RATEPAYERS’ APPEALS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 118, 20 April 1931, Page 2

RATEPAYERS’ APPEALS

CLASSIFICATION COURT’S HEARING. The hearing by the Classification Court of appeals by ratepayers against the clarifications under the Manawatu-proua River Board’s proposed modified flood control scheme was continued on Friday afternoon, Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., presiding and with him were Messrs D. 0. V ilhanis and H. E. Leighton. . On • the resumption following the luncheon adjournment, Mr N. P. Nielsen, of Tiakitahuna, was called in support of his objection. In evidence, Mr Nielson stated that he had 31 acres 2 roods, 25 acres bemg ctflosihed G and tix acres classified FI. the land in question adjoined that of Mr K. Voss on the top side and Mr Matheson s on the lower side. Half of the area »u above the 3bft contour line, but none ot it was subject to flooding and it could not receive any benefit from the scheme. The drainage of the Manawatu Drainage Board wie sufficient to meet the position Iho 37 acres on tho opposite side of the road was classified H and was in the same position as tho other property. Iu reply to Mr Baldwin (for tho River Board) witness stated that he recalled giving evidence before a commission. "Various points of the evidence then given were read by counsel, Mr Nielsen adhering to tho principles then expressed. Howeicr, the* had no guarantee, added witness, tha the scheme would function beneficially until 20 years hence. To Mr Baldwin: He paid 2s 4d per acre drainage rates, classes B and C, o\er the whole 31 acres. He went in for stud Romney, having gono out of pigs, but net because there was too much water. To Mr Cooke: He did not think the scheme would make any difference to his two sections. In respect to a freehold area of 59 acres, 39 acres of which was in class F and 20 acres in class G, he had bought tho property in 1899 and had .lived on it for 24 years. His. son it and was breeding pigs on it. 7. hile there had been flood waters thereon, he had never suffered any material damage, while he had not found it necessary to even remove the dairy stock. In replv to Mr Baldwin, witness stated that he had seen flood waters over the property of his neighbour at the back and between liis property and the Manawatu river. , , In reply to Mr Leighton, witness admitted that on the occasion of the flooding of the low-lying section the milk return from the 25 cows might have dropped 100 lb 3 the following morning; such was, however, a. small loss over a period of 30 years. Continuing,- witness stated that he had .mother 63 acres, 43 of which were classified D and 20 in class E. The property had been originally owned by his father-Ui-law and 35 .years ago he had assisted in felling the bush. They had grown oats and had taken 4i tons of chaff per acre from it and 15 tons of potatoes. Of latter years stud ewes had been run thereon. Mr David Collis, of Kairanga, appeared on behalf of himself and member*! of his family. He personally owned 188 acres, 120 acres being classified G and 68 in H, Mr R. M. Collis had two sections of 122 acres and 150 acres classified F, Mr O. Collis 100 acres, 119 acres and 30 acres, all in class F, Mr F. D. Collis 150 acres, 121 in class G and 29 in II; and Mr G. E. Collis 102 acres and 120 acres. In the 23 years he had lived on the property he had never suffered from flood water from either the Oroua or the Manawatu River. The property was two miles from the Oroua River with high country and a high sand bank intervening, while it was five miles from the Manawatu and also five miles from the. joint outlet. He was exempted by the Court from administration rating. Any local flooding from the Tao nui stream got away quickly." " In" reply to Mr Baldwin, witness stated that he was not aware that there was a fall of 40 feet in two miles from the. Oroua River at MiBasil Thompson’s property to his own sections.

To Mr Cooke, witness stated that Mr Thompson’s property was much higher than his, but there was little prospect of it flooding so far as lie was aware. In respect to the 150 acres of Mr R. M. Collis the property was bounded by the Tainui stream and the 1-22 acres by Burke’s drain. Apart from local waters, it was not subject to flooding. The sections of Mr O. A. Collis were likewise free from flooding save uy local waters. Witness failed to see how the property of Mr G. E. Collis could benefit by the scheme. In reply to Mr Baldwin witness stated that he was dependent on the main outlet for his drainage waters to get away. Mr 0. -Monrad gave corroborative evidence in support of Mr Collis’s claim and maintained that no portion of the 1100 acres would benefit by the board’s scheme. PROTECTION BY SMALL BANK. Mr L. B. Wall, of Kairanga, stated that ho had occupied a property in the upper Kairanga since 1907 and had never known it to flood. He had been originally classified to pay administrative rates, but had later been placed in class D and exempted. He stocked his farm very heavily, which ho would not attempt to do had he not felt satisfied that he was free from any danger of flooding. To Mr Baldwin: If there was any danger from tho river the settlers could put up a small bank, not a great big one like the scheme. Mr Baldwin: At tho expense of those lower down.

Mr David Prouse, of Kairanga, stated that he owned 115 acres, 83 in G- and 32 in H which adjoined Mr Collis’s. It was high and dry and the only drain was the government drain at the back of the property. There, was a 15ft drain at the front of the house, but his land drained the other way.

To Mr Baldwin: His property was higher than that of Mr Collis. Mr H. E. Hunt, stated that he held a block of 397 acres in partnership near Rangiotu, 337 acres being in class C and 60 acres in class D. The latter area was high land and eight feet above the Manawatu River at Rangitanc. In the lower areas he had carried out some banking at his own expense. Even in the 1902 flood the spot where the residence stood, he had been given to understand, had been above the flood waters.

Mr D. B. McEwen, of Karere, stated that ho owned 20 acres of the Longburn Estate, which had not been classified originally, but on witness’s application had been classified in H. He had lived in the neighbourhood all his life and had never seen the property flooded. Since 1905 he had taken the precaution to shift his stock on two occasions, but they had been taken back within 24 hours. Another section of 98 acres had been classified, 25 in C and 73 in D, but it had been reclassified E and F respectively. He now asked that they be placed in H and Z classes respectively.