DRAINAGE OBSTRUCTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 482, 18 September 1909, Page 3

DRAINAGE OBSTRUCTION.

WHO IS RESPONSIBEE FOR CLEARING:

BOARD OR OWNER?

At last night’s meeting of the Moutoa Drainage Board, Mr Easton brought up the question of clearing the willows at present growing in the diagonal drain. He said that they were holding back a great amount of water.

Mr Hammond considered that the Board should clear the willows out. It was only a matter of a few pounds. They had spent money on the drain by the erection of floodgates, and if the willows were not cleared that money would be wasted. The diagonal was the outlet of a great amount of water. Mr Easton said that the more water that was held back the longer the work would be delayed. The cost was a mere nothing, only £2 or He wanted something settled one way or the other. Mr Barber said that he felt satisfied that the work should be done, and personally he was in favour of the Board carrying it out. Whether their action in doing so would satisfy the ratepayers at his end he could not say. He bad only spoken to one, Mr Carter, and he was strongly against it.

Mr Hammond; “Ob! He couldn’t see a hole through a ladder ! He caused a lot of trouble at the time the Board was constituted.”

The Chairman said he recognised that the work was necessary. The point was who should pay for it. The Board was formed for a certain object and if they cleared the diagonal drain, they were, in his opinion, doing something that they had not the power to do. The diagonal was a private drain. He suggested that a meeting of ratepayers be called and the whole position put before them, and if they authorised it the Board could take over the drain.

Mr Easton asked why the Board had spent money on the drain by erecting floodgates if they had not taken it over. The Chairman said that the erection of the floodgates was authorised by the ratepayers. All documents that had been placed before them had stated that floodgates were to be erected at the diagonal drain, but nothing more was to be done. He had no doubt that if a meeting of ratepayers were held, they would authorise the work to be done.

Mr Symons contended that it would cost very little to keep the drain open. Mr Fasten said they would be throwing money away if the work were not done. They were there to protect the interests of the ratepayers. The Chairman contended that if they started interfering with private drains, other ratepayers would want their drains cleared out.

Mr Barber asked what would be their legal position if they took the drain over and then found they were in the wrong ? Mr Easton said that if a meeting of ratepayers were called, very few would attend and one or two would probably “bump” round and get the others to vote against having the work done.

Mr Hammond said that in the interests of the ratepayers, the Board should take over the drain, or at least clear the willows. He moved that the Board take the necessary steps to clear the willows from the diagonal drain.— The motion was seconded by Mr Symons.

The Chairman said that he did not think that Mr Symons should second the motion, as he had sold his property, and had no interest in the Board at all. Further, the mover and another member of the Board had not seen the work that it was proposed to have done. The motion was carried, the Chairman alone voting aginst it.