CONTROL OF THE LAKE.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 15 January 1918, Page 3

CONTROL OF THE LAKE.

A meeting of the Horowlienua Lake Domain Board was held last evening. Present: Messrs H. B. France, A. Dempsey, F. Parker, li. Aitken, J. Brougliton, Hanita Henare, and Eparaima Paki. The secretary Mr B. 11. Gardener read the following letter from Messrs Wilford, Levi and Jackson, solicitors: — Dear Sir:—We are instructed by Mr Hanita. Henare as representing the Native owners concerned to write to your Board protesting against a proposal to deepen, straighten and divert the Hokio stream which we un. derstand has been adopted by your Board at its last meeting. • _ j Our clients' special objection to the proposed work is that it | will seriously interfere with the eel fisheries of the Natives in the stream there being some nine or ten eel pahs in the portion of the stream which it is proposed to interfere with. It is however quite clear that your Board has no power to carry out the proposed works." The Board's powers in respect to the Hokio stream are those contained in section 97 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Act, 1910. Subsection 7 of that Sect, ion gives the Board (with respect to the Hokio stream and a strip of land on each side) the powers conferred on a local. authority by part 111 of the Land Drainage Act 1908. Under part 111 of the Land Drainage Act 1908 (Section 61) a local authority is given the powers exercised by Boards under part I of that Act but only "in regard to the cleaning, repairing or otherwise maintaining of watercourses or drains." On turning to part I of the Act it is seen by Section 17 (which enumerates the powers of the Board) that subclause (a) empowers the Board to cleanse repair o rotherwise maintain in a due state of efficiency any existing watercourse etc. whilst subclause (b) empowers the Board to deepen -widen straighten divert or otherwise improve any existing watercourse etcThe two powers are quite distinct and it is beyond question that Section 61 empowers a local body to do only the acts comprised in subclause (a) of Section 17.

The proposals of your Board are expressly within the words of subclause (b) of Section 17 and your Board is not given the powers under, that subclause. It cannot be contended that your Bbard's proposals (the deepening straightening and di. verting of the stream) come within the words of subclause (a) as even if the words "maintain in a due state of efficiency" were wide enough to cover the proposed works, the express language of subclause (b) is conclusive (according to the well known rules of interpretation) that the powers thereby expressly given cannot be intended to be already given by subclause (a). ' . It is clear that subclause (a) merely provides for the proper maintenance of the stream in its existing, bed whilst subclause (b) privides for its alteration. We are therefore instructed to give your Broad notice that should your Board persist in its intention to commence the works proceedings will be immediately commenced in the Supreme Court to restrain the Board by injunction. We may also point out that the fishing rights of the Natives in the Hokio stream are ex. pressly protected by Section 2 of the Horowhenua Lake Act 1905 as amended by Subsection 9 of Section 97 of The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act

191(i. This in itself entitles the Natives to prevent your Board carrying out works which will interfere with their eel fish-

Mr Gardener said he had drafted the following reply to the above statement:

Dear Sir, re HoEio stream: — Your letter dated the 11th January 1918, duly to hand, and in reply I have to inform you

that your client, Mr llaniia Henare, has misinformed you on the subject; no such proposal as outlined in your letter has bet-u adopted by my Board.

Hanita Henare, who is a native member of the Board, was present at the meeting held on November 12th. and did not oppose the following and only motion which was passed on the matter: "That the secretary be instructed to write to the Horowhenua County Council, and ask if it would allow their Engineer, Mr Malcolm, to proceed with his ideas of keeping the Lake at a permanent level, with a view of submitting plans to the Horowhenua Council and the Lake Domain Board."

It will be seen that no such proposal contained in your letter was adopted. All the Board is endeavouring to do is to keep the waters of the Lake at a per. manent level, so as not to be continually flooding the lands surrounding the Lake. We are well aware of the Native fishing rights, but you are also well aware, that no owners of the Lake or any others, are allowed to flood the neighbouring lands. My Board is using its best endeavours botii in the interest of the natives and the land-owners around the Lake, who are affected by the water. Mr Den ipsev s.ud _ perhaps Hanita H< uare could give some explanation of luV action. It was certainly due the Board. Mr Parker u aid Mr Gardener's letter was quite clear and he did not think more could be added-

It must be remembered that the ! lawyers' letter was on behalf of a client and perhaps another authority would see the matter in a different light.. He did not know whether Hanita Henare realised that he had given his lawyers a wrong impression. The Board liad made no such proposal as was mentioned in the letter and Mr Hanita certainly owed the meeting an apology. He was present when the resolution was carried an,d so had no excuse. The speaker did not think it fair for any member to go outside the Board and put the position unfairly and incorrectly to anyone, let alone to a solicitor.

Mr Aitken thought they should have some explanation from Mr Hanita. They would like to think he misunderstood the position but could hardly do so in the face of the facts.

The chairman said there was a scheme in the air for doing some work, and of course they could not blame the natives for looking after their rights.

Mr Gardener: But there is no such scheme as is suited in the letter.

The chairman: We asked the County Council to prepare a. scheme. iTou seem inclined to blamie Hanita for moving in the matter, but I believe the natives are perfectly within their rights in taking legal advice. It is true, however, that the lawyers' letter is incorrect and to that Mr Gardener's letter is the obvious and proper reply. I don't think, though that we ought to cast any reflection on Hanita for moving.

Mr Dempsey: I differ with you. There is a definite statement in the letter that this Board has decided to divert the course 'of the stream. That is an error and Hanita should give the Board some explanation.

The chairman: Well, we are quite willing to hear it.

Mr Dempsey: We have a perfect right to hear it.

Mr Aitken said that when the scheme was put before the Board, if there was any proposal likely to affect the native rights due consideration would be given to it.

The chairman moved that Mr Gardener's draited reply be forwarded-

Members made another effort to get 'Hanita's views on the subject, but he had nothing to say. Eventually, as the result of some conversation between the native members of the Board, it was reported that Hanita stated he had not instructed the sending of the letter, but had only asked the solicitors to watch the native interests.

The chairman's motion was then carried.

CLEARING THE OUTLET

Mr Gardener said Air Malcolm was not quite ready with his report on Saturday and if they waited another month and then 'spent more time 'discussing 1 the matter the winter would have come before anything had been done to release the waters of the Lake. That would mean the flooding of the land again and all the old trouble. He therefore suggested clearing the outlet of the Hokio stream and so letting some of the water away and the rest about June. The chairman and Mr Broughton supported the suggestion stating that a lot of raupo and weeds were blocking the outlet of the stream. After discussion as to whether the County Council should be approached to do the work. Mr Aitken moved that the native members of the Board be asked to make proposals to the secretary for the clearing of the Hokio stream as soon as possible and the cost of the work. This was carried, it being pointed out that the County Council would not be able to get labour and the _ natives would see that none of their rights were interfered with.

A vote of thanks to the chair closed the meeting.