RATEPAYERS OBJECT TO RECLASSIFICATION

Shannon News, 21 October 1927, Page 3

RATEPAYERS OBJECT TO RECLASSIFICATION

Magistrate Hears Appeals From Makerua District ERROR IN INTERPRETATION OF ACT SUGGESTED At the Courthouse Wednesday, Mr. J. L Stout, 8.M., was engaged hearing an appeal by 21 ratepayers in the Makeroa Drainage -Board's "district against the proposal of the Board to reclassify its lands. Although not quite in agreement with the classification as it now exists, the appellants' expressed a desire to see it remain the same, as, in then opinion, it was more equitable than the new proposals. The appellants and their counsel were as 'follows: Hugh Altera, Arthur Akers, Herman Seifert, William Ross, Poplar Flaxmilling Coy, Bangitano Farm Co., J. Bayliss, S. R. Young, W. Jackson, and the Temukumui Flaxmilling Co., represented by Mr. Myers and Mr. Jacobs; H. Hume, T. D. Lynch, Tokomaru Flaxdressing Co., and Eric Mabin, represented by Mr. A. M. Ongley; L. H. Craw and G. Craw, represented by Mr. Abraham; J. H Kars, Croad Bros., -C. Coley, H. Alexander, and A. Ward, represented by Mr. Grant. Mr. Innes appeared for the Drainage Board. Mr.' Myers opened the appeal, and after his witnesses had been heard His Worship expressed the opinion that apparently Mr. F. S. Hay, in interpreting the Act for the purpose of the new classification, had made a slight mistake, and on his suggestion the parties adjourned until to-day to discuss the situation, and endeavour to reach an, agreement. Revaluation? Mr. Myers also thought that the time for a recla'ssification was inopportune and in any case it should come subsequent to a revaluation. It was really ridiculous that there should have been no revaluation since the works of the Board were completed. Mr. Innes pointed out that the Board had no power to revalue. It was only the Valuation Department or each owner who might call for a revaluation. There was really no reason why the reclassification should be held up. The Government was not voluntarily revaln ing any district at present. Mr. Myers: The Board might ask foi it. What the Board has Done. The first witness was Francis Charles Hay, engineer,-who produced plans of the MakeruaDrainage Board area showing his new classification. The Board •*.- improvement and protection works, ho said, consisted of high banks along the Manawatu and Tokomaru Eivcrs, the deepening of drains, erection of flood gates, etc. He did not know, however. how much the Board had spent on these jworks which he thought were effective The most important to the district as a whole would be the banking 1 . He ad mitted, however, that some of the land he had-classed A received more benefit than others. The trouble was there wa? not enough classes. Mr. Myers produced a plan of the old classification adding that for some inscrutable reason, class C land wa? now to be put in class A—land thai was high and dry and not affected ir any way by the banking works. Hi slated that the Manawatu embankmentshad cost the Board £22,617, and the total amount spent on protection drainage was £lOl,OlO. Private Enterprise. Hugh Akers told the Court that his father at one time owned a very largi portion of the land now in the Makerua Drainage district. He, personally. and his father before him, had spent large sums in draining the land —some thing like £25,000. The result was goofi drainage and the land was brought into good heart. The only trouble was expe rienced in big floods, say, once in five years, when the river came in through the old water ourses and repressions. The water used to run across the B and C lands to Tokomaru land classed •A used to bear the brunt of the Tokomam floods as well as that of the Manawatu. Lands classed B and C only bore occasional Manawatu water and the drainage from those lands went into Akers' main drain which was 7 miles long and ran into the Manawatu. This drain was still in existence, having been taken over by the Board. C class land was all grazing land while flax was grown on A class. B class land was used partly for grazing but mostly for flax-growing. The Board's works on the Tokomaru stream and Linton drain were of no benefit to the B and C class ratepayers next- the Manawatu. Other B and C class lands owned by Young and Jackson was also effectively drained by Doherty's drain which had not been taken over by the Board, and was still maintained privately. There was no doubt the A class lands had received •the most benefit from the Board's works, yet some of the land belonging to the Eangitane Company, Temukunui and A. and L. Seifert, classed A, •was not as well drained as it was 10 years ago. The C land was high and didn't require any drainage and B class should not be put into A either. Mr. A Akers had the highest land in the district, and the banking of the Manawatu there was not necessary except as

part of the whole scheme. Even in the 1902 flood there was stock grazing on that property. To Mr. Innes, witness said that although- a member of the Drainage Board, he was not in favour of a new classification. He didn't think'the time was mature for one. Generally speaking, the banking scheme had been a benefit to the whole district, and the value of the land had gone up. Another View. Harry Greig, supervising director of JYmukunui, Limited, said th Board proposed to transfer 680 acres of tho Company's from B to A class. This land produced flax and received benefit from the Manawatu embankments by being freed from the possibility of floods, although in the past it had not suffered very much in that respect. The only real difficulty solved by the Board was the safeguarding of the A lands in the old classification. He suggested that the Board had not constructed Works that had been of benefit in removing water from the west side of Akers' drain. .

To Mr. Innes, witness stated that the Tokomaru Hood waters never came near his Company's property, which was better drained 20 years ago by reason of Akers' drain being more effective. The Company had drains of its own lead ing into Akers' *drain. Increase Not Justified.

William Eoss said he owned land at Opui as well as being managing-director of the Poplar Company. There were about 10 miles of drains costing over £IOOO put down by the Company, and in 1917 the rates paid amounted to £.' J ,2/5/10. Since then they had increased to £505/11-/7 (.class B) and now the Board proposed classifying the land as A. The Board had put up an embankment along the Manawatu and in doing so had left 72 acres at the merely of the river—land between the embankment and the water-edge. The Poplar olock would be better if flooded every three or four months as it grew flax, but Opui had a lot of high ground scarcely ever flooded. He already had iitlf of Opui banked before the Board commenced its work—banks which kept out ordinary floods. None of the internal works about the Tokomaru were necessary for his protection. The Popar Company objected to being shifted from B to A, and he, at Opui, objected to being in B. He had continually asked for a reclassification of Opui which was higher than most of the MakSrua !ands, and had holding paddocks that iad never been reached by floods. The •ate on the Poplar block worked out ?it. 16/- per acre. . To Mr. Innes: Whether banking was accessary depended on the use to which the land was put. Opui was quite free Prom floods now, and was used foT dairying. He had been able to plough :tnd grow erops. Further Plans. Further plans and photographs of the listrict showing contour lines, levels, lrains, embankments, flood-gates, etc.. were produced by H. R. Farquhar, surveyor. He also told the Court that tho >anking on the Tokomaru stream did not help the people in the higher country, but the Manawatu embankments ;:vust help the ratepayers right down to he Tokomaru. Expert Evidence.

Gerald Fitzgerald, civil engineer, of .Vellington, considered that the old clas "•.ification the more reasonable of tht wo. He found fault with the new because it made no distinction between he lands differently benefitted. Some >f the lands included in A in the new schedule derived little or no benefit rom the Manawatu stopbanks. Others, \"hilo receiving benefit from them, derived none from the drainage facilities, i'hc Tokomaru banks and Linton drain vrere of advantage to the old A class anels but of no benefit to B and C classes. Those B and C lands were Irained fairly effectively without any Hoard works at all.

To Mr. Innes: If he were classifying I !u- would want to find class A land di-' ectly benefitted from both banks and irainage system. If they were not hewould place the property in another (•lass. He admitted that the district was not an easy one to classify. Further Protest. Norman Gibbons, a member of the Eangitane Farm Company, said his firm objected to being transferred from B into A. The Tokomaru basin would fill up in flood time, but it took a long time and a big flood to reach the Company's land. Even when the Manawatu came over B and C class land it never stayed long. The B and C class ratepayers received little benefit from any of the Board's drainage works. The Company had 10 miles of its own drains maintained at a fair cost. Had the B and C ratepayers stayed out of the Makerua drainage district, it would have cost them less 1 to protect themselves than the capitalised rates of the Board. Little to Alter. _Adam' A. McDonald, who made the original classification for tho Board in 1921, said he considered the question of direct benefit likely to be received from the Board's works. He had been over the land again recently, and there was little he would alter in his classification. The B land is getting benefit from the banking only while the A land gets the advantage of the whole of the Board's works. The properties ho put in C were high and in some cases, did not require banking even, They would

receive indirect benefit, however by the rise iu value of adjacent property.

The Magistrate intimated at this juncture that it seemed to him that there should be some differentation between land protected by drains and that undrained. It looked as if a good deal of B land should remain B and seme C put into B class. Because land received direct benefit from a small portion of the Board's works, did not mean that it should be put into the same class as laud having protection by the whole of the works. There should be some difference between laud getting just protection and that getting both drainage and protection. . r e thought the parties might confer and come to some understanding. The suggestion was adopted and the Court adjourned until 10.30 this mornil!g|