THE RIVERS QUESTION.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 132, 25 June 1880, Page 3

THE RIVERS QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sir, — I think it only right and just to the Spring Creek District, to answer the letter which appears in your issue of June 22nd, and signed '‘Looker-on.” In the first place I may state that Paul’s Bank -was erected in November and December, ISOS, by voluntary subscriptions, and by the aid of the district as a whole, long before the passing of the Hawke’s Bay and Marlborough Rivers Act. “Looker-on” states, why not destroy Paul’s Bank, as it stops the natural overflow of waters, and forces them into the channel of the Opawa. I deny that it ever was a natural overflow, but at flood times it did overflow, and this bank was erected to keep it in its natural course. Not having any funds to squander to pay a surveyor to take levels, &c., a committee of three met, took the levels and laid out the work, but unfortunately the bank was erected too near the bed of the river, and the first big flood we had ate the land away and undermined the bank, leaving us with just the two ends. Nothing daunted, the district finding that that the river must be conserved at this point, set to work again in the months of June and July following, and erected another bank, which is standing to this day, and these two banks were erected entirely by contributions of money and labor.

The Provincial Council was asked for a small grant to assist us in our work, but that assistance was refused when we stood greatly in need of it; but the next session a vote of £SO was granted, and spent wi blithe approval of Mr Clark, the Chief Surveyor, in extending the bank. Paul’s bank was, therefore, the first bank of the kind erected in the province, was admitted to be a very substantial piece of work. “ Lookeron ’’ goes on to says, “ why is that which is right on the north bank of the Opawa wrong on the south? ” Whoever said it was? Did he never hear of the Seymour embankment, or that the Provincial Council voted £SOO for its erection mainly to prevent the waters going through Blenheim; or of Bomford’s bank, which has cost private individuals and the ratepayers such a lot of money. Surely he cannot be ignorant of the fact that they are erected. I should like to ask “Looker-on,” —did he ever hear a Spring Creekite say that these banks ought to be cat away because they were stopping the natural overflow of the Opawa ? I think not; I give them credit for having more common sense. Because the Spring Creek Rivers Board are determined that no injustice shall be done to the ratepayers of the district by the Wairau Rivers Board, they are assailed on all sides. Let that august body erect banks and conserve the river from one end of their district to the other, and I am certain the Spring Creek Board will not interfere with them ; it is only when the Wairau Board endeavors to divert a river by placing a dam across it, and by cutting a channel, so that all the water of the Omaka may run into the Opawa, which no doubt would cause very serious injury to the lower part of the district, that they take action in the matter.

If the Wairau Rivers Board had erected banks to conserve the Omaha, instead of erecting a bank to divert it into the Opawa —I am quite sure there would have been no useless waste of money in vexatious litigation.

Apologising for the length of this letter, I am, Sir, yours, &c., E. Paul.