REMOVAL OF A BRIDGE

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 3913, 2 March 1929, Page 3

REMOVAL OF A BRIDGE

» RATEPAYER’S APPEAL AGAINST BOARD’S DEMAND. An appeal lodged by Ah’. F. S. Easton, a ratepayer, against the action of the Moutoa Drainage Board in demanding) the removal of a concrete bridge which he had erected across the main drain in its district was productive of unusual proceedings in the Magistrate’s f Court at Palmerston North on Tuesday, when argument was heard by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., on the question as to whether the structure impeded the flow of water. Appellant was represented by Mr. J. P. Innes, while Mr. M. B. Bergin (Foxton) appeared for the Board, Messrs 18. G. Gower and J. Chrystall also being present on behalf of that body. The opposition of Mr. Easton, it was stated by counsel, was directed against an order issued by the Drainage Board compelling him to remove a bridge erected across the main drain, which His Worship had inspected. The land on both sides of the .drain was owned by appellant, and the drain, while under the control of the board, flowed through his property. No one could dispute that he was entitled to erect a bridge to give access, and to replace an old one he had erected a new and substantial concrete structure. No complaint was made by the board until a year had elapsed, although it must have been aware that the .work was proceeding, and only after Mr. Easton had incurred considerable expense was the objection raised that the bridge impeded the flow, of water, it being suggested that the understrueture encroached on the drain to such an extent as to) obstruct the flow. The drain had been badly neglected, although Mr. Easton ,w'as probably the largest ratepayer in the district, and paid about one-third of| the total rates. It was most unlikely that appellant would be so stupid as to erect the bridge in such a manner as to obstruct the passage of the water when he would be one of the first to suffer. 'There were no obstacles immediately under the bridge, and the drain outlet had not been materially reduced m size or depth. EVIDENCE OF ENGINEER'S. Evidence was given by R. Edwards, architect and civil engineer, who stated that he had made a special inspection of the bridge in dispute as iwell as the surrounding locality. In his opinion the bridge did not impede thd flow of water in any respect, or affect the capacity of the drain. The bridge piles were really abutments, which, although appearing to encroach on the drain, actually did so only slightly, if at all. The drain was in a bad state, and had not been cleaned out for a considerable time. There was practically no velocity in the stream for the bridge to have a slowing influence. There was a considerable amount of silt in the drain, and any obstruction would have been reflected in erosion. It would be very difficult to make any alteration to the bridge Which would have absolutely no detrimental effect on the drain.

Replying to Mr. Bergin, witness stated that the drain ,was about 13 feet three inches wide. W. H. K. Gilmour, civil engineer, said that he was well experienced in drainage matters in the Makerua, where conditions were similar to those obtaining in the Moutoa district. On February 9, in company with the previous witness, he inspected the bridge in question, and considered that it "in. no way obstructed the drain, which was in a bad state. If the drain was kept properly clean, the bridge would not affect the flow of water. It was about four miles 46J chains from the bridge to the outlet into the Manawatu River and the fall was about 4<| inches to a mile. He agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr. Edwards. The water level was higher than it should have been on account of the state of the drain. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE.

The Magistrate: If the Board pays for the lifting of this bridge, has Mi-. Easton any objection? Should not the board have tried to minimise the damage. Mr. Bergin stated that the extent was not known until the bridge was completed. The Magistrate commented that in nuimerous instances culverts restricted the passage of (water. The section of the Act applying to the case ,was capable of fairly wide interpretation. Appellant had a right to access for his farming operations. It appeared to him that the board had deferred action for too long a time. If that was so, then the board should bear the expense of removal. What cost would be involved to raise the bridge a foot? The structure, did not appear to have narrowed the drain much, though the decking was obviously a little lower than the top of the bank on cither side. IMPORTANT OUTLET. The chairman of the Moutoa Drainage Board, Mi-. J. Chrystall, farmer, of Eoxton, stated that the main drain was most important as the outlet for the drainage system. The ffrst intimation of the construction of the bridge 'was given by the foreman in April, 1928, and when witness inspected the bridge he found it completed. Not wishing to. act arbitrarily, he made another inspection in July, When he found the drain running bank high. There had been from two to three chains of debris backed up against the decking of the bridge.' It was absolutely incorrect that the board had neglected the It was

cleaned annually and £SOO had been spent on deepening. The waterway was excellent and the silt deposits were the result of the last flood. The whole system depended on the bridge. No announcement was made that the structure would be erected. The bridge backed the water up and even affected Mr. Easton’s xnvn .property. The foreman had never been asked specially to report on other bridges. Witness stated that he and appellant were not the best of friends, but he had not instigated the matter, the first intimation being contained in the foreman’s report.

Continuing his evidence, witness stated that one foot of peat would make one inch of soil. He cleaned his drain once a year. 'The flood helped to clear away debris. The drain in question was cleaned from end to end last year. Replying to Mr. Bergin, witness stated that he had .been living in the Moutoa district for 13 years and knew that drainage was absolutely necessary. ANOTHER MEMBER’S EVIDENCE. B. G. Gower, a member of the defendant board for the last five years, and the original ichairman at its foundation in 1918, stated that he knew the Moutoa district well. In Noveimlber, just after the flood, he had inspected the appellant’s drain and bridge. There was very little flow and the water was up to the 'bridge, but not on the decking. In witness’s opinion ,the bridge undoubtedly reduced the carrying capacity of the drain 50 per cent. The Magistrate: That statement cannot be accurate. You mean that it Reduces the section of the drain 50 per cent. Witness: Exactly. Replying to Mr. Innes, witness stated that it was be who moved that action should first be taken regarding the bridge. The board had nothing to hide. This .closed the board’s case. His Worship intimated that he woulfl like som# evidence regarding land levels, as it would h,elp the Court. It was a serious matter either ,way—serious for appellant if the bridge had to be moved, and serious for the hoard if an obstruction were allowed to remain. His Worship adjourned the case for a fortnight to enable the levels to he ascertained by the engineer.