Kaeaea Drainage Board.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 291, 3 September 1910, Page 5

Kaeaea Drainage Board.

To the Editor. Sir,—ln a letter appearing in your issue of the 13th inst., over the signature of F. Elwood, the writer in dealing with the proposed drainage district at Kaeaea, betrays such a feeble grasp of his subject a that it must be clear to your readers that he would have done himself greater honour to have remained silent. Does Mr Elwood believe, that drainage districts are con-

stituted by so simple a process a-< by the mere publication of such a paragraph as that to which he refers? I cannot think he is so ignorant. It is my opinion that the writer has thus sacrificed*, his claims to enlightenment in order to- frustrate a progressive move. However, I trust that there are few interested in the proposal who have so Little knowledge of the position as to be led astray by his remarks. 1 can assure your correspondent that those who are responsible for Ibis movement are not inspired by selfish motives. They do not wish to bring about a state of affairs whereby Mr El wood will be required to find the wherewithal to drain his neighbour's swamps. They merely wish to bring into operation here a measure which has doubtless been placed on the Statute Book in order to inset just such contingencies as obtain in this district. Here the natural waterways are obstructed to such an extent as to provide inadequate outfall for the drainage water from the low-lying lands along their courses. It is in just such cases that the Land Drainage Act can with mutual advantage be brought into operation. It is not a case for any individual settler to "get his coat off" and tackle. The benefit is mutual, within the low-lying area, and so also should the responsibility be. Referring again to Mr Elwood's expressed fear of undue taxation I might here quote from section 32 of' The Land Drainage Act, 1908," which provides that "All lands in any district or sub-division which, by their configuration or other physical causes, are excluded from deriving any possible benefit from drainage works shall be exempted from all rates to be levied in respect of such works." This should show to Mr Elwood that the law does not admit of any "gross injustice" being perpetrated in this respect. It is plain that only those who are benefited by the board's works pay the rate and provision is also made that -those pay only in proportion to the amount of benefit they derive. Had your correspondent troubled to learn this earlier he might have rested peacefully on many a night on which probably anguish possessed his soul in the fear he may be taxed to drain "those large pieces of swamp." I do not agree with Mr Elwood that "it is far too early in the history of our settlement to talk of drainage boards." Now is the time. But it is not for the worthy knight of hammer and chisel to know the advantages of keeping draining apace with ridge cultivation. Sir, as the primary promoter of this project I am well satisdfied with the promises of support, and despite your correspondent's adverse statements, I am assured that support is forthcoming from the necessary majority of occupiers within the proposed area. —I am, etc., C. J. RIDDLE.