PUBLIC WORKS SCHEME

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4319, 19 September 1921, Page 4

PUBLIC WORKS SCHEME

MODIFICATION DETRIMENTAL.

“A STAGGERING BLOW-”

Speaking on behalf of the Public Works Department at the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Commission, Mr E. J. Clendon (Thames) said it would not be a sound engineering practice to modify the present scheme to decrease the cost of £625,000. He could not recommend .the Commission to accept a modified scheme. A scheme had been prepared for an annual sum of £43,000.. Mr A. J. Baker then entered the box and said he had had under consideration since the adjournment a proposal tp ‘ modify the cost, as the opinion was tha.t the proposed scheme was high. He had taken considerable time over it, and was quite satisfied that it would not be advisable to modify the scheme. The work as being carried out was essential to the progress of the district, and if it were .not carried out it would mean loss to the district. Control and upkeep of fhe rivers was necessary, and without being looked after would become less valuable as a water channel. In his opinion there was .only one thing and that was to complete the work. If the works were not done the tendency to damage would increase. The Department favoured re-allocation for ■the cost of the works. He had prepared a scheme which apportioned the cost of the works according to benefits received.

To,Mr Hanna witness said that nothing would be done for the navigation of .the Ohinemuri in his allocations. If Paeroa was suffering a damage of £1650, he did not think it should be taken into c.onsideration. Paeroa had benefited to a certain extent, as wharfage accommodation. Mr Hanna : And that wharfage accommodation is in • common with Waihi. Witness : Yes.

Continuing, witness said that all the damage to the Ohinemuri was due to mining tailings. The gravest danger at Pereneki’s cut was the risk of scour bringing down debris.

BLOW TO WAIHI.

To Mr Gilchrist witness stated that he got Te Aroha’s capital value from the Valuation Department. He assessed value on its indirect benefits and partly by reason of material passing into the river. The scheme had improved the navigation to Te Aroha. He knew Matamata County well, and to the indirect benefit no weight could be given at present. It benefited, however, by means of draining into the river. Some swampy country in Matamata County drained into the Waihpu River. He would be surprised to hear that all the swamp drainage from there went into the Waitoa. The material from the county drainage basins would tend to fill up the bed of the river. There was ho scouring in the Waihou. To Mr Montague witness said he classed the areas of the Ohinemuri County from his knowledge* of the country and information from his officers. The 4600 in the Ohinemuri did not have any particular location. Class “C” was situated Kaimanawa (194,674), Paeroa (154,636), Mangaiti (130,381). The man who receives benefits should be able to pay. Mr Johnstone : You have dealt us a staggering blow, but I don’t think ■you have staggered the Government. Witness said he had not considered the ability to pay. WORKS CANNOT STOP.

Re-examined by Mr Clendon, witness said that £30,000 would provide for Pereneki’s cut and would increase the scheme to about £630,000. Mr Shortt suggested to witness that he should supply a map showing the land he proposed to be included in the

rating areas. Witness said he would. To Commissioner Buchanan witness said that the settled Crowp. land on the Awai.ti was in the first schedule. The land on which he proposed to levy 10s 6d per acre was abutting on the Waihou near the Ngararahi cut. Netherton would probably be on another rate. The private lands on the Hauraki Plains had benefited more than the Crown lands. He had made no aternpt tp classify the land as to its qualities. To the Chairman: If the works closed down it was difficult to see what chance they had of being resumed. These works were of great benefit to the Plains. The benefits of these .works were much in excess of the proposed rating. Commissioner Shortjt: If the scheme

was so costly that the people cannot pay, what danger will the people be placed in with regard to the river ? Witness said farmers had improved their lands in anticipation of the stop-banks being put up. The Chairman : If the works were left as they are, are the works indemnified ?

Witness : I don’t think so. Witness also said that if the rivers flooded it may affect some of the. preliminary stop-banks, but ptherwise there was only one other place which wofild suffer by the discontinuation of the work.

Mr Johnstone thought that the interest on the sinking fund could not be put down at less than ’I per cent. He thought 6 per cent was a(conservative sum./

To Commissioner Buchanan: The main cause of the large scale of stopbanks was the great bulk of water to be dealt with.

Mr Clendon asked for permission to put Mr E. F. Adams into the box. !Mr E. F. Adams said he had a general knowledge of the works and locality. He'thought it would not b? a sound engineering practice to modify the scheme. These works must be completed or the whole scheme was necessarily faulty. The river .would gradually degenerate if the works were to stop. Flooding would also he more prevalent. To Mr Porritt witness said that if the money could not be -found to complete the work, the work could not go on. It would not be safe to complete only .the 'temporary bank. The sooner the work could be done the better.

To Mr oMntague, witness stated that the willows had been cleared from the lower- Ohinemuri tp improve navigation. From Kopu to the sea the river had silted 6% feet.

To questions by Mr Richmond witness replied tha.t if the mining industry stopped to-morrow it would make no difference to the stop-banks. The capacity of the Ohinemuri to carry off flood water was equivalent to that ol 1895,

To Mr Johnstone witness said that he was not in a position to criticise the cost of the £625,000 or to criticise the proposed allocations. Replying to Commissioner Buchanan, it would cost a very great figure to restore navigation to the Ohinemuri. He knew of other deposits other .than mining tailings being dredged from the Ohinemuri. Seventeen and a-half per cent, was not a fair percentage to attribute to the mines. He did not think one per cent, of the deposit was.attributable to the mines below Ngahina.

Tp the Chairman, witness said that there would be a danger of the temporary works being swept away by a flood if 'the works were not carried on/ There may be something in the shape of a considerable claim for damage and, possibly disaster,. He knew of no other borough which had a substantial claim on gold duty. In Thames it wpuld have been more satisfactory to have had rates. This witness concluded the evidence.