FLOODGATE LOCATION

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5494, 30 October 1929, Page 1

FLOODGATE LOCATION

SANDBANK SITE ADOPTED.

NETHERTON BOARD ARGUMENT

Further discussion took place at the monthly meeting of the Netherton Drainage Board concerning the vexed question of the location of a floodgate, and on this occasion a decision in favour of the sandbank site was adopted. The matter was introduced by the assistant engineer of the Public Works Department, Paeroa, who wrote on September 10 as follows : “In reply to your letter of the sth inst., inquiring as to results obtained from further investigations as to drainage between Simm’s property and Drain H, I have to advise that it is found that drainage can be obtained from this property to Drain H, allowing a drain 2ft 6m below ground level at Simm’s and falling at gin per chain to Drain H. In view of this, a better drainage would be provided by installing the floodgate alongside the Ngahina bridge, and this work will be carried out in due course.”

Further to this, Mr Grant wrote on October 7 advising that he had received a letter from Messrs Reid, Dean, Bain, and Simm requesting that this flood-gate be installed near the sand dump approximately 30 chains upstream from the Ngahina bridge. As this flood-gate was to be installed in answer to the board’s representations, it was proposed that the board’s decision as to its location would be agreed to. The responsibility of the department in the matter was the installation of the flood-gate, and connecting drains from the roadside drain to the river. The writer asked to be advised of the board’s final decision as to where the gate was to be installed, so that the work could be carried out at an early date. This decision had been communicated to the settlers making the representations. It would appear that these settlers were those who would get most direct benefit from this flood-gate, and consequently it would seem reasonable to locate it where they desired.

In reply to this the clerk advised having circulated the letters to members so that a reply could be sent prior to the meeting. The position, however, was that the matter had been settled. Originally a deputation requested the board to ask the department to instal the gate at the Ngahina bridge. This the department had agreed to, and the proposiiton had been accepted by the board and later confirmed in response to a further request by the department. At the last meeting the letter of September 10 was shown to a deputation of the settlers concerned, and they appeared to be quite satisfied. The board had alread twice confirmed the site at the Ngahina bridge, and in view of the last paragraph of the letter of September 10 would appear to be following the assistant engineer’s opinion as to this being the best site in the circumstances.

Mr Reid advocated improving Wilson’s roadside drain to Drain H and not installing" a flood-gate at either site. He said that this scheme would provide adequate drainage according to the investigations of the Public Works Department’s engineer. Mr Thornton had consistently opposed installing a flood-gate in this area.

A resolution on these lines was moved by Mr Reid. Mr Johnson asked how Mr W. Reid’s land would be affected. Mr J. A. Reid said that he and Mr E. A. Chester had agreed that the Wirihana drain should be continued and deepened by 2ft 6in to serve Mr W. Reid’s land. It was obvious that the three other members of the board had not troubled to investigate the problems of the H Drain area, but had consistently voted against anything brought forward by the two area members in support of the undertaking entered into by the settlers and the Public Works Department prior to the constitution of the board.

The chairman said he deplored the introduction of parochialism, and expressed the view that all members had treated all matters brought forward to the best of their ability. Members had been elected over the whole areaa, and he contended that no one could say any member had treated any area unfairly. The motion lapsed for want of a seconder, and the chairman moved that the assistant engineer be replied to that in view of the statement in his letter of October 7, the board was agreeable to the flood-gate being put in at the sandbank instead of at the bridge site. Seconded by Mr Halligan.

As an amendment Mr Reid moved that the board adhere to its previous decision in favour of the Ngahina bridge site as communicated to the Public Works Department.

In support of this Mr Reid argued that there were other settlers to be considered than those who had been active in making representations to the board and the department.

The amendment lapsed for want of a seconder, and the motion was carriied, Mr J. A. Reiid dissenting.