The Rivers Inquiry

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 147, 6 June 1936, Page 8

The Rivers Inquiry

NAPIER’S REQUEST Made by “Slightly Disgruntled Ratepayers” COUNSEL’S CHARGE Allegations that Napier’s request for a reduction in river rates was being made by “slightly disgruntled ratepayers, who, not being pleased with the Rivers Board for some reason, wanted to oppose any suggested the Rovers Board had to make,” were made by Mr H. H. Holderness, counsel for the Hastings Borough Council, when addressing the Government Committee of Inquiry into Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board matters yesterday afternoon. Hastings was prepared to pay in rates whatever the committee deemed fair and just, he said, though it was held that the Hastings borough was in no danger of flooding. “For 69 years there have been people who have said that Hastings is in danger of flooding,” said Mr Holderness. “It is quite useless for anyone to say that we can’t get rid of our surface water without using the rivers. Wo can. We are going to get rid of our sewage without the rivers, and we can manage our surface water also without the rivers. ’ ’

Eor Napier’s counsel to stand up and say that Napier had no interest now in the southern districts of Hawke’s Bav w'as the most astonishing thing he had ever heard, Mr Holderness added. Napier was the province’s clearing-house, and that alone should be a good answer to such a claim. What would Napier’s harbour do if there were no communications with the south? Did the port of Napier depend solely upon the northern district? Surely not.

Napier contributed £5700 towards Tutaekuri river works with open eyes, Mr Holderness submitted. It contributed that money knowing that the Napier part of No. 1 ward would go on paying towards that loan; and that money was contributed with the full knowledge that the work was going to bo good for Napier. “The borough of Hastings is prepared to stand on its own footing and to pay its share,” he said. "Wo don’t ask that Napier’s contribution should be increased.”

Before Napier asked for a redistribution, it ought to back its claim by adequate evidence. Had Napier called one expert engineer to support its claim? The Town Clerk, who had been in Napier for six years, had been called, but ho had to admit that ho had no expert knowledge of the question. ‘ ‘ Can you suppose, Mr Chairman, that if the Tutaekuri river had never been diverted Napier w’ould come here and ask for a reduction of its rates?” Mr Holderness asked. “It seems that this request is being made by slightlydisgruntled ratepayers. They are not pleased with the board for some reason or other, and they want to oppose any suggestion the board has to make.” Hastings itself was in no real danger, he concluded. Hastings was prepared to pay what was fair and just, and was not really concerned with what Napier paid. There was no jealousy felt by Hastings for Napier, but now that the question had been raised it did seem fair and just that the whole of the Napier borough should contribute what was now being contributed by the Napier borough portion of Ward 1.