THE RIVER COMMISSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3534, 7 September 1926, Page 1

THE RIVER COMMISSION.

FURTHER. EVIDENCE TAKEN.

Palmerston N., Sept. 1.

The Manawatu-Oroua River District Commission heard further evidence as follows: —

Mr Baldwin made some suggestions as to the future conduct of the inquiry. He had, he stated, conferred with Messrs Holmes and Hannah concerning arrangements to allow them to return to Wellington at once to fully investigate the plans and technical data relating to the £450,000 flood control scheme, in respect to which, as an engineering proposition, these gentlemen would give their views later. He suggested that the River Board proceed with its case in the interim and that the commission inspect the flood threatened areas on Friday and Saturday of this week and then adjourn for a fortnight, when the evidence on the plans would be ready.

“I have a number of short witnesses but do not want to overload the commission. I could call 1000 settlers,” said Mr Baldwin. (Laughter). There is probably no need to call very many, said Mr Cooke, as a deal of their evidence will be admitted. “We admit that floods do an enormous amount of damage to the district,” ho observed. “All parties must be satisfied about the efficacy of this flood control scheme,” stated the chairman of the commission (Mr R. M. Watson). The commission, he said, was ready to hear any and all evidence and would meet the convenience of the parties. It was asked by Mr Baldwin whether ,the commission was going to avail itself of the opportunity to view the River Board’s district by aeroplane. That would be a very good and rapid method- of inspection, said the chairman, but the commission had not yet discussed it. . Different members of the commission could be taken over different sections of the area, Mr Baldwin observed.

It was agreed that the taking of evidence continue to-morrow, the commission -to make an inspection on Friday and Saturday and then adjourn for a fortnight.

UTILISING SWAMP LANDS

W. J. McCulloch, instructor in agriculture at Palmerston North, gave evidence concerning the development of some 3800 acres of swamp land near Invercargill. Taken over “in the rough” it had been converted into dairying land and was now probably the richest land in Southland. It had been protected by banking works from the inroad's of the sea, but originally not a blade of grass —not even salt rush. Now it was rich heavy land used for fattening sheep. The advantages of effective drainage of country were so great and so numerous that he could go on telling of them all the afternoon. • “I mean that,” he said. “The first step in the development of land is drainage. Mr McCulloch added that effective drainage had a most important bearing on the health of stock. Excess of moisture had a bad effect on the texture of soil, prevented its proper aeration and nullified the effect of top-dressing. There was an increasing need for auxiliary crops in dairying and they, could not be grown in a water-logged soil. The 70,000 acres of the River Board’s area, if properly drained and perfectly protected from floods, should, on the average, carry 40 to 45 dairy cows to the 100 acres. The average yield per cow would be easily about 200 lbs of butter-fat per annum, worth £ls. That, together with by-pro-ducts, would give an approximate gross return from each 100 acres from dairying, of £7OO. Properly protected from flooding and well drained, the River Board’s area could carry 1800 more population, with a consequent increase in dairy companies and dairy company employees. The annual productive value of the land would be increased from £3 10s to £7 per acre over the 60,000 to 70,000 acres of the River Board’s district. SETTLER’S EXPERIENCE. William Hill, a settler farming 47£ acres at Rangiotu, stated in evidence that six years ago he bought the land at £l2O per acre, but in the slump the price was reduced to £7O per acre and again the other day, as the result of the flood, to £6O. His house was built on a high part of the laud, but in the last flood water lay over the flbor to a depth of two feet. The furniture was virtually ruined and the premises silted up. All about the house was a sea of water —it was four feet deep at the back door. He now had no grass at all, as every paddock was silted up. His cows, which were his sole subsistence, he now had to feed on the roadway. He had gone in for intensive fanning. He lost 25 pigs in the 1924 flood and so “had gone out of pigs.” ■He had had no crops damaged in the last flood because after the 1924 experience he feared to plant early. During the 1924 flood lie had lost 6001bs of milk a day as the result of the effect on his cows, on top of which he had had to pay some £3O for grazing for them. He could not use his property to anything like the best advantage owing to the prevalence of floods. E. 0. Alve, farming at Rangitane on 74 acres, said that £SO to £75 an acre had been paid for some of his land, although his father had originally bought part of the property for about £7 10s an acre. His land was flooded recently, although the house was high enough to escape damage. His brother, though, had over three feet of water in his house. Witness was isolated by the flood, even the telephone being out of action. Parts of the property were inundated to a depth of seven feet. At the height of the flood those cows which lie had not sent away had only about one and a-lialf acres upon wnicli to graze. Witnes/s was a deal more favourably situated than many of his neighbours, but the last flood had cost him well over £IOO, while there was also the setback through loss of oats and grass, and silting to consider. That would mean a further loss of at least £SO. He had been obliged to spend £2O in grazing and was not done with it yet, while lie had had to pay over £l3 for fodder. A paddock of*oats would have to be re-sown, as the flood had largely ruined the crop'. His brother had had three or four cows die from eating silted grass. Witness had had six or seven chains of fencing pulled out by the flood. FLOOD LOSSES.

Evidence on similar lines was given

by L. P. Fawcett, who said that he had been dairying at Rangiotu for the past four years. The price of his 50acre farm was £65 per acre and had he known as much about the locality as lie - did now he would not be there. He rpn 35 cows which produced 280 to 2901 b of butter-fat each per annum. In the last flood he lost 40 tons o( mangolds, six acres of oats, three sows with litters, seven sheep, 50 posts', gates and timber, a -ton of manure, half a ton of cement and other items. The fences were damaged and the property drains silted up and blocked with drift wood. Water was three feet six inches deep in his house, the furniture and wallpaper being damaged. The four occupants were rescued, some in a canoe, some in a boat. They climbed out over the top of a window. There were big waves where a drain ran beneath the flood waters and later the canoe, of which witness was an occupant, was upset, • and those whom the craft spilled out took refuge in a tree. The water there was eight feet deep. Witness could not swim, but had floated along on top of the canoe until it went against a tree. His total losses through the flood he estimated at £309 10s.

J. E. C. Harrison, a settler of 50 years’ experience in the King Country, Taranaki and Wellington province, said that he was farming 900 acres of land on lease at Rangitane. He had taken it over in the slump and was a grazier. He deemed the land some of the best in the Dominion—hard to beat in the world, perhaps. Normally he fattened 600 to 700 bullocks and some 3000 sheep each season, but he had experienced a flood every year. On the occasion of the recent flood all the area had been flooded and even now, in the back country, all the water had not gone off. Advised at 3 a.in. of the approach of the flood he set out, with assistance, and removed the stock. Had it not been a moonlight night he would have lost many head. He grazed them on a property 16 miles away which he had bought for £2835 as an insurance against floods. His stock suffered from this removal to an emergency area. An efficient flood control scheme would be of immense benefit to him, declared "witness. When the Manawatu river was in half flood the water from it backed up drains and of itself caused flooding. “1 am afraid, after careful consideration, that 1 will not be able to conclude my case this week,” stated Mr Baldwin, solicitor to the ManawatuOroua River Board, at the opening of the proceedings. He added that Mr Alfred Seifert, an important witness, and Mr R. G. Gower, could not appear before the commission this week, but could do so after the adjournment agreed upon yesterday. Their evidence, the commission agreed, could be given after the adjourn ment. “Have you decided when you are going to make an inspection by aeroplane?” asked Dir Baldwin. The chairman of the commission (Mr R. M. Witson, SAL) replied that it was desired to. make it when the wcatlien was favourable. “1 can break off in my case at any time to allow of your making the inspection,” Mr Baldwin told the com-, mission.

“Then why not adjourn this evening with a view to inspecting the area tomorrow?” asked Mr Watson. “The weather looks suitable now, although the forecast is not at all good.” It was mentioned that Captain Buckley. who is in charge of the aeroplane at Foxton, would be in court during this afternoon and the matter of a definite arrangement was left over until then. '

A local settler, Mr Harrison, continued his evidence in favour of the River Board’s £450,000 scheme. It was apparent, said witness, that the time had come when the control of the Manawatu river should be taken in hand, else disaster would follow disaster and it was better to act now than to wait. The construction of the stop-bank on the south side of the Manawatu river was deemed by many settlers to be a grave menace to lands on the northern side, including the Kairanga. He believed the River Board’s scheme to he a sound one, calculated to make a bold bid for increased settlement and which factors were the. Dominion’s life blood. It would be far better for the State to aid the scheme than to spend money in attempts to improve third class country—attempts which were often a failure. Much more pioneer work lpid yet to be done in the Dominion anil the River Board’s scheme, he tliOTght, came under that heading.

(Concluded on Page 4)