Commission Hears Evidence On Bay Of Plenty Catchment Scheme: Whakatane Offers Alternative Plan

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 42, 30 April 1948, Page 5

Commission Hears Evidence On Bay Of Plenty Catchment Scheme: Whakatane Offers Alternative Plan

A variety of views were expressed before the Local ■Government Commission which spent Wednesday and yesterday at Whakatane hearing evidence relevant to .the proposal of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council that a Bay of Plenty Catchment district be established embracing an area from the Waiaua -River to Waihi. That proposition was opposed by the Whakatane County and Borough, and the Rangitaiki Drainage Board, who favoured a scheme embracing only their areas and the Opotiki County and Borough, from the Waiaua river in the east to the Tarawera river in the west. .

Personnel of the Commission: .Mr Justice Goldstine, Messrs J. W. Andrews, W. E. C. George, with Mr F. B. Stephens as secretary. Mr W. L. Newnham, chairman of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council, presented the case for that body. Mr H. O. Cooney, for the Tauranga County Council, also brought forward evidence in favour of the larger area, while Mr B. S. Barry acted for the Whakatane local bodies concerned. The Opotiki Borough and County (Mr W. A. Gault) also favoured Mr Newnham’s proposition. Opening the proceedings, His Honour outlined the purpose of the inquiry, which he said was to collect all evidence relevant to the Soil Conservation' 'Council’s proposition, with a view to formulating a provisional scheme in the light of that evidence. If necessary, the Commission could consider objections t to that provisional scheme at a later date. He went on to explain that the proposal under consideration was for the establishment of a catchment area covering the whole of the Bay of Plenty from the Waiaua river to Waihi and involving the Opotiki, WSsdkohu, Whakatane, Taupo, Rotorua, Matamata and Tauranga Counties, and the Opotiki, Whakatane, Rotorua, Te Puke, Tauranga and Mt Maunganui Boroughs.

On account of its liability to flooding and erosion, the Whakatane County might justifiably be given additional membership on the Board if one area were constituted. 1 Proposals Supported Mentioning that a large proportion of the rate burden in the area proposed would have to be borne by the highly valued lands in the western part of the area, where the potential erosion and flood problems were not so great as in the eastern part, Mr Cooney declared that the Tauranga County was, however, prepared to face those facts and to support the Soil Erosion and Rivers Control Council’s proposal as one that would be most advantageous from the national rather than the local point of view.

i The Opotiki County Council opposed the formation of a Catchment District ,*in the Bay of Plenty having jurisdiction over an are# lesser in extent than that proposed by the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council and stressed that their decision to favour the formation of a Catchment Board having jurisdiction over a large area was motivated solely by a desire to lessen, as far as fs possible, any additional rating burden which would have to be borne by property owners.

The Council, however, deprecated the principle whereby a new Authority is set up and given powers to carry out work which could conceivably well be undertaken by already established Local Authorities. Whakatane’s Attitude In evidence on behalf of the Whakatane County and Borough, Mr J. L. Burnett, County chairman, mitted that there was definite community of interest and of problems in the area proposed by the two bodies he represented, that it was an economic unit for administrative purposes, that it would fit into a national scheme, and that it had previously been considered and approved by the SoiJ Conservation and 1 Rivers Control Council, the Minister of Works and the_ local bodies in the area. The'Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council’s present proposal lacked all those advantages.

Statistics of Scheme The whole of the County of Tauranga, nearly all of the County of Whakatane, parts only of the Counties of Rotorua and Opotiki, small portions of the Counties of Waikohu, Taupo and Matamata, and the whole of the Boroughs referred to, are incorporated in the proposed district which has an estimated area of 4,230. square miles, or 2,707,200 acres, an estimated population of 55,000 and an estimated Rateable Capital Value of £17,066,556. in submitting the application to the Commission, it was stated by the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council that there are river control and drainage works in the plains which are estimated to cost between £400,000 and £1,000,000 spread over practically every river. There are 11 major rivers, the catchments of which vary in size from 41 square miles, to the Rangitaiki River Catchment of 1,230 square miles. / Long-Term Policy Needed Soil erosion problems, it was stated, are real in certain areas, but in the major areas are more potential than real. In the former, long-term soil conservation measures must be taken to minimise flooding of the plains and the infilling of stream channels while in the latter, centralised control of land use," with a continuous long-term policy is necessary.

Could Handle Work I In submitting his evidence to the Commission Mr C. G. Lucas, Whakatane County Clerk, said that, though only half the Whakatane and Opotiki areas were rateable, he felt sure that the area proposed by his Council could find the capital necessary to maintain and administer the new. catchment. Another point that he stressed was that, though the area was only half rateable at present, the re-valuation that was pending in 1950 would increase the rate turnover considerably. A small area compact and centrally controlled, he claimed, would be easier and fairer and would get more done in the long run. Mr Lucas also stated that, with his present staff, he could cope with the gradual increase of business until a full time Clerk could be utilised. No Erosion Problems The case for the Rotorua County Council was presented by Mr V. C. Florey, County chairman, who stated that the Rotorua Council objected to inclusion in the proposed Catchment area because it had (a) no erosion problems, positive or potential due to the sound afforestation scheme in operation, (b) Rotorua had no community of interest in either of the proposed areas, (c) because there was no flooding or river control problem because of the sufficient “ponding-check” provided b: the lake in the district.

It would appear that the question of the Bay of Plenty district’ has heen under consideration by the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council since 1945, His Honour proceeded, and while that Council originally favoured, the constitution of two Catchment Districts for the area, due, it would seem, to a desire to meet the wishes of the respective interested local - authorities, it subsequently decided, following further consideration and investigation, to recommend that the whole of the Bay of Plenty be constituted one Catchment District. The Rating: Question Dealing with the rating question, His Honour said the district as a whole could be compelled to contribute only to what were called administration expenses to the maximum of one-eighth of a penny in the £ on capital value or its equivalent on the unimproved or annual value. But for expenditure on actual works, only areas directly benefiting could be rated, up to the maximum of six-farthings in the £1 of capital value or its equivalent on the unimproved or annual value. That was an aspect which he felt should be kept in mind when consideration was being given to the relative effect on the finances of the respective Local Authorities likely to be included in any proposed Catchment District and also to the effect of the establishment of two separate Catchment Districts or one district for the whole area. In a few brief preliminary remarks, Mr Stephens said the question of community of interest was vitally important in fixing the boundaries. He also said it was a principle of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act that the question of soil erosion was the responsibility of the community as a whole.

In answering a question by Mr Cooney regarding the community of interest point Mr Florey said that for the past 25 years Rotorua had had no tfee from the Tauranga harbour and thus had lost the community of interest it might once have had. Mr Florey went on to say that Rotorua had a Native Department branch that was, he alleged, an “Octopus” that was taking over large tracts of land, thus reducing the rateable land in the area, and on this account the Rotorua Council was trying to save a,new load from being placed on the ratepayers’ shoulders by staying out of the proposed catchment district. ■ Drainage Committee’s View Mr I. W. Withy, of the Rangitaiki Drainage Committee, gave evidence

in favour of a catchment are’a from the Waiaua river to the Tarawera river. He said his committee felt that, on account of the tremendous amount of work that had to be done in this district, the : consequent need for adequate representation on ihe Board and the close supervision that would be needed, it was better to have a small catchment district. Another important point was that, because of the large amount of work to be done and the possibility of the offices of the Board being established elsewhere the problems in the Whakatane area might not get their full and necessary consideration.