MANAWATU—OROUA. RIVER BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2905, 4 July 1925, Page 2

MANAWATU—OROUA. RIVER BOARD.

The monthly meeting of the above was held in Palmerston North on Thursday.

A deputation was received from the Makerim Drainage Board objecting to the amount which, under the present classification and rating scheme of the former, the latter would have to pay towards the cost, £l7-1,000 of the modified scheme of Mood control proposed to be executed.

Of the Mannwalu-Oroua Board members there were present : Messrs. Carter (chairman), H. and A. Akers, Nielson, Anderson, Seifert, (lower and Wilton. The board’s solicitor (Mr Baldwin), engineer (Mr F. C. Hay) and secretary (Mr If. H. Spencer) were also in attendance. The Makerua Drainage Board deputation included Messrs ,T. Higgins (chairman), R. 17. Tippler, .J. T. Hume and the board’s solicitor (Mr -J. P. lanes), engineer (Mr S. Jickell) mid the clerk (Mr F. W. C'otinel). Members of the, latter hoard, who are also members of the Manawatu-Oroua Bottrd, are Messrs. Seifert and 11. Akers. Inter alia, it was pointed out; that, under the proposed basis of contributions to the flood protection scheme, the Makeru.a area would have to pay 3(i per cent, of the total cost, a proportion which Mr Seifert and several said the land could not afford to carry.

In addressing the meeting Mr Higgins said that it was believed

that they were against the district and the Manawatu-Oroua River Board. That was not so. They were originally responsible for the constitution of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board. lie added that the Makerua Board had spent, £llO,000, and had done its work well. “You have done none,” he stated. MY Liggins went on to say that it appeared that, after effectively banking their own side of the river, the Makerua ratepayers were being called upon to help pay for the Manawatu-Oroua Board's proposed banking on the other side. He volunteered the opinion that, if the land were rated on that basis, settlers would have to walk off their holdings. They were prepared, however, to pay for any additional profeel ion from Hoods which they might secure from the general river control proposals, but not towards the cost of hanking on the other side of the river. “We feel that we ought not to have to do work on the other side of the Makerua bank such as we have done on our own side," observed Mr Liggins. The Manawatu-Oroua Board’s 'work was going to be enormous —it had extended beyond merely giving prolection against floods to existing river hoard works, and he thought, that the body which he represented should be exempt from banking rates. He also thought that the Manana I u-Ornua River Board should either take over the hanks of the Makerun Drainage Board, or reduce ils Makerua rates accordingly. Nolle hut the speaker and Mr Craw had, he said, appealed against the Manawatu-Oroua Board's proposed classification and rating scheme, hut- he did not know why “because il was all wrong.’' The classifier, he stated, had not taken account of iho money spent in Makerua. He agreed that the latest decision of the Manawatu-Oroua Board to divide tin* classification into four classes was a step in tiie right direction hut in the proposed amendment to the Act lie would like to see better and certain allowance made for the money expended by the Makerua Board on hanking, as an offset to the rates.

Other represenalives of ihe deputation also spoke. Mr Seifert pointed out that, while the Makerua Drainage Board approved eceepling responsibility for work which was giong on to protect its scheme, it did not see why it should be called upon to pay for other hanking and such items as flood gates. The Makerua Drainage Board, he continued. had done it work faithfully and well, and there now only remained in its area the menace of a high Hood miusing damage through the effect of lln* works performed by other bodies. Therefore, they were willing to assist towards the provision of a better outflow so far as ii affected that danger, hut no further. I'nder the existing proposals Makerua would pay a bigger rate than any other part of the Manawatn-Orovia board’s area — £3(l 8s in every £IOO raised —and ihat he deemed unfair.

“The Makerua people are particularly ably represented,” said Mr Carter, “Imt there are other boards and private owners who have spent a good deal of money in banking. Have they been considered? Tie added (bat much of the Makerua Board’s work was internal work which did not affect the board of which lit? was i-liairnnui. JMnkernn was safe only so long as the spillway was through Moutoa.

There was. said Mr Seifert, a deal of misconception about the value of the Makerua Board’s work to the Monnwntu-Oroua River Board. 11 was worth more than was generally recognised. Briolly the ratepayers of the Makerua Board were prepared to assist the scheme for improving the river channel, blit were afraid that, alter having spent so much, they would be drawn into great expenditure which would chiefly benelil others.

Mr Liggins voiced the opinion that the Manuwatu-Oroun River Board’s proposed works would not menace the Makerua hunks. It was suggested by Mr Hume Unit the solicitors of both hoards confer with the object of arriving at

a basis whereby Makerua would be more liberally treated. “I don't see why we should find 30 per cent, of the cost of the scheme,” said Mr Tippler. “We should he on a parity with the others.”

“If we don’t get together with all parties you might never carry a loan, and I don’t want to see that,” said Mr Liggins. “We want to see other properties improved as well as ours, and thus enhance the value of the whole district.” Mr Xeiison denied that it had been the case that the ManawatuOroua River Board “would have nothing to do with the Makerua Drainage Board.” It was the latter which had demurred and decided to go on with its own scheme ill any case.

Mr Anderson said that although Makerua might be protected, that board was not free from any claim for compensation for flooding of lands caused by the turning of the waters away from Makerua Board’s banks. Makerua had been the natural spillway, for the river before the banks were constructed, lie commented.

“Makerua Drainage Board is the infant board of the district,” said Mr Wilton. He commented that the Makerua banks would be in great danger in the event of a flood after the Manawatu-Oroua Board’s works were completed. Makerua, therefore, should co-operate to guard against such a contingency. Mr Gower held the opinion that the Makerua Board had elected to act independently and declined to co-operate in a comprehensive scheme.

“There are four drainage boards in the Manawatu-Oroua River Board’s area, all deserving of consideration.” said the chairman. The Makerua Drainage Board had three representatives of its district on the former body. What he feared was a “banking war” which would do no good to anyone. That was what- would occur if they could not get together. He hoped that, instead of raking up past sins, they would try to arrive at a fair and square basis for flood protection. Moutoa was in a bad position but could get out of it by counter-bank-ing against Makerua. Then someone else might bank and swamp hotli Moutoa and Makerua. The .Manawatu-Oroua River Board had fried to do its best for all parties. Mr Jickell, addressing the meeting, traced the history of the formation of the Manawatu-Oroua River Baord, which, he said, controlled all the rivers in the district. He thought Mr Hay's scheme quite all right hut, he said, the Makerua'people had a lily protected themselves on their side of the river and should not he called upon to help pay for hanking on I lie other side. The Makerua people should he given allowance for what they had spent, or else the Manawatu-Oroua Board should take over their hanks. Mr Hay mentioned that the cost of a scheme to give all the district the same immunity from flooding as Makerua enjoyed would be £435,(MM). That was too expensive—for the present at any rate —and the Mann warn Board had decided to go in for a modified scheme at a cost of £174,01)0. Touching upon Makenta's position, he said that the Manawatu-Oroua Board was endeavouring to secure more rating classes in order to place the former on a hotter basis. The modified scheme must he of some benefit to Makerua. For £133,000, he mentioned, there could he carried out a modified scheme which would wreck Makerua's works, while protecting the rest of the district quite as well as lhe £174,000 scheme. The Manawatu-Oroua Board, said Mr Baldwin, was doing its utmost to lie fair to all and sought legislation accordingly. It was realised that Makerua, with its large banks, was not on a parity with other districts. There might, he said, lie another commission appointed to determiiie matters between the Manawatu-Oroua River Board and the minor Bodies, whose works had to be taken into account ui i lie general scheme. The idea of a commision was approved by Mr Seifert as the best means to avoiding a deadlock. It was suggested by Mr Liggins that failing a commission the Ma-nawatu-Oroua Board might agree, in its proposed amendment to the Ad, that the Makerua Drainage Board he exempted from paying rates for hanking, hut only in respect to the general benefit which tt would derive from the whole scheme.

It was decided that the last named proposal be drawn up in legal form for presentation by the Maker aa Board after the luncheon adjournment, it being generally agreed that, failing an agreement on this basis, the setting up of a commission would have to lie considered. The meeting then adjourned for lunch. FNHLNFFR'S UK FORT. The engineer (Mr F. C. Hay) reported on hotter methods of recording freshes in the river. In this connect ion he stated: —Regarding ihe matter of reporting information on Mood heights from Woodville, I am eonlidenl that the best results wijll lu' (obtained by erecting an aiiiomatie sender at a suitable place on the river to operate electrically a recorder in post office at Woodvilli'. This recorder will accurately show. l*v a pointer on a dial, the height of the river, and 1 have no doubt that the l’ost and Telegraph Department would, if the apparatus were installed, make effective arrangements to transmit the informal ion. What is holding up the suggestion, however, is lack of information about the cost of the apparatus which cannot be estimated

until the voltage required is known. ■—%. The makers have been written to and their reply should he to hand in about six weeks when complete estimates will be submitted. Mr Gower stressed the need for accurate information to be supplied to the settlers on the lower reaches of the river area,, his remarks being supported by Mr Seifert, and it was decided to favourably consider the purchase of the suggested apparatus when further information concerning it is available.

It was further resolved that the hoard’s engineer negotiate with the Palmerston North Borough Council in the matter of providing an electric light to faciliate the reading by night of the Fitzherbert street, bridge gauge. Accounts totalling £Bl 11s 5d were passed for payment.