DRAINING THE TAIERI.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 41

DRAINING THE TAIERI.

THE CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM. REPLY TO GOVERNMENT EXPERTS APPROVED. At Monday's njeetjng of the Taieri Drainage Board consideration wa^ .given to draft reply, prepared by the sub-com-mittee appointed to do so,- to the report prepared by the Government experts (Messrs Lundius andTJuckhurst). The Clerk then read the report. '' Mr Macandrew moved, and Mr Furkert ! seconded — "That the consideration of the sub-committee's report be in committee." i Mr Findlay moved as an amendment — I " That the board remain in open meeting." ! — Mr Callander seconded the amendment, ■ which was lost, only the morer and seconder and Mr Snow supporting it. I The motion was therefore carried, and the board went into committee, Mr Findlay being strong in his^protest, as he said one half of the position had appeared in print , while the other part would be "choked." i He intended, however, to give a statement ! to the papers upon the matter. * Messrs Findlay, Callander, and Snow I then rose and left the meeting as a protest against the board's action in taking the matter in committee. The personnel >f the sub-committee | drew up th© report was Messrs Shand, • Gibson, Kempshell, and Callander, but the ! last-named did not attend the meeting held i by the committee. The members remaining at the meeting ! were Messrs Shand (chairman), Gibson, and I Kempshell, and the Government members (Messrs Wilmot, Macandrew, and Furkert). The board considered the reply in detail, I approving the draft report prepared, and ' making only slight verbal alterations and modifications. | On the motion of Mr Furkert, seconded by Mr Gibson, it was unanimously decided that the report; with the textual alterai tions made" by the board, should be sent i to the Undersecretary of Lands, together ' with comparative plans of the classified land of the district. i The following is the statement handed to '■ our representative by Mr Findlay, who left the meeting, outlining his views upon the reports presented : — " I wish to emphatically protest against this board sending to the Under-secretary ' the letter referred to in the committee s report, because it contains a strongly partisan statement. Mr Gibson wanted' the opportunity, as he put it at last meeting, of expressing dissent from the report of Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst, which he said was antagonistic to his views, so he moved the appointment of a committee, which ultimately consisted of Mr Shand, Mr Kempshell, and Mr Gibson, whose interests with regard to drainage all lie in ! the same direction. The proposed letter { is their dissent, and they wish to give it whatever weight may attach to it by reason of its being sent by the board instead of by themselves. " I propose to take some of the paragraphs in the letter and point out how biassed and unfair they are : — "Suggestion 2 (a) — The amendment of the j act to provide for and limit the maximum I amount of rates in each class liable to be ! taxed,— Mewrs Shand. Kempshell, and Gib1 son say that in their opinion this amendj ment is neither necessary nor desirable. i There is a limit of 4s per acre, up to which j lands in class A may be rated. Why should a fair and reasonable limit (in proportion to the benefits to be received as compared with class A) not be fixed for classes B and C? The sub-committee says that the suggestion implies a want of confidence in the board. It is beyond doubt that there is among a very large number (in fact, a majority) of ratepayers a strong feeling that the first apportionment of Bd, 6d and 4d was grossly unfair. Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst say in their import that the indefinite amount of taxation which under existing law may be levied on all classes except D class is on© of the reasons for_ so many ratepayers agitating for an alteration in the area and the classification. It goes ■ without saying that they satisfied themselves on this point in the course of their inquiries, which were of a most complete and careful nature. Again, the commit! i in referring to the same suggestion, says j such an amendment as this might, and ' probably would, render it impossible for ' the board to raise the moneys necessary to enable it to perform its functions — that is to say, while the maximum rate Ms fixed for A a fair maximum is not fixed for 1 classes B and C, in case it should pre- ! vent the board from raising sufficient ! money for its purposes. In other words, the rates for B and C are not to be fixed , in proportion to the benefits received by i them, as compared with class A, but rather according to the necessities of the board. It may suit men who own or occupy swamp land to take up that attitude, but it is manifestly unfair to expect this board to I do so. I "In regard to suggestion C (that two assessors should sit w:t>h the magistrate m Appeal Court), the sub-committee cays there is no greater need for assessors than in i other oases. This amendment would. I ! behere, give effect to the wishes of a majority of the ratepayers. " Suggestion 3 i 6 the severan<i« of the whole of thoee lands east of the Taieri River (now included) from the Taieri Drainage District. Shortly put the sub-com-mittee's statement of the position is ac follows : : —(1) A Royal Commission con-

sidered the question raised by this suggestion, And came to the conclusion that one board for the whole PJain is necessary if the drainage of the Plain is t<> be efficiently carried out. (2) That the Government and Legislature acted on the recommendation of the Royal Commission. (3) The board has classified the lands, appointed an engineer, struck rates, and borrowed £20,000 on security of a special rate. As a matter of fact the board has not borrowed £20,000, it has only borrowed £10,000. But the board is making the ratepayers pay rates sufficient to pay the interest on £20,000, When for the -present, and some considerable time to come, half the rates now levied would meet the interest on £10,000, the amount borrowed. For obvious reasons they have omitted several very important facts which outweigh those stated by them. Let me draw attention to a few of the facts which are omitted:— (l) When the Royal Commission sat only those who required 1 drainage took much interest in its proceedings. Practically all the owners amd occupiers of dry lands, not supposing for a momeot that their land would be included in any drainage district, did not think it worth* while to attend. The few, including myself, who did attend objected to their being included in any drainage district. (2) When the bill was before Parliament a petition was sent to Parliament, signed by nearly 200 residents of Bast Taieri, protesting against their lands being included, but no opportunity was given them of being heard m support of the petition, as promised by the then Hon. Minister of Lands (the Hon. R. M'Nab). (3) Pntctically all the ratepayers east of the Ta-ieri River appealed against the classification of their lands. (4) Two of the classifiers stated in the Appeal Court that, in their opinion, North Taieri and Irregular Block, East Taieri, should never have been included in the district. (5) Four wel) known civil engineers — Messrs F. Williams, L. O. Beal, R. S. Allan, and W. D. R. M'Curdie — gave evidence to fche same effect. (6) Immediately after the sitting of the Appeal Court a petition signed by all the ratepayers in East Taieri (except about 15) was seat to the Governor, asking for the very tiling which Messrs Lundius and Buckhuxst have recommended. (7) Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst (two intelligent and independent men), after a most complete and careful inspection and inquiry, have recommended the severance o f the said lands. (8) A third petition has been signed by over 200 ratepayers east of the river, approving of the report of Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst, and urging that Legislative effect be given to the suggestion. (9) A similar petition is now being signed in West Taieri. (10) There U (as hfus been pointed out by Messrs Lundius and Buck- ; hurst) provision in the act whereby all j liabilities and expenses already incurred may be adjusted, so that the proper proportion may be charged against th© East Taieiri lands. "On the one hand you have the opinion of four gentlemen, and the fact that it has been acted Upon. Against this you have the opinion of two commissioners, two classifiers, four civil engineers, and an overwhelming majority of the people who are most deeply interested in the matter. "I Q dealing, with the reasons given by Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst, Messrs Shand, Kempshell, and Gibson say of reason (A.) that it implies two things. First, that Messrs Lunddus and Buckhurst are more competent to form an ooin.ion than the board s engineer, and, secondly, that they were fully informed as to what works are proposed or contemplated by the board Now, reason (A) is as follows: By "far the larger portion of th© East Taieri will receive little or no benefit from the proposed or contemplated drainage works. This is a self-evident fact. By far th© larger portion of East Taieri *is never flooded, and needs no further drainage. "Referring to reasons (b) and (c) the sub-committee says that, if the suggested severance were carried out, there would be a repefation of the old evils of divided authority, conflicting interests with antagonistic •ohemes This i 8i 8 distincfclv misleading The divided authority and conflicting schemes were all in the West halts' Tw re - here , we , pc several different I It" 1 P* r £ er bank has erected by the West Taieri people, and will be maintained by them for their own protection Sub-committee say, further, that one of the greatest difficulties of the situation arises from the fact that 'owners of land in the river flat, complain that their lands have been not only damaged, but in some cases almost destroyed, by reason of enormous quantities of water and shingle being sent down on them, from what are now the dry lands. This is greatly exaggerated and misleading. The works referred to are part of ancient history, and existed before most of the present owners of the dry lands were born. In the eailiest days of the settlement the lower part of East Taieri was an impassable swamp. At 1 no point could it be crossed without the I aid of a boat. Where there was in tho<=e [ days nothing but water and Maori-heads, i there are now homesteads and cultivated j fields. If those early works (the main one being a cut by the late Provincial Council) had any effect on the lower lands, it was to help to transform them from a lagoon to land which can now be cultivated. In j any case, why should the ownere of hitrher I lands (most of whom have paid large prices for their lands, because they were in th<» position of being high and dry) be taxed to pay for the drainage of low lands? The water comes not from the Either lands in the drainage district, but from the hilly j oountrv beyond the district. In their letter | the sub-committee refer sneerin^ly to what I they call the very problematical nurpose of I removing causes of discontent. Tf ther« is j one thing more problematical than another ' about the whole business, it is what they ; call the policy of the board. Even the ! board's engineer closes one of hi* reports | wit.i this eisjnincant sentence, ' Possibly i there is no solution of the problem, and , probably the whole of the plain cannot b^ protected from floods.' A hasty piece of j letrielation, nut through in the d\inn; hour* of the session, and without proper conI sideration, has had thU effect. =o far as Ea-s 1 - Taieri is concerned, that largo sums of money may be spent, in attempts to protect from floods, tho small area of ! about 1200 arrea, out of 12.500. and that i the other 11,000 odd acres, which need no j protection, and will derive no benefit, are to be taxed to pay for thk large expendij ture. Such a position is unjust and intoler-

able. Messrs Lunduis and Buckhurst have seen the injustice of it, and they have not hesitated to recommend that justice be given to the large body of ratepayers who are at present suffering under the inju6tice. I think the proposed letter should not go forth a 6 an official communication from this board. The proper course would be for thi3 board merely to thank the Under-Secretary for his communication, without expressing any opinion on the subject."