DRAINAGE BOARD AND COUNTY COUNCIL.

Shannon News, 15 January 1926, Page 3

DRAINAGE BOARD AND COUNTY COUNCIL.

FORMER'S METHODS CRITICISED,

the manner in which various works affecting the County were being carried out by the Makerua Drainage Board was. discussed by the Horowhenua County Council at its last meeting.. . The Engineer reported as follows: '"Fair progress has been made with I the Ashlea-Temukanui road contract but further work' hag been held up owing to a temporary bridge (over the main drain), erected by. the Makerua Drainage Board, becoming unsafe for traffic. The Engineers to the Board have been notified re this matter but nothing has been,done. I have therefore instructed the contractor to do any work necessary to put the bridge in repair and the Makerua Drainage Board will be charged with the cost of same.", The Works Committee reported:— "That ,owing to the unsatisfactory manner in which the Makerua Drainage Board are carrying out operations which affect this Council, a deputation be appointed from this Council to interview the Bioard at their next meeting to discuss the position." The Engineer said the County would' not take over the /bridge. Twenty-four foot piles were put in in one bridge. He condemned the bridge and the Board had to take it down and build it again. At the second attempt they went down 46 feet. Cr Catley a member of the Works Committee, said the Tokomianui Riding was now in course of being developed, works of considerable importance such as drainage being in hand there. It should be very carefully administered. The Council might take- over work'which in after years might prove unstable. Be was of the opinion, that before the deputation went to the Drainage Board they should visit the works complained of. It Was not right to send ■ a deputation until they were satisfied the specifications were not being carried out. Cr. Jensen, another member of the Works Committee, agreed with this view.,' ' < . Cr. Barber objected to, members of the Committee taking up this attitude. He brought .the matter up. In the committee he suggested this inspection, but it was not agreed to. If the Works Committee was not going to give attention to the whole of. the County, it was not goimg to be of any \we and' had better be dispensed with. They turned down the inspection which should have been 'carried out. Cr. Ryder, chairman of.the Committee said the Committee was new and the repoit was not just.as it should have been. He was surprised to hear Or. Bariberte. remarks because as one of the Committee he felt anxious to go over the Riding, but felt that the chairman should go with them. Oilier members explained that it . was fully intended co make an inspection, hut this had ' not been thought necessary before the 'Council meeting. Clr. Catley moved that before the deputation wait, on the Board, an inspection of the works complained of be made.Cr. Banber accepted Jhis resolution, which was carried.