RIVER DIVERSION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 171, 22 October 1941, Page 4

RIVER DIVERSION

Sir, —Considerable publicity has been given through the columns of the "Beacon" about a canal cut to divert the Waimana river. The county chairman in reply to criticism about the secrecy of the undertaking stated that this work was carried out to protect a county road and bridge. Reports have appeared since of the success of this work. Ally settler who has resided near the liver for any length of time must realise .that a mistake has been made in altering the course of the river at this particular place. Since it washed out ;* section of tlir- original road about 30 years ago> the river has been slowly encroaching on private property—slowly because of a formation of hard clay pug underneath the top soil and the planting of a few rows of willows at any time would have prevented further erosion. The position is now that the river has been turned off private property to strike on the county road and has already created serious damage by completely carrying away the approach cutting and some of the old river bed road, which was the only alternative route when the new road—which is liable to: slips at any time—was blocked for traffic. One recent slip came down on a Friday afternoon and Avas only removed by the following Tuesday afternoon. The canal diversion originally about 15 feet wide is now —by erosion of the loose shingle and sand through which it was constructed— several chains wide and in a short time the river will be striking straight on to a narrow part of the road where previous erosion occurred and where land had to lie taken under the Public Works Act because the owner considered the council should be satisfied with a "right of way" instead of a road. * The settlers along the Waimana river who have carried out costly works protecting their farms will resent their rates now being used for the benefit of a farmer who has done nothing to prevent the river encroachment on his farm. It seems most unfair that a ratepayer who has (like Mir MacCawber) sat back and waited for something to turn up, should now have his farm protected at the other ratepayers expense. It is disturbing for ratepayers to see from the report of last council meeting that even works committee members did not know about the diversion scheme. Ratepaj r ers will now have to "foot the bill" for probably another £120 for a project which will entail unknown expense in the future, and which should have received careful consideration by; all the councillors and the ratepayers concerned before being undertaken. The only alteration now is to shift the river back to its original course and establish rows of willows between, river and bridge l —this would be an insurance for all time for the ratepayers against further expense. County workmen have been engaged for a considerable time planting rows of willows on the north side of the diversion cut where there is no possible danger of erosion—near the bridge and road n® willows have been planted. In regard to protection work a precedent was established for the council's guidance some years ago when the approach to the Raroa bridge was washed out -4ii T flood water a week after it was constructed and the Public Works Engineer would not sanction the construction, of another filling until tw6 years after a willow plantation had been established on the shingle bed above the bridge. For protection of this plantation from destruction by cattle this area of shingle bed ha:d to be taken recently under the Public Works Act. A correspondent in Wednesday's Herald asks the pertinent question: Has anyone, Maori or Pakeha, the right to cut the banks and divert the course of the Waitahanui or any other Dominion river at his own sweet will? Yours etc., G. KIRKBRIDE. Waimana, 18/10/41. (Continued in previous column).