The Kaitangata Crook

Bruce Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 3097, 8 September 1899, Page 5

The Kaitangata Crook

The proposal bo fill in the Kaibangata Creek was discussed at Tuesday's meebing of the Bruce County Council. Ib appears bhab the greater portion of the land abutting on one side of the creek was long ogo vested, for drainage purposes, in the County Council ; and Cr Rutherford is of opinion that, in the event of a brick sewer being constructed and the creek filed in, the County Council shou'd waive its claim to this land in favor of the Borough Council. Other members of the County Council, however , are of opinion that the land will be too valuable an asset to part with, seeing that any rents, which may accrue from it, will be required to keep the drainage works in repair. When the scheme for draining tho j Lakes was taken in hand, tbe Borough Council suggested and it was agreed to by the County Council that, instead of widening the present creek a new outlet or canal should be cut ; and thab, as an outleb for the drainage of bhe Lakes, the creek should be abandoned. Since bhe canal has been made, the old creek has become an inbolerable nuisance in the Borough ; as ib has been msde bhe receptacle of various kinds of objectionable matter. The Borough Council has epeabedly asked bhe County Council bo clean out the cr ek ; but the latter body object to do so, saying : " i he canal was cut ab your suggesbion, and we will have nothing to do with the creek." Then the Borough Council attempted to have passed, by the House of "Representatives, a Bill empowering the Borough to construct a sewer from bhe river up the creek, a certain distance ; and so have bhe creek filled in. Owing to the County Council's opposition, this project fall through. The reason of the County Council's action waa that the County had been summoned for damages by Mr Aitcheson for altering the original watercourse (the cutting of the canal) ; and the County Council declined to allow the creek to be filled in, uqless the Borough Counpil indemnified the County Council in respect to any future aobion by any of the ratepayers. And so the subject stood until quite recently, when Mr Lees suggested to the County Council that, if the Borough Council would fill in bhe | creek from the river to the railway he would fill in bhe creek tho breadbh of bhe railway ground } the cost of a briok sewer to be piid by the Borough and Mr Lees. If this suggestion is carried out, the Borough, besides suppresing the nuisance mentioned, will not require the present bridge and will possess about an acre of land available for building on in the best part of the town. The other porbion of the land in the Borough reserved to the County Council fp.r drainage purposes will, as the creek is filled in, also bepome valuable anc} the scheme would sppn haye praptipal developmpnt, Jf the Cp.unty 6ouncil would hapd this land over to the Borough. It seems bhab bhis change of ownership is not ljkely to take place. Consideration of the whole subject has been deferred until furthe particulars with regard to it have been received from the Borough : Council. •