CORPORATION SUED

Evening Star, Issue 20972, 10 December 1931, Page 10

CORPORATION SUED

CONDITION OF WAIPORI RIVER ALLEGED DEPRECIATION OF LAND VALUE CLAIM FOR £2,650 COMPENSATION In the Supremo Court to-day a claim was made by W. J. and M. H. Reid for £2,650 for the alleged depreciation of tho value of their property due to the operations of the City Corporation in the erection of a dam on the Waipori River for the storage of water. Tho case was heard by His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy, with Mr M. Stevenson as assessor for the claimants and Mr James Begg as assessor for the corporation. It was stated by counsel for the claimants that they were sheep farmers, occupying' a fairly large run, part of which adjoined the Waipori River in the neighbourhood of Berwick. The hydraulic power of the Waipori River was at first utilised by a private company, but many years ago it was taken over by the City Corporation; In 1920 the Dunedin City Corporation Empowering Act was passed giving the corporation power to erect and main-. tain a dam across the river and to im-? pound, collect, and use the water for generating electricity. That Act also gave the right to persons to claim compensation whose land or mining privilege was injuriously affected. In 1924 another Act was passed giving the corporation power to raise the height of the dam, the building of which had been authorised in 1920. The Waipori River, said counsel, like a great many other rivers in this mountainous country, was subject, and had always been subject, to very great variations in its content at different times of tho year. When left alone—he meant undammed—there _ 'were seasons of the year when the river, as a result of melting snow, rain, or other causes, would become very full, and there were other periods—long drawnout periods—when the river would be very empty. That was the natural behaviour of the river. To the claimwho occupied and used the valuable flat lands in immediate juxtaposition; to tho river—it was of importance in connection with the drainage of those flat lands that the natural conditions manifested in the river should have continued. That they had not continued to a sufficient degree to servo tbe claimants’ purpose was due to the erection of the dam and its operation. It would be obvious to the court that some interference with the natural condition of the river was duo to the dam* and its operation, if the dam were effective at all. The mere impounding of water would give low water, and low water would be beneficial from the point of view of drainage, hut the corporation impounded the water for use. The water used for the manufacture of electricity automatically escaped down the river, this escape going on regularly according to the quantity _of electricity for the moment being generated. The result was a general levelling of the height of the river for the whole year instead of a high river for a time and a very low river for a long period. As a result the claimants were deprived of the long period of sufficiently low river for the purposes of sub-soil drainage. Water also escaped when sometimes repairs had to be carried out. Sometimes there was also another escape of water—that was when the dam was full or was filling. He conceded that tho corporation endeavoured to regulate things, and desired not to have its undertaking reproached with causing an unnecessary flood through the greedy aceumulation of water. The height of the river varied in tho most extraordinary and unnatural way. The method of control led, to constant fluctuation in the quantity of water that came down the river from day to day, even though the quantity was more evenly distributed throughout the whole year than under natural conditions. The fluctuations were dictated not only by the amount of electrical energy consumed, but also by the, two other factors he had mentioned — tho escape of water for repairs and the escape when the dam was full. It would be shown that, as a result of the mere discharge of water for tho manufacture of electricity, the river, as it flowed past the property of the claimants, varied in height within twenty-toiu hours as much as 3ft. There had been other • interference with the river for which tho corporation was not responsible. There had been mining in the upper reaches of the river, and, as a result of the silt brought down, the bed of the river had been raised, with a consequent raising of tho height of the surface of tho water. All that was many years ago, and happened long before the dam was erected. There were people who remembered the mining days, and who could say that the river was then very much deeper and clearer than it was to-day. Ho sought to contrast the sort of river in 1924 with . the sort of river _ running since the corporation dam was in operation. They thought they could prove that, even though the floor of the river had been raised by mining, there were still in that period spells when there was a high river quickly going down, and when there were long drawn-out spells of low river. There was then no trouble about drainage, and the water in the river was low enough _ to allow of the water in the sub-soil being got rid of. The claimants had thirtysix acres of land in a loop of tho river. At this stage the court adjourned till the afternoon.