COUNTY AND BOARD.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 314, 14 November 1929, Page 7

COUNTY AND BOARD.

DIFFER ON DRAIN. Question of a Culvert. In a letter to the Hungahunga Drainage Board, read at the last meeting, the Matamata County Council maintained that the board’s representations disclosed no reason why the council should alter its previous stand in connection with the maintenance of the culvert in Peria road. The council maintained that the fact that the board had not attended to the culvert for ten years was an additional reason why action should be no longer delayed. In order to maintain the road and culvert properly it was necessary that the culvert be deepened, but as Station road was on a higher level than adjacent lands which were drained by the board, the benefit to the from the drain was negligible. Mr. W. F. Hughes (chairman) stated that he had inspected the culvert, which was reasonably sound and would last for a number of years and meet all requirements. He did not want to push his views against those of a qualified engineer, but it seemed to him that the board was being asked to do something which was not needed at the present time.

The clerk (referring to the letter): I did not say that we had not attended to the culvert for the past ten years. What I said was that we had not deepened the drain during that period. What I wrote was twisted round. The chairman: The first complaint was the drain was likely to scour the culvert, and this could be remedied. Because the Matamata County Council wanted to tar and seal the road was no reason why the board should replace the culvert years before it was necessary. The clerk: It is a pity the Matamata County Council does not work with the board in the same way as the Piako County Council and share the cost of culverts. The chairman! admitted that the road was higher than the adjoining land, but said tbe water came off the road into the board’s drain, and therefore benefited the county. Mr. Mathers then moved that the Matamata County Council be informed that in the board’s opinion there was no necessity to do anything to the culvert at present. Mr. Harvey seconded this motion, which was carried unanimously.