DRAINAGE ON ROADS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 267, 20 December 1928, Page 8

DRAINAGE ON ROADS.

CULVERT MAINTENANCE. ■ Who is Responsible? At Friday’s meeting of the Matamata County Council a letter was received from the Hungahuiiga Drainage Board advising that the council’s fetter re the culvert under Peria road had been considered at, the test meeting of the board, when it was noted that never before had a -request been made for'the maintenance of culverts under roads, it being usual for county councils to do so. It was also pointed out that the board’s works benefitted several roads within the" county, notably - Station road, for wbiph it received no revenue. The clerk explained that ordinarily a council attended to culverts, but where a drainage board was in existence that body was responsible. Cr. Rollett said that Mr. , F. E. Hughes, chairman of the board, had told him that as the board put in such culverts the council had -hitherto undertaken maintenance. This seemed a fair proposition. Piako county maintained such culverts. (Continued in Next Column)

The engineer pointed out the several difficulties arising out of drainage questions. He thought that where the Water flowed in a natural course the council might repair the necessary culverts, but where a bridge or culveert was put over an artificial drain the repairs should be the responsibility of the drainage board. Cr. Judd movea that the council reply that, under the circumstances it considered the drainage board legally and niorally responsible for the culvert, seeing that it was part and parcel of the boaid’s drainage system. Cr. Rollett hoped that it would he pointed out that the council did not consider the expenditure on the Peria at all serious, but that a matter of principle was involved, affecting other cases. The motion was earned.