BUCKLEY DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

Shannon News, 9 February 1926, Page 3

BUCKLEY DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

INCLUSION OK EXCLUSION ? OBJECTORS AND 'PETITIONERS STATE THEIR CASE. A Cpnimission, comprising Messrs T. A. Johnston (Resident Engineer to the Public Works Department, at Shannon) and chairman of the .Commission; N. H. Maekie (Government Valuer) and S. A. Broadbelt, was recently set up in Shannon-to onquir'e into the question or altering the boundaries of the Buckley Drainage District; to consider particularly the areas referred to in the petition, and objections to the inclusion ol certain areas within the district; to report on the suitability or otherwise of such inclusion and to reeoinmena such alteration to the boundaries as might be considered desirable. Mr. G. Watson, solicitor, of Welling: ton/appeared for the objectors, Messrs Spiers, Ross and Peterson, whilst Mr. R J. Law represented the petitioners. Mr. R. W. Taylor, chairman of the Buckley Drainage Board, stated that it the area indicated were cut out it would upset the whole scheme, which was to add 4000 acres to the present drainage district. . The proposed district originated with the idea of eventually doing banking along the river, and that the bank along the Mangaore stream be carried right down. Ihc larger proposal went down to tlic Whirokino bridge. .Cross-examined by Mr. Watson as to whether he knew of any practical objection to making the boundary of the district the fencing line between Spier’s and McGill’s properties instead of the Axatangata drain, witness san; it would increase the expense to the •whole district, without any benefit. . Mr. F. H. Hudson, County dent, said the work originated with the Horowhenua County Council some years ago in connection with th'c cleaning ol . the Koputaroa stream, for which purpose loans of £1255 (in 1904) and £l2;>o (1916) were raised. Unfortunately no provision was made for the maintenance o ; f the work, and the Horowlieuua County Council recommended that the settlers in this area should form themselves into a drainage district. This \ mater - went on for some years, until .about a y&ar ago, when tlic settle vs ' niade representations to the Council and it was decided to petition for the formation of an arfia, the object being to deal with drainage and banking. Cross-examined by Mr. Watson as; to why the boundary of the proposed district should not go between McGilM and Spier’s properties, witness stated . that there may be some benefit which the objectors’"land would derive from the scheme. Further, that the County did not want several small districts, Mr. Watson: Is it not a fact that the promoters of this scheme originally desired to take in those people down to the Whirokino bridge, but , they. l abandoned that because most .of these owners Were flax-growers and objected. ' Mr. Hudson: They went for a smalar ea because in a-larger area there would hot be the same chance of cess owing to the larger number of obj’ectors. x 1 „ . , nv . Mr. Watson: If it was fair to exclude those other people, was it no, fair to exclude my clientsi—No, bethose who objected had a very large area, that is the only reason I 421111 suggest.- _ , ilr J McGill, said it was useless to continue with the scheme unless the county drain was banked. The drain was absolutely solid on the bottom anu a bank could be erected without the lightest difficulty. The land was river -silt and peat mixed, the latter on top lo ;x depth of three or four feet, lhe objectors say this is flax land, but, . was good for anything else besides. They ha 4 said water was good for flax, but they put up a bank and Mr. bpieis bad, witness thought, actually bloc.i ■wl the drain to keep the water from bis land. The objectors idea was to out a bank on witness’ property o>soo aefes, which would benefit Spiers without the latter paying *nyDung tor ht The petitioners’ drainage scheme would not be detrimental to flax-grow-jn®, and he knew of places where flax wSd not grow until the water was i Mr Johnston: Do you consider ■vour ‘property would be detrimentally affected if the drainage area were not extended to the objectors properties? , Yes, considerably, in’ fact the resub •\VOul(l 1)6 * Mr. Watson: If I can show you tha. the objectors will not get any benefit but only the expense, the objection to excluding tlmm falls through. Is it not | J fact that sonic of the settlers are replanting flax where they wore dairy jng?—lt is their opinion that this is a flax proposition. Mr. Watson: Do you know th tjt is the opinion of men like Mi. that it is possible to get 24 times mo, e ' from flax than from dairying?—No Mr. Watson: Do you know that on AVhitanui and other properties the lUx 5s usually Healthiest and best wherit is subject to river floods?—ics. In outlining the case for the objee tors. Mr. Watson stated he represented Mr W. A. Spiers, whose area of law ; comprised 354 acres, of which 8b acres is terraced land, 190 acres flax and 4 acres in dairying, but the Jurying a t was being rapidly converted flax, Messrs Ross, Rough and Co., 600 ac of which 300 acres is already in flax and a further 140 acres is bang T into flax; Mr. Peterson, who has_ Jd acres, all in flax. They did not °^ e< £ to the proposed scheme, but to their inclusion in the scheme The main reason why they did not want to bincluded was because they wished to prevent their flax industry being ruined. -The land was unsatisfactory,.for several reasons. Cows do not flourish on this ground, even when drained, returns are poorer and a fay greater yield could be derived from flax- N°* whej-e else in the proposed Buckley Drainage area was flax grown. The periodical river floods' kill oil a number of insects and other pests, which, wjure the flax. This was different to surface flooding, which was detrimental and the objectors’ own private drains wpre sufficient. There was no practical

objection to their exclusion by making the boundary between McGill and Spiers’ property. If the objectors were included they ‘would not derive any benefit, but a very grave prejudice and harm. •Mr. R. J. Law. on behalf of the petitioners, stated: Practically the whole of the 4000 acres was subjected to severe flooding, which had be’en worse since the other Boards had confined the river higher up. The flooding was also caused by the Koputaroa stream, having a narrow outlet and taking the water from a large area extending from Ihakara Hill as far west as tue railway line. When it reached Koputaroa station it flowed due north for about three miles and met the Mana : wat'u river head-on, increasing the possibility of flooding. In the aggregate a large sum of money had been spent by the settlers to drain and bank this area, but for the want of a Board to control and maintain the .work, the schemes had proved useless. The Koputaroa str'eam was the key to the whole thing, for when it overflowed practically every acre was flooded. During this last winter some of this land must have been under water for -weeks. If flax required river floods why was Mr, Seifert such an ardent supported of the Makerua Drainage Board? It had been said that land in this district was reverting to flax, but on the Makerua, where protection was afforded, the land was going back to dairying right among good flax. Another great benefit which would accrue to this land on the western, bank of the Koputaroa stream,’is that it would eradicate the blackberry pest and goatsr,ue. It was good land and he considered the benefits received would bo adequate return for work done. With the exclusion of the objectors’ area the balance would be too small in extent to pay for the scheme.

Mr. Mackic said that if a Drainage Board District were formed, and a definite scheme proposed, classification, allowing for any differentiation in benefits, would be made. Land not deriving any drainage benefit, but enjoying a flood benefit, would be differently classified to land in possession of both advantages. Som'e lands would be tdassified as “I)’’ class land gnd/would, therefore, pay no rates. Inclusion did no harm to owners, who could appeal against their classification. Cross-examined by Mr. Mackic, witness stated that, since the Makerua bank was constructed flooding had been tho worst he had ever known. The major part of the scheme is the bank of the Koputaroa and the improvement of the river banks. .If the bank were put along Spiers’ property it would protect the lower land at the expense of land higher up. Mr. W. A. Spiers said ho was one of the objectors to the petition and had been in possession of his property for about, six years. At first he converted the flax land into dairying because at that timp he thought dairying the better proposition of the two. _ About IS months ago h’c abandoned this idea and began replanting in flax, while since that time lie had been making preparations to put. it all into flax. Tho land was unsuitable - in winter and spring for dairy-farming. Surface water from the drains was bad for the and his own private drains were capable of dealing with any surface water. Cross-examined by Mr. Johnston (chairman) witness further stated he had a very good system of drains, but in the spring and winter it was very wot,, and cold and nnid caused about 20 per e'ent. loss of cattle. The mud was up to the cow’s udders, and this was the effect of the land being flooded. The flood water from, the Koputaroa flowed through his property, along the' foot of the terrace and over his road. If the Koputaroa were banked it would be advisable to have a bank between his property and McGill’s. Should the river bank break it would stop the water from banking up. A bank there would not benefit him but the people above who wore m favour of the scheme. Mr. Matthew Campbell, manager of Whitnnui mill and with 20 years' experience in flax-growing, gave evidence in relation to thp' question of flood waters and their effect on flax cultivaI l °\he Commission then adjourned.