THAMES DRAINAGE BOARD

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 31, 6 February 1900, Page 2

THAMES DRAINAGE BOARD

MAINAGE ASSESSMENTS^ A meeting of the members of the Thames Drainage Board was held today at Mr D. G. Macdonnell's office. There were present Messrs H. A. Gordon (chairman), J. Park, J. Gray, S. Hesketh, M. Clark, and G. S. Kissling. The Chairman said the first bushier was to henr appeals against the drainage assessment. A letter was read from the Kurunui Company appealing against the assessment, as they were not benefited by the pumping at all. The Kurunui-Caledonian Company also appealed On the ground that the independent assessors' recommendations should have been accepted. The Victoria and Waiotahi Companies appealed on the grounds that the assessments were excessive, disproportionate to the benefit derived from the pumping1, and not in accordance with the'recommendations made by the independent assessors appointed by the Board. The Thames-Hauraki Company appealed on the grounds that the" assessment was excessive, that with the exception of the Kurunui Company the other assessments were too low, and that the assessments were not made in accordance with the provisions laid down *o,v the Act. The Chairman said the assessment of the Board was based uponu the regulations. Each claim was assessed at £3 per acre, as well as the other grounds of assessment. Mr Kissling considered a great, injustice had been done to smaller claims. Tile Waiotahi was the smallest on the field. Tt represented about 4* per cent, of the total drainage area. Therefore a 5 per cent, contribution would be fair on the area basis. The production of gold from Che Waiotahi did not warrant any extra charge upon that Company. Then enme the question of benefit. The first question of benefit was the amount of gold won. Tt was quite true the Waiotnhi was the only claim in the drainage area that paid dividends last year. That was due to small capitalisation, and economic management. As a matter of fact the Wniotahi was charged £27" For paying £1000 in dividends, or really 27 per cent, for drainage. The true test was, which mines would be prejudieally affected if the pumping stopped. Last year the YVaioinhi expended £170 per acre, while the May Queen only spent. £40 per acre, if the Hoard were prepared to base their assessment upon (he Assessors report, then the Wniotahi Company would be satisfied, but Otherwise it wns the intention of the directors to appeal to the Warden. The Secretary read a letter from Mr K. S. Sorenson, stating t'hnt the notification came to him too late to attend the meeting, but he understood that the-Companies had the right to appeal to the Warden. Mr Park contended that the proposed assessment was a fair one. The area charge was the same for all companies, namely £3 per acre, according to the area held. The benefit derived, he understood, clearly meant' the gold won, as the extra depth required was specia-lly charged for. The greater the depth the more they had to pay. He did not think any of the Companies had cause to complain witlh the exception of the May Queen. That Company's assessment was nearly £,'!00 in excess of what it should be on t-he basis upon'which other Companies were charged. Mr Kfesdinig said the additional 300 feet for the Saxon cost £800 per annum more to the Big Pump, which stowed the fallacy of charging 10/ per foot down-to the 600 feet level. Mr Hesketh saM the weakness of the details now given was that they had. been prepared since the assessment was struck. As a matter of. actual fact, the Tihames-lla.uraki last year paid £6099 4/2 for pumping the field, and for that they were offered about £1000. The position was plain that the Drainage Board should collect proper fees, and pay them to the Company actually lifting t!he water. It was questionable whether the Board had power to make a supplementary assessment. They should make such mi assessment as would pay the Tha.mes-Hauraki. Until, they received rates, from the Board the ThamesHa.ura.ki cwiW not be looked upon as being in the position o>f pumping for the pubic. For years past the assessment, had beferi on the baste of £4000. That was charged when, the water was only lifted from 447 feet. Now, when they were pumping from 670 feet no extra fesisessment was made. .. Mr Park said the assessment really provided-for about £2900 to be paid to the Thames-Hanraki. Mr Clark considered the £6000 Should have been taken into account when the assessment was made. If it cost £6000 then that sum would require to be paid, the Thames-Hauraki, of course, contributing its share. Mr Kissling said they all looked forward to the time when the ThamesHauraki would umvater the whole field. At the present time the ThamesHauraki was really pumping- to a greater depth for the benefit of the May Queen alone. He thought the Thames-Hauraki should undertake the whole tmwatering of the field, and if the Big Pump had to be kept going that was a matter for the May Queen nnd Thames-Hauraki Companies alone. The £4500 was riot adequate for the purpose. The basis should be on the total cost of the pumping done. The present state of uncertainty was prejudicial to mining. So far the May Queen had not paid all^the money required under the recommendation of the .Government Assessor. Mr Park said if the Big Pump stopped all the mines at the northern end would be stopped. Mr J- J- Macky said the Victoria Company was not working lower than 100 feet,'so that the Big Pump was of no use. Already £24,000 had been spent ou the Victoria mine, and yet it could not be taxed on the gold won, and the pumping was no benefit unless it went much deeper. His directors were perfectly willing to pay a fair share, but the present assessment they considered excessive, and if it wae maintained they had nothing to do but to go to the Warden's Court, although they were reluctant to do soThe Chairman said althotigrh all members of the Board, each Avas interested in a special claim, and it would perhaps be wiser to let the. matter be settled judicially by the Warden. The whole of the claims wanted to go, down, but apparently did hot wish to pay the cost of getting down. Every claim wanted to know if gold existed at a lower depth, as it would enhance the value of each property. Tt was therefore only fair that the other companies should pay a fair share of the cost of going lower. He would propose that the assessment be upheld' and that would allow the

whole thing to be settled by the Warden. Mr Kissling said the sooner the Board came to an understanding- with the Thames-Hauraki Company the better it would be for all concerned. Mr Park said it was not fair that the Board should pay £6000 odd to the T'hames-Hauraki,, when the Big Plimip lifted double the quantity of water sat less cost. The ThamesHauraki was not yet draining the field, but only getting- ready to do so. Mr Kissling said if the ThamesHauraki Company would undertake to lift all the water and keep the Big Pump going, if it. was necessary, then the money'could all be paid over to that Com<pa,ny. Mr Park said the assessors pointed out that at present the Tha.mes-Hau-raki was only lifting one-seventh of the water the Big Pump did. Mr Hesketh said he understood from experts that at any moment the Thames-Ha.uraki might be lifting the whole of the water. The chairman said the solicitors opinion was that the Board should stand by the assessment. Mr Kissling moved that the Board ad-journ until 3.30 o'clock to ascertain from the solicitor if the Board had the power to remodel the estimated co&t. The chairman said that the Board must be satisfied an to the actual cost of the pumping to the Thamesllauva.ki before fixing £6099 as a basis. Mr Hesketh said the fullest information would be given. Mr Park said he would second the chairman's motion to stand by the assessment. When the second set ot plungers were in the Thames-Hau-raki shaft then the cost of pumping would be greatly lessened. i Mr Hesketh said all the ThamesiH'auraki asked wns to be paid the ■actual cosi of pumping. ._,.,. , i Mr Clark seconded Mr ■Kisislinig s ■ amendment, which was lost on the i casting vote of the chairman. Ine motion upholding the nswssment was ithen adopted on the casting vote ot the chairman. The chairman submitted a table, m-pnnml which lie contended proved tho assessment to be an equitable one. The details were: Kurunui, 15 acres, InswFHPri at €3 per acre, £45. depth ! required draining SO feet at 10/- per foot £40; value of gold won during iyear £152 at, 5 per cent., assessment •-C7 J2A total £02 12/-. Proportion 'of £254 12/- added £5 11/-, total assessment Kurunui Company, £98 3/-. jMonnatniari. 01 neves at -G.l per acre CIS.'! depth 400 foot, at 10/- per foot C2OO : gold won £5.19:',, at 5 per cent.. I £259 13/-. total £642 13/-, proportion ! added £38 10/11. total £081 3/11. Kurunui-Calcdonian. 30 acres at £3 per acre £90. depth 400 feet at 10/----nor foot £200, gold won £7,612 at 5 per cent., £380 12/-, total £670 12/----proporlion added £40 4/5, total £710 10/5- Waiotahi, 21 acres at £3 per acre, depth 400 feet at 10/- per foot £200, gold Avon £4,63S at 5 per |cent, £231 18/-, total £484=18/-, proI portion added £29 13/7, total £524 11/7 Victoria, 42 acres at £3 per acre" £ 126, 'depth 400 feet at 10/- per foot £200, gold won £400 at 5 per I cent £20, <otal £346" ProP ortlon |added £20 15/-, total £366 15/-. May Queen, 165 acres at £3 per acre- £495, j depth 660 feet at 10/- per foot £330 liroM won £6,083 at 5 per cent £349 3/. total £1,174 3/-, proportion added i™ 8/4, total £1244 11/4. ThamesITaurnki, 150 acres at «3 per acre £450 depth 748 feet at 10/- per foot £374 o-old won £30 at 5 per cent,, £1 10/- total £824 10/-, proportion added £49 8/0,. total assessment £873 19/9.