RIVER BOARD AREA

Wairarapa Age, 7 April 1934, Page 5

RIVER BOARD AREA

SOUTH WAIRARAPA PETITION. COMMISSIONER S FINDING. NO CHANGE' IN BOUNDARIES RECOMMENDED. On February 28, Mr H. H. Sharp, District Engineer to the Public Works Department, sat as a commissioner in Featherston to hear evidence on a petition by T. A. Herrick and 27 other settlers of Pukto and Kahutara praying that the boundaries of the South Wairarapa River Board be altered by excluding their lands at Pukio and Kahutara from the board’s district. In his report, which appears below, Mr. Sharp finds against the petitioners, recommending that no change be made in the district boundaries. ■ At the hearing, Mr. J. W. Card, of Featherston, appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. <J. F. Thompson, of Greytown, for the South Wairarapa River Board. i In his report* Mr. Sharp points out that the petition came from a number of ratepayers who in 1929 signed a petition asking that their lands should oe included m the River Board district. These ratepayers now prayed for exclusion on the grounds that they consented to the inclusion of tneir lands within the boundary of the river district under a misapprehension of their rights and liabilities, and that their lands would derive little or no benefit from the contemplated work of the board. CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.”

“Regarding the statement that they signed the petition (of 1929) under a misapprehension as to their rights and liabilities, ’ ’ the report proceeds, ‘ x there is a considerable conflict of evidence. Mr. Card brought forward as witnesses a number of the farmers who signed the original petition and they stated on oath that they signed the document without reading it and were ignorant of its contents. There was a remarkable similarity in their evidence, which was to the effect that they thought they were signing a request to the Government for financial assistance towards the carrying out of the improvement work, and had no idea that it was a petition for inclusion in the South Wairarapa River District. It appears, however, that there were two documents, the first of which was a request 1 for a Government grant, -and the; second a petition for inclusion. When the first document was signed and forwarded to the Government its sponsors were apparently advised that the signatures would bear no- weight unless they were those of ratepayers of the river district, so the second document, being the original petition for inclusion presented in 1929, was then prepared, and it is alleged that they, the petitioners, signed it on the understanding that it was for the same purpose as the first, but with a slightly different wording. The witnesses were all emphatic that they never read it, and it was never explained to them, that they were advised they would have no rates to pay, and that it was only when they got their first rate demand that they woke up to the fact that they had signed themselves into the river district.

“On the other hand, Mr. McMaster, who took the petition round, gave very definite evidence that they all read it before signing it, that he explained the position fully and that some of them had it for three months off and on. Generally speaking, the average hard-headed farmer is not in the habit of signing a document such as this, which was a comparatively short and simple one, without reading it, but they may have been carried away by the idea of getting something for nothing in the way of a Government grant. AREA PROPERLY INCLUDED.. “However, whether this be so or not, the fact remains that the petition, was publicly notified, no objections were received, and consequently the proclamation was issued, therefore the area was properly and legally included. No case of fraud is alleged and therefore, I cannot see that any case for exclusion based on any alleged irregularity in connection with the original petition can be sustained. The position would, therefore, appear to be that the petitioners were legally included in the board's district and the only grounds on which they can now ask to be excluded would be the non-receipt of any benefit. QUESTION OF BENEFIT. “In order that rating in river districts may be on an equitable basis, Section 9 of the River Boards Amendment Act, 1913, provides for a classification under four heads:— (a) Lands receiving or likely to receive immediate and direct benefit from the river works. (b) Lands receiving or likely to receive less direct benefit therefrom. (c) Lands receiving or likely to receive only an indirect benefit therefrom, and (d) All other lands.' “It. will thus be seen that even if a property is included in a river board district, it cannot be rated unless it can be proved that it receives some benefit from the operations or proposed operations of the river board. In accordance with this section of the Act, the board have had a very careful classification made by the Government V aluor, an officer with considerable local knowledge backed up by accurate levels and engineering data supplied by the board’s engineer. I have examined this classification and find that it indicates benefits to at least portion of all the properties wh'ose owners are now seeking exclusion, with the exception of K. Matenga, who owns five acres, and M. Palmer who owns one acre, but as they are not rated they do not suffer any injurious effects by their inclusion.

AN EARLIER APPEAL. “The classification was appealed against by some of the other settlers and the appeal was heard by Mr. Miller, S.M., on the 9th and 10th Octo ber, 1933. After hearing all the evidence and inspecting the areas in question, Mr. Miller in a very lengthy and comprehensive decision, dismissed the appeal and upheld the classification in toto. Mr. Toogood, the board’s engineer, has put in a very carefully prepared statement backed up by levels and technical data to show that the lands in question do benefit from the board’s operations and proposed works and although most of the petitioners’ witnesses assert that they cannot gain

any benefit, this is purely their own expression of opinion, and is not backed up by any engineering opinion or recorded data. Sir Robert Stout, in. giving judgment in the case Palmerston North Kairanga River Board v. Palmerston North Borough Council and Kairanga County Council, July 17, 1914 gave a very complete definition of the word .‘benefit’ as used in Section 9 (2) of the River Boards Amendment Act, 1913. He states: ‘The word “benefit” in Section. 9 (2) of the River Boards Amendment Act, 1913, is a word of comprehensive meaning. It means anything that adds value to property and before lands can come under Section 9 Sub-section (2) (d) of that Act it must be clear that from no point of view can they obtain any advantage from the works to be constructed so as to prevent the overflow of a river, stream or water course. It is not enough that they do not suffer actual injury from flooding or erosion.’ There is a mass of data available to show that the area in question does gain benefit and also the desirability of a unified control throughout the district, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to traverse at length all the points raised in the evidence. I therefore recommend that the prayer of the petition asking that certain areas be excluded be not agreed to and that no alteration be made as regards the present boundaries.”