SETTLERS’ RIGHTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27229, 4 November 1949, Page 5

SETTLERS’ RIGHTS

ADEQUATE COMPENSATION

LOWBURN VALLEY WATER LICENCE

The Crown was seeking to dbtain the water rights of the Lowburn Valley licence-holders without paying adequate compensation, declared Mr J. C. Parcell, of Cromwell, in the Supreme Court at Dunedin yesterday. He was appearing for Patrick Maurice Mooney and others who were the respondents in an appeal by the King against a decision of the Warden’s Court refusing to grant an application by the Crown for a water race licence in the Lowburn Valley. Mr F. B. Adams, with him Mr T. B. Mooney, of Clyde, appeared for the King. Mr Justice Kennedy presided.

The farmer could not get compensation for what the water race licence meant to him, Mr Parcell said. Under the present proceeding his compensation was confined to the cost of the channel constructed for the purpose of the licence, even though the whole value of his farm depended on the licence. Therefore, the provision being made for compensation was inadequate. The Mining Acts had always contained provisions by which the licence could be revoked at any time by the Governor-General on the payment of compensation, counsel went on. No licensee could complain when that right was exercised. But when an owner of water rights was faced with proceedings to take these rights for a very small sum, he could say that he was getting inadequate compensation. Not only were the owner's property rights being interfered with, counsel said, but in order to get future water supplies he had to submit to an encumbrance on his property in favour of the Crown. If 100 acres of land were being irrigated by this water, to replace the supply by the Crown’s scheme would mean a first mortgage equivalent to £I2OO. “We have before the court an estimate by the Crown that the value of the works constructed for the purpose of the licence was £250,” Mr Parcell said. “So, if this case goes against the landowners for compensation as low as £250, they will have to pay 12s an acre for water and give the Crown a first mortage equivalent to £I2OO. That, I submit, would be inadequate compensation.” Clarence Rogers, a Public Works Department employee, of Alexandra, giving evidence for the Crown, said, that no one at any time had raised any objection to his going on to the respondents’ land; or to the witness pegging, or marking or posting notices on the race.

Witness, under cross-examination, .estimated that the respondents’ licence irrigated less than 100 acres of land. He could not recall making a statement in the Warden's Court that the race commanded more land than it could irrigate. All the land under the race- at present was irrigated. The pegged-out race would require to be extended to coihmand a bigger area. Witness considered that in the dry part of the year there would be no water to spare but in the early part of the season there would probably be an ample supply. . , . The case will be continued to-day.