A WATERCOURSE CASE.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16516, 7 May 1919, Page 5

A WATERCOURSE CASE.

APPEAL DISMISSED. At tlie Magistrate's Court at Rangiora yesterday, Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., gave judgment in the appeal of "William Henry Weir and his wife, liliza Weir, against an order made b.v the Kowai County Council" calling upon appellants to remove from a watercourse on their property to a distance not exceeding ten feet from the nearest margin of the watercourse all obstructions of any kind, including earth, stone, timber, and materials, treeSj plants, weeds, and growth of any kind calculated to impede the flow of, the water in such watercourse.

Mr Bailey said that the watercourse iu question ran through appellant's land for a distance of about 10 chains, and at, about fivo chains above the . Upper Sefton road," where it left the appellant's land, it took a sharp bend. At this bend there was :a largo accumulation of shingle, sufficient to check the flow of tho water down the bend ,ol' the stream, and divert it over the bank. From that point down to the

road where the stream flowed under the bridge the bed was blocked with shingle. Hie appellants had never taken a serious step to clear the bed of the obstructing shingle, as they considered that the blockage was caused through the failure of the Drainage Board to keep the outlet under the bridge clear, and thought that it was the duty of the Drainage Board to clear the shingle from the bed of the stream. The experts called by the appellants supported that theory; those called by the Council said that the blockage was not caused in that way. As to how the blockage was caused was irrelevant to the present appeal. The fact remained that the bed of the stream was blocked, and as a result of that blockage the water had run to properties below the appellants' land and caused damage., The order as drawn tip was a little too wide, and the Council admitted that the order included the removal of trees afld plants within ten feet of the bank. This if carried out would mean the removal of the willows on the banks. To remove the willows would do more harm than good, as they held the banks together, and to a great measure prevented the water j overflowing on to the adjoining land. They confined the water, and helped it

to scour the shingle out of the bed of the stream. From a view of . the watercourse, it seemed to him that it would only be necessary to, remove the shingle, and other obstructions in the bed of the stream from where the water had broken over the banks just above the bend mentioned, down to the road. To a certain extent that had been done by the Council in getting gravel. The removal of the shinglo accumulated at the bend down to the point where the gravel had been removed, should almost be sufficient. From that onward it did not appear that it would be necessary to rpmove any great depth to create a scour. There had been two suggestions made to obviate the work of clearing the spoil—one was to make a straight cut from the gums to the bridge, and run the water down that cut. His opinion was that though that, would make an effectual course for the water, which would not be likely to silt up, it would be' a dangerous experiment for the appellants, as the scour would be very great, and it might carry away a lot of valuable land. The other suggestion was, instead of clearing the elbow of shingle, to make a cut across the angle to straighten the creek. This seemed feasible, and should be success-

pjnoiv cjt jt axj pun 'pij any more than clearing the shingle out of the elbow. He had, however, no power to make an order in the direction of either of the suggestions. His duty was to say whether the order of the Council should be carried out, or, though the Act was not quite clear on the point, to what extent it should he modified. The appeal would be dismissed and the order modified to the extent that it should not apply to the willows along the banks of the watercourse, and any material caught in the willows which helped to keep- the water within bounds. No costs were allowed.

Mr van Asch appeared for the appellants, and Mr* Johnston for the County Council.