A MISTIER OF A DRAIN.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 295, 4 July 1929, Page 5

A MISTIER OF A DRAIN.

AGAIN BEFORE BOARD.

No Action to foa Taken. At the two previous meetings of the Putaruru Town Board, several ratepayers of the Matamata County whose properties are just outside the Town Board area, sought the assistance of the board regarding the maintenance of a proposed drain, and the matter, was before the Town Board at its July meeting held on Monday evening. The matter was raised when a letter from Mr. A. R. Vosper, written on behalf of the ratepayers concerned, was read. Mr. Vosper stated, inter alia, that in reading the report of the proceedings of the board in the Press in regard to the drainage area, it appeared as if the board might possibly be misunderstanding the position; therefore the attention of the board was drawn to the following facts : That the board is. not being asked to bear any cost of construction, but only a proportion of the cost of maintenance to deal with present and future flood waters, a great deal of which comes and will come from the hoard’s area. That the work, as suggested by the report, might be done by the farmers themselves, but it is necessary, to secure permanency, to put the whole matter under the County Council, and in such cases maintenance must be arranged. The progress of home building in the board’s area affected appears likely in the near future to call for some action by the board with regard to suitable draining, as the drains have already been cut through portion of the board’s area, adjoining 'portions of the proposed drain, which already exists; we venture to suggest that it is the 'most suitable outlet for the board’s flood waters. It is felt with confidence that the board will agree with the writers in the desire to avoid having to ask for a commission to decide the proportion fairly payable by the board and invoke the compulsory clauses of the Act, not only on the ground of expense, but because an amicable agreement will be muph more satisfactory.

Mr. Barr Brown opened the discussion by stating that the Town Board should surely know the benefits that they (the board) were likely to receive in reference to the need for future draining, without the writers pointing it out to them. Mr. Yandle said that Mr. Vosper ,had told him that the cost per -annum to each ratepayer concerned was £2 Bs, but a property owner adjoining the Waotu road would not do his portion of the drain unless a property scheme was put forward.

Mr. Bent stated that the board was not stopping them from formulating a scheme. The chairman (Mr. G. G. Griffiths) said that he was approached by the parties concerned long before it reached the present stage, and he then advised them to send a deputation to the Matamata County Council, which they did, and an engineer was asked to report. The Matamata people had landed themselves in a pickle of trouble through obliging people, and they as a resu’t were saddled with the maintenance of drains for years to come for having set a precedent they could not get out of. They had to avoid getting into the same position. He suggested that it would be best to reply that the Town Board had no legal obligation in the matter. Mr. Neal favoured giving something towards the scheme, for with the water not getting away it was a menace to health. The chairman stated that they could give notice to anyone blocking it to clear it forthwith, after which Mr. Neal, continuing, said that for the sake of the health of the town they should have this water drained so long as they did not commit themselves for all time. He asked if they could not give a donation, to which the chairman replied that this could be done, out of their unauthorised expenditure, but this item was very low. Mr. Neal: Then give it out of next year’s, for we have a moral right. Mr. Barr Brown was opposed to this, as it would be acknowledgment that there was something in the writers’ request. If they (the owners) nut in a drain both siJes wmiH bo drained, as instanced bv what lipnoened on Glen Scotia r"cd. The chairman remarked that there were eight concerned and the matter was onlv one of 8s each, which was not wo-th all the fuss and worry. The hoard decided to inform the writers that t.hev appreciated the position that those concerned found themselves in, but as the law stood it would be unwise for the hoard to set a dangerous precedent by taking any action.