DRAINAGE BOARDS.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18342, 30 May 1931, Page 8

DRAINAGE BOARDS.

PROPOSED AMALGAMATION COMMISSION AT TE AROHA. FURTHER EVIDENCE TAKEN. (By Telegrapb—Special to Times.) TE AROHA, Friday. The Commission on the proposal to amalgamate the Waitoa, Elstow, Hungahunga and Tahuna Drainage Boards continued its inquiry to-day. Formation of Board. Peter Gilchrist, solicitor, gave particulars of the formation of the Hungahunga Drainage Board, which took place in 1906 after the sale of the Hungahunga block by the -Government, and the cost of the work. The adjacent drainage board was Waitoa. which drained into the Waitoa River.

In answer to Mr McGregor witness said the Waihekau and Piraunui streams were tributaries of the Waitoa River. The drainage boards obtained loans from the Government for' drainage work. W. J. Gibbs, engineer, gave evidence on the various board’s drains and the conformation of the country affected. With the commissioner witness traced on the district plan the trend of the drains into the rivers referred to. John D. Mackay, farmer, East-port, an ex-member of the Elstow Drainage Board, stated the Waitoa River had been snagged at times. He considered the amalgamation would be in the interests of the whole district, but the formation of a river boaru would be duplication, as it would mean another local body. One drainage board would have) control of the river and toe enabled to carry out necessary work for effective drainage. Horace Rowbotham, clerk to the Waitoa, Elstow and Hungahunga Drainage Boards, gave evidence relative to the watersheds, ’ miles of drains and working of the boards. What Led to Proposal. Edwin Palliser, farmer, a member of me committee set up to further amalgamation, referred to the -reasons that had led up to the proposal by the Waitoa Drainage BoardIn his address, Mr McGregor, for the. objectors, referred to the proposal for amalgamation being brought before the Hon. G. W. Forbes, in June, 1929. He maintained in regard ‘to Government assistance that the separate boards would be in just as favourable position to gain subsidies as one body. Each of the drainage boards had been managed very efficiently. A considerable amount of the operations was detail work which could be done better by small bodies, and there would be no benefit from amalgamation.. In the event of a Waitoa River Board toeing formed much of the present area would be brought in under the. River Improvement Act. The Tahuna Board at the northern end’ of the district, would not be worked so economically under amalgamation, as the work was practically done now by the members. This board was more concerned with the Piako than the Waitoa River-

J. B. Jansen, farmer, Tahuna, stated his district would not be benefited by an- amalgamation, as the drainage board there was run economically and was effecting good work, E. A. Whitechurclj, farmer, Tahuna, said the river trouble would not be obviated until the water could get away from the Waitoa junction- The flood water of the Piako met at this junction and increased' the volume. The Department had done a lot of work in the river, but this was much higher up. Under the circumstances amalgamation was not desired by:Tahuna. William Hallett, farmer, Waitoa, a member of the Ilungahunga Board, said five members were against amalgamation, and two in favour of it. Ilungahunga had been practically a lake and was reclaimed by its drainage board with the asisstance of the Government. If they amalgamated the burden in rating might he too much for the settlers to bear. If they had to .contribute towards the cost of the Waitoa River work a burden would be inflicted on them. Until they could get a definite promise from the Government that the Waitoa River would be improved he would not favour any compromise. The Elstow Case. W. W.’ Dunn, farmer, Waihou, a •member of the Elstow Board, stated the Elstow case. Ratepayers were not favourable to amalgamation as the cost of administration would be greater than at present, under the heading of clerical work and engineering services. Under a joint arrangement the three district boards were working together satisfactorily. Under small hoards the members were giving their services willingly. I-Ie was of opinion that even if amalgamation took place the Wailoa River would still be under the control of the Piako County Council. While the expenses would be greater the boards, as at' present constituted, would be enabled to borrow money from live Government. One big board would probably prove to be too large and unwieldy. W. A. Garter gave particulars of the Te Awaiti scheme, including a canal, estimated to cost £90,000 to £IOO,OOO of which the contribution would be £21,000. Part had been raised by loan and there was a very heavy liability on the ratepayers already. He considered amalgamation impossible if the trustees had to give the same efficient services to the ratepayers as at present. He was of opinion that the time was ripe for the Piako River to he taken over by a river board. Mr W. Andrew, chairman of the Elstow Drainage Board, gave evidence on general lines in respect to the service rendered by the members to the ratepayer. The Elstow Board was not in favour of amalgamation. The commission adjourned till 2 p.m. on Monday, June 1.