COOK COUNTY COUNCIL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 15, 29 November 1883, Page 3

COOK COUNTY COUNCIL.

The annual meeting of the above was held yesterday. Present —Crs. Chambers, Gannon, Westrup, Clarke, Weston, Johnston, Ferris. The first business was the election of a Chairman for the ensuing year. The present Chairman was unanimously elected. The Drain at Ruangarehu. The next business was the consideration of the drain proposed to be cut through Mr. Scott’s property at Ruangarehu. The Clerk then read a very lengthy document from Mr. McDougall, solicitor, containing a great many objections to the drain being cut, pointing out that it would seriously affect the value of the property there. next called Mr. R. J. b Reynojßs who gave as evidence that the plan ’ produced does not show the nature of the F works proposed to be executed or the nature of any other works to be executed. It does not show that the drain will be made not to endanger more than the embankment, nor that any fence or fences will be put along the drain, nor that any bridge will be across it. | The advertisement produced does not state which works are proposed to be execu'ed. I have been on this land wit h a view to this matter. There is a road there fenced off. That a piece of land on the plan touches the road. The western end of the dra n touches the road. The utmost length of road that, would be drained by the proposed drain would be about 50 chains, or rather over 60 or 70. If the road be made to intercept the land on the east of it, it is not necessary to make that in the direction of the proposed drain. The land on the east of the road is drained bv > nature towards the south-west. It drains ► across the site of the road. The water finallv goes into a lagoon by Mr Kempthorne’s.

Before getting there it gets into a creek leading to the lagoon. There is no part of that creek in Ruangarehu itself. There might be a small part, there. From there it goes to Pukepapa, and thence tu the lagoon, All the area mentioned in the objections is described on the map produced. The whole of the area starts further north in the eastern part on the map. The natural flow of the drainage water is from north-east to southwest, If the drain is made the water in it will not go in the natural course, but almost directly opposite. The road divides the area ; it runs across it. It roughly divides the area into two equal parts. I should say the portion on the bank of the river is more valuable than the other part through the natural course of the drainage. The eastern part, which is the more valuable, will be destroyed by being cut up by this proposed drain. It will diminish the value of the and materially. At the present time there is no drain cut in the eastern part, I fancy there is a drain in the western part of the area. I have examined the land through which the proposed drain is to be made. The drain at the time of the flood, I think, would admit water on the land which would not come there otherwise. I have seen deposits of silt there. It was 2ft. 6in. below the lowest part of the road. The silt was on the terrace at the bank of the river. If no drain was made the water could not get on the flat. The natural embankment would keep the water off the flat. If there were no embankment the natutal course of the water would be right through the area. The soil of the land is pliable. If the drain was made the river would wash out the bank at that place. I estimate that the proposed outlet drain will cost £lOO, but a different course would cost £l3O. I consider it inadvisable to cut the proposed drain, because it will let in the flood-water and do other injury. To the Council: I have taken levels on some part of the road through the property. I think the cheapest course would be along the main road, though it would be very objectionable. I have taken the levels along the western portion. Mr. Drummond was next called to give evidence and corroborated Mr. Reynold’s statement.

In reply to Cr Gannon, Mr. Drummond said he thought the drain proposed to be taken through Mr. Scott’s property to Pukepapa was the better one, then the one along the road. He considered the proposed drain now under the Council’s consideration was not advisable.

Mr. Scott said—lf the drain was made it would be necessary to construct fences along it and a bridge over it. He was willing to have a westerly drain cut He objected to the cutting of the proposed drain on the ground of his right. This drain would damage the value of his land if cut. The natural embankment there protects the area from floods. [On account of the pressure on our space we are compiled to hold over the remainder of the report until our next issue].