DRAINAGE DISPUTE

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1680, 31 October 1925, Page 5

DRAINAGE DISPUTE

' NEIGHBOURING FARMERS DISAGREE. .SETTLED BY THE COURT. A dispute over a drain in the Lower Mangapiko Drainage Board’s area was brought before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., at the local Court on Thursday, when G. E. Churches (Mr Downes) farmer, Te Rahu, complained of the inaction -of the Board (Mr Swarbrick) to compel Henry Weal (Mr Oliphant) farmer, also of Te Rahu, to clear a drain. Sections 25, 62 and 63 of the Land Drainage Act were first referred to as Ithe essentials on which the claim could succeed. Mr Swarbrick said the case was really one between Churches and Weal. The Board would abide by the Court’s ruling, and had arranged to let the case be heard for that purpose.

Mr Oliphant presented a plan of the Board’s area, but contended that the line of drain was not accurately plotted on that plan.

Mr Downes asked the Court to inspect the locality, and it was decided to adjourii ■ 'for that purpose later in the day. George Edward Churches, in evidence, said he is the owner of part section 223. Weal is owner of adjoining land, and the drains connect. The only outlet for water on or coming through complainant’s farm is through 'Weal’s. Some 20 years ago Messrs W. G. Park, Frost and witness agreed to make a drain (marked C on the plan), the cost being borne by: Park £lO, Frost £35, Churches £25. Witness carried the drain through his own land. The Lower Mangapiko Drainage Board was formed about eight years ago. That body had caused Weal to cut blackberries on the banks of the drain, and he always considered that waterway was under the care and control of the Board since the latter’s creation. At first there was a mutual arrangement between Park, Churches and Frost to clean the drain, but he had not done anything to it since the Board was formed. Weal had acquired Park’s ten acres. The blocking of the drain outlet with blackberries and silt had caused water to overflow on to his property. Witness had obtained permission from the Board to cut a fresh drain right across his land, but .he could only get a fall of 2ft. 6in. instead of more than double that depth. This was due to Weal’s failure to keep his portion of the connecting. drain clean. According to the engineer’s levels there should be 9ft. of fall from his boundary to the river. He was only asking for relief. Weal had never approached him, asking him for a contribution towards the cost. The bad part is on Wteal’s property. Since witness’ complaint to the Board, Weal had cleaned out part of the drain, but it was not enough to benefit witness land. At the boundary there was in the drain 23in. of silt and less than lft. of water. If blackberry and silt is properly removed he would get great relief. To Mr Oliphant: His boundary is about 15 chains from the river in a straight line, but following the dram it is about 25 chains. Weal was not affected when t'he drain was first made. The course decided upon had to be followed, as Weal’s father, a neighbouring landowner, would not allow a drain to be taken across his land. The drain was through swamp, with clay below, and pumice silt below the clay. The drain, in the course of years, had eroded in places, hut it is choked with blackberry. So far as Weal has done the cleaning the water runs freely. When high floods occur the drain cannot carry off all the water. His newer drain would relieve the congestion. There was no need to deepen Weal’s drain, but it certainly needs the silt and blackberry cleaning out. The drain is beneficial to Weal —in fact it had made Weal’s land what it is. It cuts off a small portion of Weal’s farm. It was Park’s suggestion to cut the course decided upon, and the land affected wa s then Park’s, now Weal’s. An old drain not far away had gradually been ploughed in because it was useless for the purpose intended. After a bank-high flood it takes two to three days before the drain levels are back to normal. Until water in the drifin is below banks the surrounding lands cannot be de-watered. To Mr Dowes: The water in the drain did not stagnate, but he wanted it cleared of obstructions, including those caused by Weal’s cattle using the drain for drinking purposes. He could not remember No. 6 drain running bank-high. During the luncheon adjournment an inspection was made of the locality, after which Robert Frost, farmer, at Te Rahu, whose property adjoins that of complainant, said that the drain complained of was in a neglected state. The general condition of the drain was bad. It is cleaner than it was, but not sufficient to do its work efficiently. Where drains are not maintained the land intended to be served is adversely affected, and it takes the heat of summer to repair the damage. He had never seen Churches’ drain “bone dry.” Frank Jary, farmer at Ohaupo and Ngaroto, said he saw the drain about two months ago. It was full of water and the blackberry and grass in the drain and hanging over the sides was impeding the water, causing Churches’ land to be waterlogged. Mr Downes said the opposition was relying on the claim that the drain was not a Board drain.

Mr Oliphant said last May the Board requested Mr Weal to clear the blackberry, but declined to make an order. The clearing was done in June. The drain was no benefit to Weal’s property and he was opposed to having to clear it out. Complainant had greatly exaggerated in his evidence that his land was waterlogged. His Worship said he did not propose to go into any other aspect but that of responsibility for cleaning out the drain. The drain was existent, and had been for many years.

iHenry Weal, farmer ,said the whole question hinged on a difference of viewpoint between Churches and himself. Complainant had some reason

for complaint, but he (Weal) argued that his property was adversely affected by the drain. He secured no benefit from it. He was compelled to leave idle a portion of hi s farm owing to the drain. He had been a member of the Lower Mangapiko Drainage Board for several years and was chairman for three or four years. Mr S. C. Macky is now chairman. He (defendant) was willing to give an undertaking to keep the drain free of weeds. He had averaged a loss of one beast per annum in the drain. He cut the blackberries every year. He had not seen Churches’ land flooded, but his own land had been flooded. People who said his land was benefited by the drain did not know what they were talking about. The drain was cutting into his property, instead of following the boundary line. He had always objected to Churches and others cutting a drain through his father’s property without permission about twenty years ago. The drain is in high-handed action. The drain is in a wrong direction. There was sufficient fall from his farm to Churches’ to give the latter and others ample drainage, without penalising witness. John Cecil Montefiore, farmer, said he was a member of the Lower Mangapiko Drainage Board for the past three years. Had visited the Te Rahu locality a fortnight ago. The drain in its present condition is sufficient to carry all water except heavy floods. The very wet winter had done a lot of good to drains and adjoining lands, for the volume of water sluiced the channels of debris, leaving them cleaner than before. He had drains on his own farm, and if they were as good and effective as the drain complained of he would be happy. Churches’ land was not as wet as Weal’s. Weal’s land was lower and wetter than Churches’. Blackberry does not impede water —he only wished it would. Water pushes blackberry aside. Mr Downes traversed the evidence, and admissions therein, and pointed out that his client was asking for .an order requiring the Lower Mangapiko Drainage Board to have the drain kept clear. His Worship said he was satisfied that the general condition of the drain is bad, and the complainant is entitled to relief. He would issue the order desired, and request the Board to comply with the notice served upon it by the complainant. Costs amounting to £4 18s were allowed.