RIVER COMMISSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3532, 2 September 1926, Page 2

RIVER COMMISSION.

The Maiiawatu-Oroua River Board Commission continued its sitting at Palmerston N. when Mr W. S. Carter, ciairman of the board, was the first witness. Mr Carter referred to the detrimental effect of the floods. He had been a resident of the district since his birth, 51 years ago. In the recent flood nine-tenths of. the Moutoa had been under water, and, generally speaking, the grass growth on the whole of the flooded lands had been retarded by a period of a month to five weeks. The after-ef-fects on cows of eating dirty grass, following floods, were serious, and not a few bad died. More than half of a 300-acre holding belonging to witness had been flooded on the last occasion. The effect of a flood upon dairy icows varied according to the season. The Makerua bank, he believed, had accentuated the trouble on the occasion of the last flood. Witness said that he had seen miles of fencing in the Moutoa flattened .out, washed out to sea, or caught round telegraph poles. The main road between Shannon and Foxton (from Marotiri to Shannon) had only been open for about a week after being closed by the big flood in July. This had caused great inconvenience. Witness outlined the River Board’s scheme, which was designed to protect the Makerua as well as other parts of the district, and woifld shorten the distance by the Manawatu River from Longburn bridge to the sea by 34 miles. The board was advised by the Government district land valuer that the total betterment to 70,000 acres'by the execution of the flood control scheme would be £1,000,000, but it was agreed that the land could only afford to pay five-four-teenths of the amount of benefit it would receive. Witness said that the £450,000 scheme was “out of the question” if £1 for £1 subsidy was not secured from the State.

“What is.it lie bases his bold £1 for £1 subsidy from the State on?” asked Mr Watson. “Is it on £450,000 or on the sum plus, say, £IOO,000 which will be allowed for what has been done by the Makerua Drainage Board?” . Witness answered that the board’s scheme alone (and that was what was going to involve the expenditure) was to cost £450,000. Mr Wlatson: You have not answered my question. I wish you would.

Witness: The matter is complicated and —

Mr Watson: I know very well it is, but answer my question. In asking for £250,000 from the State have you considered compensation for work done by the Makerua Drainage Board?

Witness: Yes. Mr Watson: Very well then. Your figure is £250,000. Under examination by Mr Cooke, witness said that the £450,000 scheme could not be proceeded with unless £250,000 was secured from the State.

“Then if you don’t get this sum you have brought us here all for nothing?” “Who was responsible for the financial part of the scheme? Were you —I hope not.

Well, who was Who kno.ws all about it? —Different ones. You don’t expect a “cockatoo” to know all about engineering details and such matters.

The chairman asked Mr Carter to make direct answers.

If this half million pound scheme fails it will bring disaster, won’t it? —I am prepared to take the risk. Asked by Mr Cooke how lie deemed the scheme likely to benefit the towns, Mr Carter alluded to the increased settlement which would be possible and stated that it could be proved that each family in the country supported one in the town. The analogy was obvious. Palmerston N. would get by far the bulk of the benefit from increased settlement.

Could your board maintain the flood control scheme when completed? —The engineer will explain that to you. We t have gone into the matter.

You are to get nothing from the local bodies for maintenance?—No, we would have to do it out of revenue. We ought to get' something from the local bodies towards maintenance. (Laughter). Mr Park (consel for the Levin Borough Council) asked witness why he thought Levin should contribute and how much. Witness referred to positive safety of means of communication, but would not say how much the Levin Borough Council should contribute.

To Mr Bergin, solicitor for the Foxton Borough Council, he said that no definite allowance had been made for the future maintenance of the board’s £450,000 flood control scheme. The flax industry, he thought, was the chief support of the town of Foxton. He had no doubt at all that the Moutoa district would be made much more suitable for dairying, and could supply Wellington city with milk, in the event of an effective flood control scheme being carried out. There were some 10,000 acres in the Moutoa, and while some 2,500 acres were in ilax and would continue to be devoted to flax-growing, the balance could ibe made to carry a family to every 50 to 60 acres. Mi' Berg'in: Your proposed cut would swallow up 1,200 to 1,500 acres of the Moutoa land? About that, but all the land taken would not be useless.

Mr Bergin, continuing to examine witness as to possible benefits likely to accrue to Foxton from the scheme, asked whether it was not fair to say that half the business

from the' Moutoa would go to Shan- • non. —Witness assented. You know that no part of Foxton is subject to serious flood? asked Mr Bergin. —That is so, replied witness, who, howevep, alleged that road interruptions through floods were a detriment to Foxton. What benefit will the s'cheme be to Foxton harbour? —It will make it by deepening the channel. You think then that the trouble with the port is the depth of the channel and not lack of business Decidedly. Witness added that trade had fallen off through the channel blocking up. Have you considered the effect of your proposed cut on the river transport of flax —Yes. We think that it can be provided for. Mr Bergin persisted in questions as to how the cut would, by altering the course of the river, affect flax mills now having easy aecess to it, but witness said that Mr Hay, his board’s engineer, was the technical witness. In reply to Mr Baldwin, counsel for the Manawatu-Oroua River Board, witness told how improved harbour channel would benefit Foxton. Flax areas, he thought, were steadily decreasing in the district. Evidence was given by Captain Buckley, who made an aerial survey of the area, and Mr Hay, engineer to the Board. Continuing his evidence Mr Hay said that, in all flooded areas there was a liability which the State had accepted in the past and would continue to accept —to afford relief from distress and make grants for the repair of damage. That was surely a matter of national interest, and the Government had made a grant of £2OOO towards repair of breaches caused by the last flood. Mr Innes: Is there a positive certainty that your scheme will confer absolute immunity from flooding r Yes. Does the £450,000 estimate allow anything for the protection of the big cut?— Yes. ... That cut will go through light sandy land? —Yes. . And there will be an increased velocity of wnter?—By about 25 per How will you protect the banks?— By a belt of trees 100 feet wide and small groynes at short intervals. What sort of trees?—Willows, and on the outer edge trees of greater commercial value. Will there not be erosion ?—\es, in the first place, but we want it to automatically deepen our straightening cut. There will, of course, be a maintennnee charge to keep the tree belt and banks in order. It will be some years before the trees will grow to be of use? Yes, and some years before any erosion of the banks reaches them. AN INTERESTING POINT. ' Mr Innes: The land which will he left dry when you divert the Man awatu river will revert to the the river at those points being tidal. You have not advanced thp.t as a benefit which The state would receive from the scheme?—No. The area of that land was then computed and found to be from 400 to 500 acres Continuing, Mr Innes asked witness whether his estimate of what each or the local bodies should pay was not purely approximate. . , , , Mr Hay admitted that lie had had difficulty in securing data, but he had based the suggested contributions on the increase in revenue which each local body would receive as the result of the betterment, consequent upon protection from flooding. Ur Innes: You could not deal witn flooding from the Mangaone stream because it is not in your area?— that is so. , ~ _ r • Then flooding from the Mangaone would continue?—lf those responsible do not maintain protective works. Questioned by Mr Innes, witness said that the protective works of tne Makerua Drainage Board would be partly availed of under the £450,000 scheme to which they would be worth ' about £BO,OOO. Later, lie would go into the matter and give a definite reply. He could see no way ot assessing a sum which the Makeiua Drainage Board should pay towards tho scheme. Mr Bergin: How will your scheme improve the Foxton harbour? It will deepen and straighten the channel, thus stimulating trade through the port and so benefiting Foxton town “Have you any details as to how your estimate of £450,000 for the flood control scheme is made up ? asked Mi C °“Not with me, but I will he pleased to supply thefh,” answered Mr Hay. “Don’t you think you ought to have them here P” returned Mr Cooke. t Mr Baldwin, counsel to the Mana-watu-Oroua River Board, suggested that it was the duty of the commission to conduct its inquiries as provided by the Act—to gauge the value of the scheme and the degree of contributions towards it, but not to attempt to conduct a full inquiry into all the engineering details. At the same time, if required, his board would supply every detail and was prepared to have the scheme submitted to four or hve engineers if necessary. In any case the scheme had to be fully investigated and approved by the Public Works Department engineers before it could be carried out. He did not want to oveiload the commission. . Mr Watson. S.M., chairman of the commisison, thought that they should investigate the engineering details. _ Mr Baldwin expressed an opinion that Mr Hannah, a prominent engineer of the Public Works Department, and Mr Holmes, who was formerly also in the department, conjointly investigate the engineering details of the scheme forthwith. Both gentleman, lie pointed out, were attending the inquiry. Mr Holes, Mr Cooke pointed out, had been engaged by the local bodies. Mr Watson ruled that evidence as to engineering details should be given ABOUT 200 PLANS. Mr Cooke asked what data Mr Hay could adduce and was told by the engineer that, inter alia, there were some 200 plans. Witness said he would be pleased to hand over all Ins plans and data to Mr Holmes for investigation. Mr Cooke: How soon can you get them?—As soon as I can get to Foxton and back—say three hours. Mr Hay added that it would take any oneineer quite a considerable time to investigate all the plans and technical dotails of such a huge scheme. Further questioned by Mr Cooke, witness said that his board had classified part of its area into three classes for administration rating on an acreage basis. General rating in respect to actual works would affect the whole ot the board’s district and would be on a different basis. The cost of maintenance of the £460,000 scheme, which he understood would have to be borne by his board, would be 1* to 2 per cent, of the capital cost annually. It was impossible to execute a small section of The scheme as a trial, although it could be carried out from the sea up to the Moutoa at a cost of some £3OO 000, as a first experimental .instalment’. hiat would, however, involve rating difficulties in respect to the settiers in the unprotected areas above Moutoa—in the Kairanga for instance. The whole scheme would take

five years to construct but it would be another five years before it reached its maximum of efficiency, through the deepening of pilot channels by natural scouring. Floods during the period of construction would not seriously interfere with the work, stated Mr Hay. PALMERSTON NORTH’S PORTION. Mr Cooke: You are asking Palmerston to pay £IO,OOO for tlie benefits which it will receive by the scheme from n stimulus to business, stability and safety of communications, and increase of population?—Yes. Further questioned, Mr Hay said that the sums which he had mentionde should be paid by the local bodies were more in the nature of a suggestion, prepared, as he had before stated, on short notice. Mr Hay detailed flood damage in past years to roads about Palmerston North. He pointed out that the scheme was calculated to improve the port of Foxton and that, if 10,000 tons of produce came to Palmerston North annually through it at a freight charge reduction of Is a ton, there would be a saving of £SOO per annum.

Mr J. T. Bovis, clerk to the Shannon Borough Council, asked why that body was asked to pay £ISOO. Mr Hay pointed out that Shannon would benefit from increased settlement of the Moutoa, protection of roads from flood damage, and from the other causes stated in respect to other contributing bodies. Witness could not say whether, in the event of the scheme costing more than £450,000, Shannon’s suggested contribution would be increased.

Several questions were .submitted by Mr Cooke on behalf of the engineers of the cited local bodies. Answering them Mr Hay said that the River Board made no provision for the protection of the Taonui and Kowhai basins beyond the protective works now there. He would answer later whether he thought that the River Board should take over and control the Mangaone stream. As to why the board did not propose to divert the Manawatu river through low lands in the Makerua and Moutoa, as recommenced by the Public Works Department at the 1908 commission, it would have been much more expensive. In 1908 such a course would have meant an outlay of £500,000 and the land since had increased so much in value that to divert the river through it now would be economically impossible. Admittedly, the 1908 idea was as good from an engineering point of view as that now suggested, but would be more costly. The cost of pumping from the Moutoa basin lie would answer in writing later. Witness was asked by Mr Baldwin why ho suggested certain methods of protecting the banks of the proposed cut.

Mr Hay replied, that tree planting had been adopted after securing reports from the State Forest Service and elsewhere. Witness described how the flood control scheme would protect the existing Makerua stop-banks from erosion and thus save the Makerua Drainage Board a good deal of maintenance. Answering further questions by Mr Baldwin, Mr Hay said that the’flood control scheme would he of greater benefit to Palmerston North than the agricultural college towards which the municipality was to pay £IO,OOO. Mr Watson: You say that floods gradually tend to fill up the low lying basins. Would the latter, in an appreciable period, tie built up into high land in the Manawatu by such cause? —Only in a time of which the human mind can have no conception—millions of years. LAND BETTERMENT.

Evidence was given by Mr N. H. Mackie, district valuer, as to the valuation and classification by him of lands in the River Board’s area, according to the benefit which they would derive from the flood control scheme. The estimated amounts of benefit which would accrue to the various subdivisions of the River Board’s area were as follow: ' . £ Kairanga 168,331 Oroua 28,070 Koputaroa 104,744 Moutoa 205,631 Makerua 436,840 Total £1,003,616 Witness said that, in some quarters, the betterment might be £5 to £lO an acre greater than he had estimated, in the event of complete flood protection. He detailed the benefits which would accrue from flood protection from the land value standpoint, stating that the whole of Makerua, as well as other large estates, could be cut up into small farms of 100 acres or under. Mr limes: In arriving at the degree of betterment did you allow for the extra rating on the lands —No. To Mr Baldwin: No betterments under £5 per acre were taken into account.