The Kaitaia Drainage Scheme

Northland Age, Volume 1, Issue 3, 23 October 1931, Page 1

The Kaitaia Drainage Scheme

The Problems LoomingMaintenance Costs

[A Pen Survey—Continued]

It is doubtful whether all the factors contributing to the ultimate success of the Kaitaia drainage were taken into consideration when the scheme was first launched. Up to the present, the district generally has derived benefit from the huge sums of money spent annually in carrying out the work. This money has been absorbed by labour and materials, but none of this will be returned to the land that is called upon to pay for the work. So that, unless the land taxed for drainage isi made suitable for grassing and thereby for increased production, the drainage rate becomes unjust. It is questionable whether land, other than that receiving a direct benefit, should be taxed for drainage rating purposes. Much of the land in class B received a direct benefit at certain periods, as this class of land was liable to inundation following a heavy rainfall. But the stopping of the overflowing of water on to this land would have very little effect on its production. Pay According to Benefit Received We have pointed out that the main object in carrying out the sicheme was to de-water land that would otherwise be useless, and this is the land that should bear the bulk of the cost of the work. Land in class B, as mentioned, should also contribute towards the cost, but how to assess the amount each area should pay has proved a problem. We stated that those who had received benefit were: Landowners, tradespeople, labourers, outside districts, the Crown and the country ; but only the landowners in the area could be made to pay towards the cost of the drainage scheme. We see only one fair and equitable method of levying the drainage rates on the land, and that is by the land paying according to the benefit it has received. Maintenance Problems The matter of maintaining the scheme at a standard set when completed will tend to become more costly as the time goes on. The renewal of bridges, culverts, and floodgates, removal of slips along the banks of the river, and other dredged channels caused by erosion, the rebuilding of defective stopbanks, besides the cleaning of many miles of drains., can become a direct charge upon the maintenance. One could visualise a huge slip in the Whakatane spillway and a large accumulation of silt that would block the river for navigation purposes, having to be removed. One land and one floating dredge would be required; the procuring of these, if charged to the cost of ordinary maintenance, would make the rate crippling to the landowners. Even today we find that the maintenance rates in some cases exceed the unimproved value of the land drained. The maintaining of the navigable waterway to enable vessels that serve the whole of the North ; also the maintaning of the Whakatane spillway which by its functioning will give access to the port at all times, should not be a charge to landowners in the swamp area only.