WATER RIGHTS.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1027, 3 December 1872, Page 2

WATER RIGHTS.

" Section X., Clause 8" in the Mining Regulations of the Nelson South-west Goldfields has been the cause of a deal of bad feeling among the miners, and has occasioned a greater waste of money in litigation and its results than any bye-law ever before framed. It directs in the most mandatory language that the holders of water-rights shall not be entitled to take vt ater from any river or permanent stream, when by so doing they will reduce the quantity of water in such stream to less than one sluice head. The only reasonable excuse ever offered in justification of the arbitrary interpretation given to this bye-law by the Wardens on the Nelson South-west Goldfields is the necessity of preventing monopoly on the part of holders of water-rights in other places than the beds of creeks. There is no doubt such a safeguard was necessary to protect the interests of creek workers when they formed the hulk of the mining population, and before the auriferous deposits lying at greater elevations formed the chief source of employment for the miners. Clause 8, Section X., did good service in those times by preventing the possibility of a few parties working on the ranges, depriving those engaged among the lower levels of the free use and advantage of an abundant supply of water, but with the decline and exhaustion of the creek workings the necessity for any special protection passed away. A rule capable of being interpreted and applied in quite an opposite sense is now required. The description of mining known as terrace working, in contradistinction to operations carried solely in the beds of creeks, now occupies the greater portion of the working population on the Goldfields, and therefore every facility should be thrown in the way of those who produced the greater part of the gold. The hill workings afford the means of profitable occupation to the majority of the miners, and such being the case high level sluicing must be fostered and encouraged. It is consequently necessary to render it impossible, for a single individual, no matter how amiable or deserving he may be personally, by insisting upon Ins right under this rule as it is generally enforced, to deprive perhaps hundreds of men of the means of livelihood. * * * The necessity of amending this rule was brought in a forcible manner under the notice of th.o general public during the latter part of the year 1569. In consequence of its operation a dead-lock occurred almost simultaneously at Duffer Creek, Orwell Creek, Nelson Creek, Abe's Gully, and Moonlight Creek. The miners were at this time generally turning attention to terrace workings, as the chief and permanent source of employment, and the Warden's Courts at Ahaura and Camptown were busily engaged adjusting the • differences between those having claims and races on the ranges, and the few remaining creek workers. The remedy at that time suggested in this paper was a simple one, and if adopted then it would, have saved an infinite amount of trouble since. It was stated that the rule should be enforced only where the majority of the working miners resident in any locality specially wished for and requested its application. The easiest manner of arriving at the opinion of the majority would be by proceeding as direct in the case of denning " wet claims" under Section 111 Clause 1 of the Regulations. It is there laid down that the Warden on receipt by him of a memorial signed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the claimholders in any district affected by the rules relating to wet workings, may proclaim such district as under the operation of the Regulations referring to wet ground. The boundaries of the district in which the rules are in force must be fixed by and defined by public notices. When the necessity for enforcing the particular rules mentioned in any district has ceased, the Warden has power on a similiar memorial being presented to him, to suspend the operation of the proclaimed clauses. If some such amendment as the foregoing were made in Clause 8, Section 10, it would be placing the remedy directly iu the hands of the miners, and if it were not applied the Regulations or the Warden's Courts could not be held responsible, as they are now, for the confusion which so often arises and the great hardships inflicted in particular cases. It is again hoped that their Worships the Wardens will give this matter their most earnest consideration at their next conference, and by so doing remove a most fruitful source of litigation. ' Grey River Argus.'