HARPER RIVER DIVERSION.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17116, 11 April 1921, Page 7

HARPER RIVER DIVERSION.

PROGRESS LEAGUE'S ACTIVITIES. 4 further visit to the* Harper river : diversion works at Lake Coleridge was auide by Mr P .R. Climie, organiser o£. „ the Canterbury Progress League, dur-ing-the week-end. The president of tie. South Canterbury Development ■ league (Mr J. Anstey), the vice-presi-dent (Mr Dash), and representatives of South Canterbury local bodies, joined Jfr Climie at the diversion works, whwo * ne P a rty mado a joint inspection of the site, and the operations already carried out. The South Canterbury representatives were much impressed with the importance of proceeding with tho permanent scheme, and will report accordingly to a meeting of tho South Canterbury League at Timaru next Thursday. On Saturday night the temporary flow again broke through at two points, this being the seventh break through. jinee the temporary diversion was put into operation. Although the maintenance gang has been slightly reduced in number, it has been found necessary to Jeep six workmen employed on the tfork, this staff being in addition to the tngineer and cook. It ia estimated that the maintenance cost is still in the vicinity of £4O per week, or at tho rate of approximately £2OOO per annum, fliis being for maintenance only of tho present temporary works. Although it is rather difficult to say, it is ." considered highly unlikely that any reduction in the present maintenance staff can be made with safety, but this point will, to a. large extent, depend upon tho behaviour of the river. On Saturday we printed a brief telegram from the Minister containing an assurance that tho electric supply will be maintained, and that there is no 'need for anxiety. We commented on this telegram in an editorial, in which We drew the inference that the Minister .''differs from the Progress League to the extant of believing that the risk of trouble from the temporary diversion Works is nob appreciably more than the risk will be if the permanent work is completed. _ ."• The organiser of tho League, Air Climio, has made a statement to us in comment upon this. _ He Bays: "The question --regarding risk attaching to the two schemes is answered by the Minister's own statements, wherein he promised (1) to proceed with the permanent work in the event of irreparftW6;damage being done to the tempor- . aryflow; (2) to offer, if necetfiaryi the permanent diversion, for relief work • during the winter for unemployed, and V(3) to proceed in any ease with the permanent diversion when the financial position is improved. These statements me»n nothing if they do not mean that the Minister does regard the permanent diversion scheme as a safer and more 'dependable proposition. There therefore, no difference of opinion between the Department and the League '' >!oa:thia-point, as suggested, in "The -iKesS." Why, then, the reason for.deliiyP When pressed to answer this ,auestidn in the light of the above argument, the Minister was forced to plead ...'economic conaiderationsV "Seeing," 'Mr Climie,concluded, /'that the present •Maintenance charges: are costing the " Department at ( the rate of about £2OOO ' -per annum, with -a possibility of thto amount being exceeded, it is really ,v difficult for one to understand how tho i Minister proposes to effect any saving ! by. delaying thepermanent works a day ;• longer than ie absolutely necessary. Perhaps the Minister - can enlighten , •Canterbury people'on this important ... point/'".. '.. ..'..;'. :[: ~■..'