TAIERI DRAINAGE BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 11

TAIERI DRAINAGE BOARD.

THE CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM The following report of the committee Appointed to report to the board on the report and suggested reclassifioation by Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst was submitted to the board on Monday : — Your committee having considered the report and' suggested recksisfication by Messrs inxadlus and Buokhuret xecomxneads as follows:— 1. That the suggested recUussification b« left for -the board to deal with. 2. Ttmt in repiyipg to the letter of the T7nder-«ecretexy the board should confine itself .to' the final suggestions made by Messrs Lundius and ttuckhurot in their report, axd the- board's remarks thereon should be to tie effect of the draft letter accompanying this report. "Mosgiel, September, 1909. " The Under-secretary Department of Lands, "Wellington. " Sir, — I am directed- by the Taieri Drain : *g» Board to thank you for sending it a oopy of the report and (suggested) re*-' cl*aeific*tion furnished by Meesrs Lundius And Buekiiurst, and, in compliance with jour invittfico, th« board submit* some remarks which are confined' to tihe final suggestions made. "Buggeetioa 1: That when the time comes when, in the opinion. of the board, a new classification should be made, the board wiH give careful consideration to the a-eclaesifiootion suggested. " Suggestion 2 (a) : (The amendment of the act 6o as * to provide protection to the Dra.ina.igo Board from claims by any owner of land in class " D " '). That m the 'opinion of the board suoh an amendment is desirable. "Suggestion 2 (b): (The amendment of the act so as to 'provide for and limit the maximum amount of nates in each ©lass HaWe to be taxed.' That in the opinion of the board suoh an amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. "The suggestion implies the existence amongst the ratepayers of a -want of confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the boaid, of which there is no proof, «nd from the very nature of the constitution of the board, with its three Government appointees, it is inconceivable that theare oan be any ground for such a lack of confidence. It is obvious from the nature •of -the special act by which the board is constituted that the Government and Parliament fully realised that the work which the board is intended to carry out is of a special and uncommonly difficult nature, , and mat it was for this reason the powers of the board were defined in such general terms ; such an amendment as this might, and twobably would, render it impossible for the board to raise the moneys necessary to enafcle it to perform these very' functions for which it was created. " Suggestion 2 (c) : (The amending of the act so as to provide for, two asaa?sors to eit with tiie magistrate in App&al Court). That in the opinion of the board there is no greater need for assessors than in other caeca. " Suggestion 2 (d) : (The amendment of the act so as to safe-gwad owners of land from liability to taxation without their consent). That there is no demand amongst landowners for any such. ' protection ' : on - the contrary, those landowners who lease lard think that the tenants should have the voting power. :. j " Suggestion 3: TJie severance of the whole of those lands east of the Taieri River, now included, from the Taieri Drain- j *g© District). The qaestion raised by this' suggestion was one of .the most important } (subjects dealt with by the Royal Commission consisting of Mr D. Baa-ran (Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands), Mr S. Short (of the Department of Roads), Mr G. Oruicfcshanks (Stipendiary Magistrate), and R Aether (Dietriot Engineer, Public Works Department), whose report was given effect to by the special act. The question as it presented itself to the Royal Commission was whether fchere- should be on© board to deal with the whole of the Plain, or two separate boards for the east and) west sides of the rivar ; and in their report the members state their reasons for their conclusion 'that one united board is not only required, but is an absolute necessity if the drainape of the Plain is to be efficiently carried out. "Now the suggestion of Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst involves a conclusion the direct opposite of that arrived at by ! the RovaJ Commission. The recommenda- ; tion of the Royal Commission has be*>n acted upon by the Government and the LegisLatwe-, and a single hoard for the whole Plain has been established; this V board has. at great expense, classified all the lands in the district, has entered into *"_ engagement with an en.^iwer competent to" design end carry out drainage and protective works • for the whole district : it nas struck ra+es over the whole district and borrowed £20,000 on the security of a soecia.l rate on all the rateable knd in the district. - " Su °h being the position of matters, the board submits certain considerations which seem to it obvious and convincing. " The drainage and river protection of the Taieri Plain is probably one of the most •lifficult problems of its kind in New ZeaJand. and one has only to read the report o, the Roya! Commission to see that one of the greatest difficulties i« the conflict of interest between the various parts of the plain, and especfally between the opposite sides of the river. In these circumstances it was not to he expected' that any general scheme coukl be proposed that would not meet with opposition from some part or parts of the distrio-i. Its- p-^VUrn th* board has to deal with is how to drain -- the plain as a whole and protect it from river floods: the problem that Me=sr% Lundius and Bucikhurst set themselves to solve was how to " remove the causes of discontent which appear to exist amongst | a considerable number of ratepayers.' ► Difficult as the former problem admittedly 1 is, the latter is probably little le-^s difficult": f and reports by outsiders who know nothing i about the natural state of the plain are not calculated to facilitate the solution of the problem. A suggestion 6uch as this, involving as it does the undoing of the work not only of the Royal Commission, but of Parliament itself — and all for the very problematical purpose of removing causes , of discontent — stands self-condemned. f "Taking in their order reasons (a), (b), j(o), and (d) stated by Messrs Lundius and -Buckhurst as justifying their ultimate suggestions, the board submits the following /remarks thereon : i- Reason (a^ is stated thus: — 'By fax the < larger j,ortion of the East Taieri v*ill

I receive little or no benefit from the proposed or contemplated ■drainage works.' This ' reason ' implies two things — first, that Messrs Lund i us and Buckhuxst are more competent to form an opinion on this difficult subject not only bhan. the engineering adviser of the board, but also those engineering experts who are membera of the board ; and se<x>nd, that Messrs Lundius and Buekiiurst -were fully informed as to what woiks are proposed or contemplated by the board. As to the first point, the board is not in a position to express an opinion, and ac to the second it is sufficient to point out that it does not appear from fcheiir report tiiat Messrs Lundius and Buckharst were possessed of such information as to the board's proposals, affecting the East Taieri, as would be necessary to enable even ttie most skilful engineers to arrive jat such conclusion as that stated in this } 'reason.' The hoard has reason to believe ■ that Messrs Lundius and Buckhuxst did not receive from its engineer any such S information as would justify .even experts in coming to any definite oonduwon at all . on the subject; and -therefore the- -board respectfully submits that a suggest ion involving suoh serious results should not bo entertained merely for the **ke of obviating a certain amount of dJM&taefaotion. especially as in the opinion -of a majority of the members of the board such a course would probably cause as much, dissatisfaction as it would allay. -'"■Whilst it is true -that the board has not formulated a oomplete -scheme for tfie whole of the plain, the probabilities are that it will exercise fully the functions for which it was created, including the carrying out of one or other of the schemes inferred to in reason (d) ; for, although Messrs Lundius , and Buckhurst 'see no indication of any such drainage schemes being adopted,' the fact remains that the boartFs engineer has in his monthly report, submitted to the board on June 7 last expressed himeelf in terms which show that he approves of the . proposal for the construction of a flood regulating basin in the interior. Such a scheme would probably benefit the East Taieri more than any other part of the district. , "In the meantime the board can give I an outline of its policy somewhat as follows : i First— The drainage of the lands in the j I district. Second:— The prevention of what may bedesoribed as (ordinary) floods of com- , paratively small niagnitude. Third— The prevention of floods of great magnitude. Active preparations fox the first work are now in progress and engineering surveys of the various subdivisions are being made : an engineer of high qualifications bos been engaged by the board to design and carry out the works- The board's policy with regard to flood prevention is, in the first .place, . to carry out such works as may be "required in the streams and rivers and, by means of embankments, to increase their carrying' capacity as much as possible, and then, by ' means o? some such measures as are referred to in reason (d) to deal with trie waters that now cauee the great floods. It was mainly for the purpose of carrying out somo ' suoh scheme that a single board for the I whole plain was constituted, and the severance suggested would wulliify all that lias been done and rendfer it impossible for the board to justify its creation. • i "Reasons (b) and (c) are as follows: — ' (b) Many of the ratepayers whose I«nd3 ; art situated in the lower portions next to the river are doubtful of receiving any benefits, and have expressed themselves'as desirous of having their lands i excluded from the district, and even 2 some of those whom it is thought would receive the greatest benefit from a drainage scheme have stated that if the dry lands are excluded they would like to be excluded aleo. (c) The cost of the proposed works on the eastern side and other works contemplated, together with the maintenance of the same, will be more than the area of land to which drainage is neces6ary can reasonably afford without contributions from the owners of lands already provided with drainage, and it appears to us unfair to expect owners of the drained lands to consent to be taxed for the benefit of owners of land requiring drainage. ' "It appears from the report of the Royal Commission that 55 witnesses were examin-ed j by it, and that amongst them ' there was i lifctle or no dissension to a proposal to • create one Drainage Board for the east side of the river'; and the probabilities are that if the suggested severance were . carried out there would be a repetition of the old evils of divided authority and • conflicting interests.- with., antagonistic : schemes for fighting the common enemy— , the river, the very evils which the special | act was intended to prevent. i _ "As regards the first statement made . in leason (b), to the effect that many ratepayers are doubtful whether they would derive any benefit from any works that j may bo carried out by the board, it must surely have occurred to Messrs Lundius and I BucKhurst tnat this is an engineering ques1 fion, on which 'many of the ratepayers are not competent to form an opinion. "But supposing, for example, that the board w&re to decide to carry out, at the expense >f ' the whole district, a fohe-me for the"prej vention of floods by the construction of a 1 dam for the storage of flood waters — ons of tho schemes referred to in reason (d) i it would be interesting to know whether ' many of the ratepayers ' would then bo 'doubtful whether they would derive any benefit.' But as the board has not so far proposed any scheme for the protection of the landa on tho cast skle of the ri\er from floods in the Taieri River, it woul<l appear that either Messra Lundiu-, ami Buckhur'-t or some of the ratepayers mu«t have boon tr>ing to foiestall tho engine t find the board by deiismg schemes of th^ir own "As regards the se>.oi <! staifmpnt ina'Vln reason (b) (that 'even of tho-e who, it is thought, would receive tho greatest benefit from a drainage scheme have that, if the dry lands arc excluded, th^y would like to be excluded al-o '), the majority of the members of the boa-i*] wHi to remark that they not only understand, but sjmpathise with, such ralt»payer-> in assuming- such an attitude. On=> of the j grtat-e-t difficulties of the situation ari="-5 j from tho fact that the owr^rs of lands on the river flat complain that thoir lands have been not or.ly damaged, but in wme ca=CT almost de^roycJ, by reason of enormous quantities of water and <=hingle being htnt down upon them from what arc now the ' dry lands," by m-ean a of artifioiaJ channels,

without any provision being made for disposing of such water and shingle. It is impossible that intelligent men like Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst. even although they may not have any knowledge of the natural state of what are now the ' dry lands,' could help seeing that the improvement of the higher lands by the general drainage works of the district has resulted in detriment to the low lands. This question occupied a ga;eat part of the time and attention of the Assessment Court, which came to the same conclusion as the Royal Commission — that it was equitable that such lands should be liable to rating. Messrs Lundius and Buckhurst tafce the opposite view — as appears from reason (c), — and the explanation is probably to be found in the fact already referred to, that the purpose of their mission was mainly to suggest ways of removing the causes of discontent."

Th« Ashburton County Council ham mad* arrangements with Messrs Friedlander Bros, for the importation of a number of the small grey owte, the natural enemies of the email birds. Messrs Friedlander will deliver the birds at Ashburton.