DRAINAGE LIABILITY.

Putaruru Press, Volume V, Issue 176, 17 March 1927, Page 3

DRAINAGE LIABILITY.

MATAMATA AND PIAKO. Waihou Improvement Scheme. The position of Matamata County Council in regard to drainage proposals for the Waihou river was defined by Messrs. Gilchrist and Son, solicitors, of Te Aroha., who wrote in reply to a letter from the council as follows: “ The Waihou river was dealt with by the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Act, 1910, which excluded Matamata county from its operations. In 1921 a commission recommended the abolition of this exempting clause and the imposition on the council of a yearly liability of seven per cent of one-fourth of the yearly interest and maintenance charges. Piako was required to pay 15 per cent and Te Aroha borough 6 per cent. The Government had gone on with improvement work and had borrowed ( for the purposes of the 1910 Act I (from which the county was exempt) j £150,000 in 1922, £150,000 in 1924, i and £IOO,OOO in 1926. This work did " not a fleet the county. J In Piako there were three drain- j age districts, Elstow, Waitoa and Hungahunga. Concerning the liabil- t lty of the county ft was feasible for Drainage Boards (1) to ask for ex- . tensions of their territory; (2) they t could proceed under section 64 of the } Land Drainage Act, 1908, for a pro- c portion of the cost of maintaining, j repairing, improving or reconstruct- j ing. In either case it would be a mat- s ter for a commission.

The letter was received at the Mamata County Council meeting at TiTau on Friday, and it was decided to forward a copy of the letter to the Matamata branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, which had asked for information on the matter.