The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, March 18, 1909. RIVERS COMMISSION REPORT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 453, 18 March 1909, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, March 18, 1909. RIVERS COMMISSION REPORT.

The report of tire Rivers Commission set up to enquire into and submit a proposal to deal with the Manawatu and Oroua overflow questions is now available. The Commission took evidence throughout the districts interested and also made a careful inspection of the affected areas. From the mass of evidence it inakes the following recommendations: (i) that a new channel should be cut for the Manawatu river from Fisherman’s Point, at a cost of ,£350.000 ; (2) that the counties of Pohangina, Kiwitea, and Oroua, and the towns be excluded from the rateable area, since they would not share to any great extent in the benefit accruing ; and (3) that a Eower Manawatu River Board be set up to control certain portions of the river, but that the difficulties of erosion higher up the rivers be dealt with by Boards set up under the River Boards Act. It is estimated that 70,000 acres of land will be enhanced in value to the extent of ,£lO or ,£l2 per acre by the freedom- from flood that would follow the carrying out of the proposed works. Consequently, the suggestion is made that this land would be able to pay an annual average rate of 5s per acre. Since the Commission was appointed, the Moutoa Drainage Board has come into active existence and is carrying out Mr Ward’s extensive drainage scheme to relieve a portion of the affected area of flood water. The cut suggested by the Commission “ from a little above the wharf, and hugging the foot of the dry land on the extreme west side of the Moutoa low land, and joining the river at the Moutoa Maori Church” would nullify the whole of the wdrk being undertaken by the Moutoa Drainage Board for which owners of property have burdened themselves. This portion of the cut suggested by the Commission would undoubtedly carry the congested water away from Moutoa and do completelj' what the Moutoa Drainage Board can only hope to partially accomplish. The two schemes however, come into conflict unless the big cut scheme could be made to absorb the work of the Drainage Board. Even so, the cost would be so enormous that we doubt whether the Government would seriously consider rendering the financial assistance necessary, and we feel perfectly certain that the settlers interested couldn’t touch it. It remains for the Moutoa Drainage Board, which is the responsible governing body over that area, to say what they think of the suggestion. We believe their finding will be: “Stick to our own scheme.”

Now, iu respect to the cutting of a new channel, starting at Fisherman’s point, then cutting into an almost straight line for Fox ton, through the flats to the returned bend of the river, which it will cross, then cutting through the point at Matakarapa immediately opposite the wharves, and crossing the river and coming out a little to the east of the wharves.” There is a greater possibility of this portion of the scheme being seriously considered than the one above referred to. The new channel would do away with the great elbow of the river, shorten the distance from the wharl to the sea by two miles, give quicker relief to the congested upper waters and provide a scour which should deepen the bar and facilitate shipping. It would also materially assist the Moutoa Drainage scheme. As this portion of the river, from the wharf to the Heads, is now controlled by the the Harbour Board, it is for that body to take up this section of the Commissioners report and formulate a scheme to give effect to it.