The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, September 21, 1909. MOUTOA DRAINAGE BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 483, 21 September 1909, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, September 21, 1909. MOUTOA DRAINAGE BOARD.

In our last issue we published a resolution passed by the Moutoa Drainage Board authorising the expenditure of money in removing an obstruction from a private drain. We then pointed out that the Board was setting up a dangerous precedent which might involve the ratepayers in considerable expenditure in the future. The Board is empowered under sub-section (a) of section 17 among other things : To cleanse, repair or otherwise maintain in a due state of efficiency any existing watercourse or outfall for water, either within or beyond

the district or any existing bank or defence against water. To carry out this work, however, on a private drain, except for extraordinary' purposes, at the expense of the ratepayers, would seem to he distorting the Act beyond its legal meaning. It seems somewhat incongiuous that the Board should pass a resolution to do certain work in a private drain, which it would not carry out were the same drain vested in the Board, vide section 26 :

The Board may at any time give written notice lo the occupier or owner of any land to remove any tree or part thereof that in the opinion of the Board is likely, by falling or otherwise, to obstruct or damage any drain vested in the Board or under its management, and in default of such removal within twenty-eight days of the service of such notice, may cause such tree or part thereof to be removed, and may recover the cost of such removal from such oc-

cupier or owner. If the Board avails itself ol section 50 of the Act it can settle this question once and for all. Section 50 (1) says: The Board may fiom time to time make by laws —(a) Providing for the cleansing, maintenance, and repair of any drain or pail thereof by the owner or occupier 1 f the land through which the same is made, and lor the execution of such .work by the Board in case of default and the recovery of the cost thereof from

such owner or occupier. We believe the Board would be acting in the best interests of the ratepayers if they were to rescind the resolution and give the matter fuller consideration.