THE RIVER COMMISSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 438, 24 September 1908, Page 3

THE RIVER COMMISSION.

.Opening of the Foxton Sitting.

The River Commission, set up to inquire as to the advisability of establishing a. River Board to have control over the Manawatu, Oroua and Pohangina rivers for the purpose of dealing with erosion and floods, commenced its Foxton sittings to-day. 'The commission consists of Messrs. A. D. Thomson (chairman), G. F. Robinson, C. R. Yickerman, and W. S. Short. The following delegates were present : —Messrs. Venn (Horowhenua), Hennessy (Foxton Borough Council), Stubbs (Palmerston Borough Council), Gower (Moutoa Drainage Board), and Law (Makerua Drainage Board). A number of well-known settlers from Moutoa and other parts of the district were also in attendance. William B. Pearce, farmer, Oroua Bridge, stated he owr.t.l about 740'acres at Oroua Bridge and 700 acres at Shanuon and had considerable areas of leasehold with about miles of river frontage. He would strongly object to any interference with the river and was of opinion the rating area should not go beyond Jack e/town. Money should not be raised 00 lower lands to protect river bank higher up. It would be detrimental to the interests of settlers in the lower reaches to have protection works erected. Both schemes referred to in Mr. Hay’s report were impracticable. If the river were taken through low-lying country such as Moutoa, it would silt up the whole course. The only practical way of dealing with the river was to shorten its course by cutting off some of the bends and clearing out logs. A four-mile cut could be made from Moutoa church to come out near Foxton wharf which would shorten the course by 20 miles. This cut would be enclosed by leading sand ridges and would require little protective works. Another short cut of about 20 chains could be made on Mr. Barber’s property and one of about 7 chains at Oroua, each of which would shorten the course considerably. These cuts would cause greater speed in current owing to shorter distance and flooding would be impossible. It was unnecessary to do away with every flood as occasional floods tended *to do good. If, however, land remained under water for a considerable period a great deal of damage would be done. If the land were drained it could absorb a tremendous amount of flood water, and good would result from occasional floods. He was opposed to the Himitangi cut, which would have the effect of draining lands in the district, to the sandy nature of which moisture was essential. The drainage water [ from various drainage boards, which was now put into the river at Oroua Bridge, did considerable damage, as silt was deposited in the river, which impeded its flow. Big drains should have flood gates on them, so that the river could not back up. If any scheme were carried out that would take water off lands about three days after it came down, it would increase the value of lands to a very material extent. Flax lands could be converted into grazing lands, and would be worth about £SO per acre.

To Mr Thomson : Had no idea of the levels of the cuts he suggested. To Mr Short: His cut would relieve the whole of the 70,000 acres included in Mr Hay’s scheme. The mouth of the Oroua River had been contracted, owing to the banks being undermined, and large willows falling in and causing silt deposits. He would include all lands below Jackeytown, subject to floods, in the rating area. Public bodies above that should be asked to contribute a subsidy. The Government should also make a grant on account of the quantity of refuse thrown Into the river at the Manawatu Gorge, which was taken down to lower areas, and affected the current of the river. There should be a separate body to control rivers, and one for drainage boards. He would have one body to control the Manawatu river from the Heads to Jackeytown- The cut from Whirokino to Hartley’s Bend would improve the bar wonderfully. The proposal to put training walls along the banks of the river from Foxton, would do lands subject to floods a great deal of harm, as the water would probably back up. If this cut were put in, wharf dues and river dues should be charged, and material benefit would result. To Mr Thomson; He would erect a bank to stop Rowland’s land from flooding. Water had never been known to be more than two feet higher than the bank there, and a stop-bank should meet requirements. His cut would cost from ,£15,000 to ,£2/5,000, Flooded could bear an expenditure of " £300,000, which would work out at about 4s per acre, as in a few years land would increase in value to the extent of about £9 per acre. To Mr Vickermau : He would make his cut about one chain wide. Mr Vickerman,: It would require a cut about loooftwide to do any good. Mr Pearce : My opinion is that the river would soon widen the cut V to about three chains. * To Mr Robinson; There was a difference of about 20ft between ordinary water level and high flood level just below Oroua Bridge. The deep soil in the proposed Himitangi cut would be of a sandy aiature. The sand dunes near the beach had a tendency to drift, and would fill in the proposed Himistangi cut. It would require a very .great stream of water to keep the

cut clear. He objected to willow planting, although he did it himelf in order to protect his laud. His objections were based .on the fact that the river undermined the bank, and large willows fell into the river and caused a deposit of silt.

To Mr Stubbs : Local bodies in the upper reaches should contribute towards the scheme. Erection of groynes on higher lands would affect low-lying lands to some extent, but it would be difficult to say how much.

To Mr Thomson; The main drain could be brought into the Oroua at Lucas’, with advantage. To Mr Law : The Shannon land would be increased in value by £ls or £l6 per acre, if relieved from floods, and should be worth from £35 to £4O. To Mr Gower : A flood washed away the banks on both sides and widened the course. Land owners should pay on the rateable value of their properties, and a re-valuation made every three years.

William Signal, superintendent engineer to Messrs Levin and Co., considered the cut at Hartley’s Bend would relieve the flood water at the expense of the Foxton harbour. Waters would tend to go through the cut and leave too little water in the bead past the harbour. There would also be a large deposit of silt which would have to be dredged away at considerable expense. The Manawatu was one of the dirtiest rivers in New Zealand - and every flood carried an enormous amount of sand to the bar. He advocated training walls being built from the mouth of the river to the bar if the cut at Hartley’s bend were put in. To Mr Thomson: The cut end would not increase the scour at the bar.

To Mr Stubb’s; If a scour took place at the bar it would benefit Foxton to some extent but it would also be necessary to deepen the river.

Phillip J. Hennessy, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and member of the Borough Council, held that either of the schemes were too comprehensive. When the Harbour Board was constituted, a working agreement could be entered into with a River Board and ihe river dredged and banks erected with the spoil where necessary and several sharp points could also be taken off and the river thus kept in mid-stream. He would not be a I verse to a scheme to cut in a litt.e below Moutoa Church to go at the back of the sand hills and come out at Mrs Austin senr’s late residence. A coucave wall should be erected from the outlet of the mouth of the river. An increased flow of water would be the result which would have the effect ot deepening the bar by about three ft. The harbour would be benefited by the cut and should contribute towards any expenditure entailed.

To Mr Short: Any of the districts that got relief from this scheme, should contribute towards

To Mr Venn : He did not think it would be better to sacrifice Foxton than to sacrifice the proposed scheme. Foxton could be shifted if they were prepared to compensate property owners for any loss entailed.