DRAINAGE BOARDS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8184, 27 July 1912, Page 15

DRAINAGE BOARDS

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

STATEMENT BY THE HON. H. D BELL.

A deputation representing five drainage boards in the Manawatu district waited on the Minister for Internal Affairs (Hon H. D. Bell) yesterday with a request that the Drainage Act should bo amended per medium of a Bill similar to the Taieri Land Drainage Act. Mr D. Buick, M.P., introduced the deputation, and Mr Robertson, M.P., was also present. A draft copy of a Bill drawn two years ago was submitted to the Ministe rfor his consideration. It was stated that the present Act was imperfect. It contained many contradictions and unusual provisions. They could not see why drainage boards carrying out exactly similar functions and work as county councils should be harassed with greater liabilities. They wished to see removed the provision which gave a ratepayer power to bring an action at law by reason of maintenance as well as construction of works by the board. It was urged that boards should not be liable for compensation in respect to maintenance. In reply the Minister said he could not promise to remove the provision in regard to maintenance. _Ho was not altogether unfamiliar with land drainage matters. The question was divided into two separate issues. One was whether by reason of the definition of a drain as including all water courses the liability was thrown upon the boards to clear all water courses and keep them clear from injury because they were drains. In regard to that particular phase of the question ho was entirely in accord with the deputation. That liability, if it did exist, should bo removed. Boards should bo liable in respect to drains they had made, and be no more liable for keeping in order water courses than were counties liable for not properly metalling their roads. As to “maintenance” ho did not agree with the deputation. If the boards failed in performing their duties, in regard to 'keeping their drains in order, and thereby injury was caused to the 'and, he considered the person injured was entitled to compensation. He would jay their representations before Cabinet, but with the recommendation that what had been suggested in regard to maintenance should not he agreed to. If they gut in flood-gates the boards must eep them in order. If they made drains that flooded their neighbour’s land, the neighbour must retain his right to compensation. If on examining the proposed Bill ho was satisfied with its details and proposed effect he would ask the Government to in. troduce legislation this session. It all depended on whether he and the Attorney-General could in the short time available satisfy themselves about the provisions of the Bill.