Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, OCT. 16, 1894. A River Board.

Manawatu Herald, 16 October 1894, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, OCT. 16, 1894. A River Board.

♦ Since last drawing attention to the advisability of forming a River Board for the area comprised in the swamp lands near Fox ton, we have learnt that there is a feeling of doubt as to whether the carrying out of protective works might not lead to litigation with the owners of lands on the other:side of the river who aro not disposed to take any action to help themselves. At the first glance of the case it might appear reasonable for the owner of unembanked land to I grumble at the action of those who had embanked opposite to him, a3 undoubtedly more water would find its way over his land when the river j was in flood. The river channel is large enough for all ordinary water, but never has been for flood water. In any case therefore unembanked lands have, and will, receive a por tion of the water which the river is unable to take all at once. The trouble is therefore not the water but the quantity of it. If the settlers on one side of a river agree to embank the flood waters off their property they appear to be doing no harm, they are simply taking ordinary precautions and are in no way interfering with the ordinary run of the river. 'Ihey obtain no monopoly of banking as the dwellers on !

the other side have the same legislation to procet^ under) and can. if they so desire, embank their pro perties Ib is not open to argument that because one set of settlers prefer that matters should take their course, that grass should be periodically spoilt, and perhaps stock diowned, that other settlers, more energetic, should not be empowered UJ siivo themselves This would, however, be the case if it was possible for legal objection to ba taken by the inactive. We find that the River Boards Act distinctly empowers the Board to Construct any works neces sary to prevent or lessen " any dam age Which may be occasioned by the overflow " of the river. We believe English authorities can be cited which relieves a corporation from any liability for costa for damage occasioned from works undertaken under parliamentary authority. We may view the question from an ordinary standpoint which will also help to dissipate the dread of the cry for law Which it is feared may be raised. A settler is permitted to erect what buildings, fences, &c, he pleases upon his land provided he dees not interfere with the natural watercourse. Under these circum stances many houses have been built within a short distance of the bank of the river, and, had there been anything in the idea that no settler could interfere with the flood water of the river, these houses ought to be removed. As this will hardly be urged then it Seems plain that did tho settlers choose they could erect a row of houses along the river bank which would keep the water off their land, and if this would bo correct, then surely they have the right to erect any other obstruction at a lesser cost to serve the same purpose. A case of veiy great importance may be cited as providing the unquestionable right of embanking one side of the river at the risk and inconvenience to the other side. We quote the embankment on the north side of the river Thames, which is also the highest side, which was not oniy embanked, but also a very large por tion of the shore was enclosed, thus making the river considerably narrower. The Lambeth side of the river used to be flooded and is now more flooded, but no attempt has ever been made by private owners to secure from the public body compensation for this immense alteration of the river bed. We do hope that the settlers interested will meet together, and, if thought necessary, an opinion from any well known firm of solid tors obtained ; anything but letting matters go as they now go, unless the opinion is strongly against the view we have expressed. Even thf-n there is another way out of the diffi culfcy.