WAIKATO RIVER WORKS.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 321, 26 October 1917, Page 1

WAIKATO RIVER WORKS.

The Commission's Report

The report of the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the allegations that certain groynes erected by the Waikato River Board were the cause of injury to the navigation of the Aka Aka channel and the drainage of the land is now to hand and below we give an abstract of it. The Commissioners state that in their opinion the groynes are not necessary for the protection of the banks of the river: that they are, as constructed and placed, not effective in promoting the discharge of Hood waters, but ra her have a retarding effect. They have caused silting up at the back of them which will extend down stream if the groynes are kept in repair, and this must eventually affect the mouths of the Aka Aka drains. So far the mouths have not been seiiously affected, but silting up is visibly increasing over the area adjacent to tho Eastern drain

With regard to the effect upon navigation the Commissioner? state that the Aka Aka channel navigation has already been affected by the action of the groynes in silting up the channel. The silting up and the formation of banks will increase if the groynes are kept in their present position. An alternative remedy to the removal of tho groynes would be either to provide an outlet for land drainage sufficiently far down the river to be beyond adverse influences, or possibly the periodical dredging of the channel. The removal of the groynes would not do any damage either to the river or the lands bordering on it. As far as the evidence shows they have not improved navigation to any extent up to tho present. The Commission is of opinion that the erection of the groynes was interference within the meaning of Clause 84 of the River Boards Act. The Waikato Rivei Board should have obtained the consent of the Aka Aka Drainage Board to their works, which they did not do, but refused to meet the Aka Aka Board in open conference, though repeatedly approached for that purpose. The recently passed River Board's Amendment Act makes full provision whereby the Government can overcome the neglect or the,dereliction of duty of any River Board. The report recommends that as the Waikato River Board is practically without funds the Government should pay the cost of the commission, apart from witnesses' expenses.

Clause 84 of the River Boards Act says:—"Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board to interfere with any public works carried on or executed by or under the control of any local authority without the consent in writing of such local authority." The amending Act was passed this session and gives the Government power, upon sufficient proof that a River Board has neglected or exceeded its duty, to step in and make the necessary alterations at the expense of the ratepayers of the River District concerned. The cost may be settled either by a loan on the security of the rates or by a special rate struck and collected by the Valuer General.

River Board's Position

MEETING OF RATEPAYERS

In accordance with an advertised notice a meeting, convened by Mr A. G. C. Glass (Chairman of the Waikato River Board) of ratepayers of the Board's District was held in the Mercer Public Hall on Saturday last. Among those present were Messrs A. G.C. Glass, W. Gallery, S. P.Prendegast, A. Lapwood (members of the River B'jard), W. M. Peacock and and Macfarlane (Tuakau), J. 11. I'otter, T. Kidd and 11. Matthews [Rtngiriri;, Stokes, Iliggins, J. 1 leano and Friedlander (Pokono), 11. S. Valentine (Meicer\ with the Clerk to the Waika'o ltiver Board (Mr A. L Stevenson).

Mr Glass presided and explained tho object of tho gathering. Re complained of tho short notice givm to the Hoard of the proposed holding of the ('oniiiussion and partieu'aily contended that the I Irder of Inference distinctly referred to "the wlc In river and its tributaries" whereas the complaint had only boon made by Aka Aka settlers Mr Glass protested against the injustice of such short notice and tho consenuent inability to produoo sufficient evidence by the Board to represent do ir interests, the Board's engineer, owing to his absence in Ilawke's Bay, being unable to attend at such short notice. Mr Glass then read the Order of Reference and the holieitor'jj opinion with regard to the Board's position as already reported in those column-'.

Willi regard to the ovidi nee given ,tt the Commission by the Aka Aka

settlers tho Chf.iriuan pointed out that Mr Hull (the Chairman of the Aka Aka Diaitnge Boaid) had slated that damage to tho creeks had been going on for a ceittiin iiii übor of years but when crossexamined he admitted that no damage had been done until last )oar, Mr Glass complained that

S.me members of the ('ouimission piocoodod to Xuakau to inspect tho rivor without giving him notice as Chairman of the Board. The Commission went to Tuakau and whilst there he believed Mr Peacock also joined them.

Mr Peacock: Officially I had no right to go, but I went. Mr Glass next read the evidence given at the Commission and the report of the Commission and proceeded to complain that the Commission was set up by the Minister of hands, and not by the Minister for Internal Affairs. Mr A. Lapwood interjected the remark that when the Commission inspected the river the stream was in flood and that it should have been inspected at low water. Mr Glass remarked that the Coinmission seemed to only want to get evidence as to the effect the groynes had on the liver at the Eastern to Western drain and contended that an inspection should have been made of the whole river and its tributaries in accordance with the Order of Reference. Mr Glass then read a letter from Mr Kennedy, the Board's Engineer, as to the state of the river. Mr Peacock enquired how many times Mr Kennedy had inspected the work dono by the Board and the Chairman replied that ha had made about four reports and had been up the river to inspect it ab >ut a dozen times.

Mr Feacock asked how it was that the gioynes about which there had been so many complaints had been put in the wrong place. Mr Glass mentioned that the groynes were not exactly placed in the river in accordance with the plans prepared in the first instance. He could not speak definitely as _to the groynes as the work was carried out under the supervision of MiKennedy. He believed that if stone could have been utilised, timber would not have been necessary at all. Mr Peacock contended that no permission was given for the erection of the groynes at all. Mr Glass replied that no permission was required in respect of the top groyne. Certain work was required by the Marine Department to be done \o> the rivor and after consulting the Board's solicitors the work was done. Mr Kennedy, the. engineer, stated that the work could be carried out if tho settlers would lie satisfied with a fall of about two feet but lie understood that some mistake had been made by the Engineer with regard to the levels. Mr Peacock enquin d if Mr Kennedy's report had been made public. Mr Glass: Yes, it appeared in tho "Times"

Mr Peacock asked where the mistake was made with regard to the levels.

Mr Glass : " Between Mercer and Lapwood's mill." Proceeding, Mr Glass explained that it was contended that if a channel had been cut from the eastern to the western drain and through Lapwood's property all the trouble with regard to the Aka Aka Drainage Board would have been avoided. Differences of opinion, he added, had existed between the respective Boards as to the cost ol making the improvement work. Tho River Board bad carried out certain drainage improvements at Rangiriri at a far greater length and those hud not cost more than £10(H) whereas it was claimed that the Aka Aka work would cost above i'loou.

A ratepayer enquired why Mr Muir was not included in the Rivor Board's rating :in-a. Mr Glass said that as far as he understood from rending the Drainage Act the Board could, if they^so desired, leave a inteptiyer outside tho Board's operations Mr Doan remarked that it was a sort of " sop" aud that Mr Muir was left out of ihe Board's operations because it answered the purpose of certain settlors. It was practically a bribe.

Mr Peacock thought that something was wrong when he was paying a rate whilst another man, owning thousands of acres, was not asked to contribute a penny.

A question was asked as to how it was tuat tho Government put money into the draining of the AkaAka swamp. Mr Glass : "I cannot say.'' Continuing, tho Chairman said he had been threatened with an action for' slander in connect inn with a statement he had made that Mr Massey(the Premier) owned land in tho Aka Aka drainage area. lie had had the title searched and it was shown that Mr Massey was interested in property there. Mr Glass then asked those present what they proposed to do. He .suggested that they should light the case and obtain expert evidence. Mr Peacock hardly saw tho wisdom for that and urged that they should proceed to form a new Board in accordance with the recent River Hoard Act. The Chairman said that ho wis opposed to the appointment of any Government ollicials as laid down in the Act. lie objected to any political influence and was in favour of expert engineers being appointed. Mr Dean advocated the putting in motion of the Inland Waterways Commission which had l>een pro posed about three years ago. lie thought that il the support of local bodies throughout the Am klaud Province could be obtained thai something could be elVoctn dlycarriod out.

Tin'. Chairman acquiosi ■! in tln< suggOHtion, hut Mr J'eaoix I; did nol think much good would ri'Milt. Mr Dean thought that enterprise, push and inlluence of local bodies would have git .it effect. Mr Hamilton raentionod that tho Government had spent about £l- f )O,000 in draining swamp lands throughout the Thames district with conspicuous success and he ielt sure

f the Waikato river was properly managed it would prove equally valuable. What should be aimed at was to increase the flow of the river. Mr Glass hinted that a Receiver should be put in. Ihe recommenda; tion of the Commission was to take out the groynes. Mr Peacock expressed the opinion that only the Aka Aka groynes were referred to, not the whole of the groynes. Mr Matthews contended that the Commission failed to recognise the gigantic amount of water which the Board had had to contend with during the past year. When tho Board had asked for £12,000 the Government had refused and only a comparatively small grant had been made. There was no justice in the Commission finding fault with their work considering the difficulties the Board had had to contend with Mr Glass agreed with the last speaker and contended that no one should be called upon to report on a' liver when it was in Hood. After some informal di>cussion Mr Potter moved " that a strong protest should be lodged against the unsatisfactory manner in which the Commission was arranged and the briefest time allotted tho Waikato River Board for the purpose of being represented on the Commission and considered that at least four weeks' notice should have been given to the River Board and that the Order of Reference should have been appended thereto." Mr Hamilton seconded. Mr Peacock remarked that the resolution did not touch upon the policy of the Board and suggested that the future policy of tho Board should be stated.

MrlK-an argued strongly in favour )f support being given to the Waterways Commission and alluded to tho opportunities which could be availed of for tho development of the land adjoining the Waikato for the settlement of returned soldiers.

Mi Peaecck asked as to the position of the Boaid that day. Mr (Mass replied that although the position financially was not a sati-factory one the Board had sufficient lo discharge its liabilities. Mr Peacock uiged that the Board should abitiidou operations and that some new blood should be introduced, lie was in favour of a Receiver being appointed. Mr Potter agreed to a suggestion made by Mi Stevenson that his motion .should be ul-ered to read that a petition, signed by ratepayers, should be presented to Parliament protesting against the huriiod mquiry of th« Commission and its report. Mr Peacock moved as an amendment that the Board should go into liquidation This wis sc ended by Ml Macfa:lane, but was only supported by the proposer and seconder The original motion, with the addition that the good work done by the Board should be mentioned in the petition, was then carried.

A vote of thanks to Mr Glass fir presiding brought the meeting to a close