive maintenance would be caused, that the sections could be well served by improving the Zig-zag drain which would necessitate little maintenance, and that improvements to the Zig-zag drain would' afford better drainage facilities to other 'sections not benefited by the board’s proposal. SUPPORTERS’ PETITION. Dick Shilton, J. E. and G. H. Meuli, and. E. Shilton wrote aunporting the board’s proposal, and pointing out that the petition in- opposition was by disinterested settlers whose opinion should not carry any weight. SIGNATURES- WITHDRAWN. E, C. Barriball, A. A. Fisher, and S. 0. Phelps wrote asking, that their names be withdrawn from the petition in opposition as they 1 ad not known when signing that the hoard had decided! to construct the Bagnall drain if the Loader-Greenway drain proved inadequate. Mr McDuff reported that Mr N. Alach had stated that the position had been misrepresented to him and he now d'esired his signature to be removed from the petition. ASSURANCES REQUIRED. Frank Lbader wrote intimating that the board’s proposal would necessitate the removal of two pig shelters, four chains of concrete path, and sundry fences. He desired an assurance that these would be reinstated in good cider, and failing such, an assurance he entered an objection to work being done on his side of. the drain. W. Greenway wrote-agreeing to the improvement of the Loader-Greenway drain provided the fences were reerected and the spoil graded back and the batter made one-to-one. He objected to the proposed drain} through his land, contending that it would cause the flooding of his property and congestion in all neighbouring outlets. Mr Hamilton stated that the shelters could easily be removed, and it should not be costly to remove the concrete strip if it was found necessary. He doubted whether it would.be necessary. . Mr Thompson said that some time ago Mr Greenway had 5 signed a petition asking for the drain to be constructed. ■Mr Murray said that the board had thought it had : solveff the problem, but it appeared that no matter what was proposed there. w as opposition. ■Mr -McDuff expressed the opinion that the danger was a bogey. He would not support spending -another penny on the Zig-zag drain. This wafei supported by Mr J. M<_ Thompson. A BIG. DEPUTATION. Messrs F. Loader, N. Green, E. C. Barriball, K. Fox, W. Clark, J. Robinson, L. Kenwood, J. Hamilton, R. L. Davis, J. C. Miller, junr., H. Innes, A. J. Heaseman, J. A. Bennett, J. Newman, and W. McComb waited upon the board and presented many aspects of the question. The general objection was on account of the cost of maintenance, and there was- a body of opinion' in favour of deferring the matter until, after the winter, when the effect of the many other improvements would be tried out.

The cliairmap stated! that th? whole district had to be taken into consideration. The board, had decided 1 to put in this drain a’s, a trial. If it did not prove sufficient, the drain through Bagnall’s would be constructed. The board was fully alive to the position;, and ratepayers should be content to leave the matter in its hands. Mr J. C. Miller said his opinion was that all extensions to the drainage system should be deferred until the existing works had been tried, out.

Mr McDuff asked Mr Miller if he would have all the resolutions of the previous special meeting rescinded.

At this point discussion was stopped and the deputation withdrew. 'When the matter came up later Mr McDuff moved that Mr Greeirway’s objection be met in the manner laid diown in the Lands Drainage Act. Seconded by Mr Thompson.

As this would imply that the work was to be continued Mr Miller moved as an amendment that no money be spent until after the existing system had been tested next winter, and tnat, if it was not satisfactory, an engineer be employed to evolve a solution. This was supported by Mr Hamilton.

The chairman ruled that this amendment was out of, order as it conflicted with a decision of the previous meeting. Discussion continued for a l°ng time. Messrs McDuff and Kneehone contended that little notice should be taken of the deputation. It was "well known: that anyone would sign a petition or attend with a deputation, and in this case support had been gathered indiscriminately'. Later on Mr Miller’s amendment was stated to be a notice of motion for the next meeting.

The motion was then put, and was supported by Messrs Kneebone, Thompson, and McDuff and opnosed: by Messrs Hamilton, Hicks. Miller, and the chairman.