The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1924. THOSE UNSIGHTLY MUD FLATS!

Gisborne Times, Volume LX, Issue 9722, 4 June 1924, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1924. THOSE UNSIGHTLY MUD FLATS!

There is taking place :l good tie; of discussion on «,tlio suggestion, n vived by 3.1 r G. A C. Munns, that tl. unsightly mud Hats along the Tan horu River should be reclaimed wit a view to beautification. When tl matter came before the ‘City Father! at their latest meeting, it receive warm approval, but it was felt thn the timo was inopportune to pro scout tho project. Much as the propose improvements arc required, it maj however, prove a complex and difficul task to secure the requisite perini; 1 sion from tlie parties interested. A ! iarprs we can make out, the Eoroug i Council, to whom Mr Munns addresf Jed his .communication, has no juris i diction over the lands in question. .I j may he recalled that, as far back a | 11X15, tho Harbor Board secured b I legislation the right from tho Crow | to tho bed of the river right up a ! far as Lytton Road. The certificat i of title, we are led to understand 1 gives the Harbor Board control of th river to the point mentioned fron 1 high water to high water mark. Wha | Mr Munns suggests—and it _ w.oub , certainly be a great improvement—i i that the river should be straightened j providing an adequate deep wate ' channel. But unless the Harbo: i Board and all tho holders of property i backing on to the river were agree ; able, it would not be possible, if w< 1 are not greatly mistaken, to carry oui tho work and thus secure to the Borough what Mr Munns says wolilc bo “a very valuable asset at a smal cost.’' Tho position, it would seem is that the boundary between the Harbor Board’s right and those oi adjacent property holders is fixed onlj by the term “high water mark.’’ Maybe all the property-holders concerned would be prepared to forego their strict legal rights in tho matter. But one never knows. What is understood to be the position is that these property-holders are entitled to any accretions ‘ to their holdings, provided that such accretions prove to he of a gradual and imperceptible nature. On tho other hand, these people stand to lose any portion.of their property if erosion takes place. Ln this regard, it is believed that, if ■ any land so lost again appeared above the waters of the river, it would revert to their ownership. Whether the lands in question have lost or made ground in recent years we do not profess to know, but it would seem unlikely that appreciable losses have, at any rate, taken place. Objection might, of course, also ho raised against any such reclamation scheme by some owners on tho score that if a road uTCro placed between their properties and the river they would forfeit their riparian rights. Under this heading it is claimed that a person’s property Must remain in contact with the raters of such a waterway to give him she rights of a riparian-owner. What lannot be overlooked is this: that vhen the Crown transferred its rights n the river to the Harbor Board, uvners of Land abutting on the river vero not deprived of any of their iglits of highway, etc. It is quite (lain, therefore, that the Borough annot secure the mud flats for beauification'purposes unless they secure he consent of tho Harbor Board and ne holders of property running back o high water mark. But the “City T athers” cannot expect the Harbor ioard to interview the property- j elders in question and expend its ! wn moneys on any project of the j ind. That would be the case even ’ the Harbor Board had not, as it ut resent has, its hands full with other 1 roblems. The matter is one in respect

of which the “City Fathers” should .be the pi-ime movers and it would be a great step forward if they could arrange for a beautification plan to be made and for the consent of tuc Harbor Board and of the propertyholders who would be affected to be • secured. Unquestionably, the project is well worth undertaking.