THE RIVER COMMISSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3534, 7 September 1926, Page 4

THE RIVER COMMISSION.

(Concluded from Page 1)

in reply to Air E. E. Cooke, solicitor to the Pulmemon Nortn uorougn | Council, witness said that, if his jland were adequately protected from 'flooding and thoroughly drained,, tiro ■unimproved value would be increased by £l2 per acre over the whole 800 'acres. .. ' That would be a pretty good profit P” asked Mr Cooke.—ies, was the reply. - Do you not think, then, that tho settlers receiving such benefit couur afford to pay for the flood control? No. Where do you send your stock r —lo Feilding and Longburn works. Well, then, it does not mean busi; ness to Palmerston North? —Longburn is at Palmerston North. No, it is in the Manawatu County, isn’t it? —Well, you wouldn’t like the freezing works in Palmerston North would you-? Oh no, said Mr Cooke amidst laughter. Further questioned as to in wliat degree his business transactions, or the enlargement of them, benefited Palmerston North, witness said, amidst renewed laughter, “that he spent all his money there.” In reply to Mr Baldwin, he stated that he was paying heavy rates to drainage boards, the works of which did not adequately protect his holding. In fart, water from the Manawatu, river in the event of a fresh backed up the drains and flooded part of his land. - . . . ~ Before the drains were put in by the Mainiwqtu Drainage Board your land was an absolute swamp worth ‘ five bob” an acre. Now yon say the improved value is £lB an acre, Mr Cooke observed. Mr Leighton:' You say that there was more water over your land at tho last Hood than in the 1902 flood ? I am so informed. And if your land were increased by £l2 an acre in value as the result of flood protection and drainage, that; would not all be profit. There would bo extra rates? —Yes. FROM 1897 ONWARDS. Mr N. P. Nielsen, a Jackeytown settler, said that his experience of the district antedated the 1897 flood. Ho had taken an active interest in local body affairs and was an original member" of the Maiiawatu-Oroua River Board. , Describing the 1897, 1902 and 1907 great floods, witness said that the firstnamed flooded the whole 22,000 acres of the Makerua and readied over to Lock.rood in the other direction. It was two feet deeper at Lockwood in 1897 than it was In the flood of last July. The 1902 flood was as great a* that of 1897, while the 1907 inundation was also much on a par with the other.;. The 1902 flood resulted from a 22 feet level at the Fitzlierbert bridge, while tho two other great floods had insulted from 18 to 20 feet levels at the bridge. Near Jackeytown 00 acres of a 120 acre farm had been eaten away by tho sweep of the river. It was first-class land. In witness’s opinion the widening of tho river so caused had not lessened flood risk, because the high protective banks wero swept away. *■ Witness gave particulars concerning . the formation of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board. He detailed the difficulties of drainage where there was insufficient outfall. Lacking drainage the ground became sodden and stock suffered in condition. In country liable to flooding, pig breeding could not be carried on, declnred witness, who concurred with earlier evidence given on this point. The stop-banks along the Oroua river were being undermined by erosion and at many points were in a dangerous condition. Home 7000 acres were thus threatened by an Oroua river flood. The last flood would have been far more extensive had there been heavy rain in Hawke’s Bay,

Witness detailed the effect, in the lasi flood of some breaches occurring in tho stop-banks of the Oroua river. He described the extensive silting up of drains, and stated that the all round lowering of the water table by the execution of the River Board’s scheme would be of immense benefit to the Kairanga subdivision alone. He was aware that settlers on the Kairanga side of the Oroua river, owning 3500 acres, had signed a petition asking the State for financial aid in repairing ’Hood damage along the Oroua river. Mr limes: Land about Tiakitahuna sells readily despite its flood risk, doesn’t it?—l would not say that about the Tiakitahuna district. During the last 20 years yon have increased your holding despite the flood risk? —Not that part of it in the flooded area. 1 P

I think you told us that 7000 acre* of the Manawatu Drainage Board’s district were flooded ? said Mr Cook&. Receiving a reply in the affirmative, it was remarked that the area men-v tinned was once a natural swamp. | This 7000 acres, said witness, has _ln, parts been sold for £IOO per acre, with improvements, but the unimproved value of the land would be approximately £SO per acre. Without oeing susceptible to flood, witness thought the land would have an unimproved value of £6O and not more. Mr Baldwin: If it had not been fq? the breaking of the Oroua bank the™ would have been no flood at all?—I would not say that. Mr Baldwin then read a letter written to the “Standard” by' Mr P. J. Small in 1923, when he impressed upon the ratepayers the urgency of carrying the loan for the widening of the Main drain. Has any widening or work in this respect been done since that dateP asked counsel. Witness said that no action had been taken. But in connection with the raising of the loan, the ratepayers in the higher area showed that they did not worry about the main outlet, as long as they managed to rid themselves of the water on their own land. OTHER WITNESSES. . .. Robert Thompson was then culled to, give evidence. When he took over his property it had experienced no flooding for two years prior to his occupation, but the first year lie was there a flood had affected the area, and caused a drop of 45001 b in the butter-fat record. The recent flood, lie said, had covered practically all his land and silting had taken place. He was ob-j liged to send 48 of his cows to Pa-, hiatua. He did not think his returns would be more than one-third of the previous returns and for at least two, months the land would be detrimentally affected. The next -witness was Mr E. Pig-; got, who had been a resident ip the, Moutoa district for 40 years, 16 of which he had been in charge of the' ferry, when used for crossing the; Manawatu river. The bridge between | the Manawatu and Horowhenua coun-l ties had had two spans carried away aj few years ago and this damage had not; been repaired. The ferry had nowj been commissioned again, but at the] time of the recent flood was hindered; from working for five days. 1 Mr Baldwin: The use of that ferry, depends on the state of the river, and it is the only method of communica-

tion?—Yes. (3 You have taken a keen interest in

the heights of the river P—Yes. Replying to another question, witness detailed the drop of the river at various times and said that the recent flood caused the water to overflow the banks. St

A repetition of the 1902 flood would be disastrous as the river could not possibly take away the waters fast enough. Owing to erosion a stop-bank erected in the Manawatu County hid been shifted cm three

Stanley w. mroer said that he had a farm of 161 acres in the Moutoa district. Since the four years he had resided there his farm had been partly flooded every year. the 1924 flood he had only 30 acres dry and prior to that.J.2o acres free from the waters. At®this stage the commission adjourned for lunoheon. Alfred M. Burling, farmer, stated that lie was acquainted with stations abutting on the Manawatu river. His property consisted of 950 acres, all of which, with the exception of a small portion, was high lying land. In reply to a question witness stated that, for the most part, his land was outside the protection of the Makerua stop-hank.

Mr Baldwin: About what area was safe after the last flood.—About 30 to 40 acres.

The flood then has done-you considerable damage?—Yes, and I have experienced two floods. A list of damage to his property through the floods since 1923 revealed that the loss was £3050. Money required for tho repairing of washouts and raising stop-banks totalled £OOO, damage to crops £3OO, estimated value of crops, if the flood had not interfered with them, was set down at £7 per acre, damage to fences and drains £SO, loss through grazing for stock £2OO, loss of stock £SO, depreciation on the stock £l5O, and loss of production to dairy herd £SOO. If it were yourself, said Mr Baldwin, referring to settlers liable to flooding, would you rather experience floods or pay more rates? —Witness said lie would prefer to pay tho additional rates.

Janies Richardson, farmer, of Shannon, said that he had been resident in tho district 14 years and had a farm of 176 acres. Witness maintained that depreciation had been caused to his property since the introduction of the Makerua bank, which in 1924 was almost completed. In November of the same year, said witness, a big flood had cost him a substantial amount; the banks protecting his property were carried away and later cost the settlers £350 to repair. Mr Baldwin: Have you noticed any conspicuous alteration in the rising of the river since the Makerua bank was introduced? —Before the bank we * did not take notice of ail 8 foot flood. Witness said the decrease in his production of butter-fat was one-sixth of that previous to the floods. Detailing the 1926 flood lie said: I was obdiged to muster the stock and get grazing on the hills. When the stock was ready to return another flood had come and until a fortnight ago it was impossible to keep animals on the land.

Wliat would happen to the Koputaroa land if no action is taken to prevent another flood queried Mr Baldwin. —The settlers would be in a similar position to myself, said witness.

Mr Baldwin: Several gentlemen have had to give up their holdings since the flood, have they not? —Yes. Have you experienced any trouble with noxious weeds? —Yes. Goat’s rue and Californian thistle. Tho former, said witness in reply to another question, was a fast growing weed, and if not checked by “grubbing” would take control. RIVER VELOCITY INCREASES.

William Henry Smith, a settler farming in Moutoa district, said that he had 180 acres of good quality land, equal to any in the Dominion. Ho had noticed that the velocity of the river had increased by about one-third during the height of a flood, compared with previous Hoods. Mr Baldwin: With the gauge at Fitzlierbert bridge showing the same rise as at earlier floods, have you noticed any difference. —Yes, the floods are bigger'and I attribute this to the Makerua bank, which formerly acted as a natural spilway. Mrs Jickell at this stage took exception to the statement that the .Makerua bank was responsible, explaining that the settlers in the vicinity had taken no further action .since the erection of the bank. Will red B. Croad was the next witness called. Me stated that lie had a farm in the Mangawhata district and was under the Sluggish River Drainage Board. He had been resident in the district for six years, and had 'experienced much trouble from floods, as there was no outlet from his property.

Mr Baldwin: What was your experience with this last flood?—I had the same quantity of water, but it is difficult to say what the financial loss is. His farm had been the last" to get clear of the water, lie said. In reply to an enquiry by Mr Cooke as to whether lie could bear more rates, witness stated bis rates were heavy, but lie would be willing to pay a little more for the privileges of protection from floods. Richard Edward Dixon, dairy farmer, of Rnngiotu,. in evidence, said that lie had spent‘nnub money in file improvement’of his land. He milked about seven cows with a butter-fat average of 230. Two floods had been experienced and all but 2() acres bad been covered to a depth of eight or nine leet with water. Mr Baldwin: What was the condition at Rangiotu during the recent flood?—The whole countryside was under water, and it was possible to boat from my house to the post office. The fences were under water?—Yes. Witness added that lie had 100 acres at Baincsse where lie wintered his stock, because it was more beneficial to use the dry ground. ‘-There will be. a serious drop in the average for my butter-fat this season,” said witness,' “and it will take at least two months for the land to return to its normal condition.” Palmerston N., Sept. 2. Waltei E. Barber, settler of the Moutoa district, gave an account of the flood protection work, which had been clone in that locality during his residence- there over the last 39 years. He said that a considerable time ago lie was told that the Makerua Board intended to erect the stop-bank, which was now completed. A subsequent meeting of settlers formed a river board, but later lie had retired from membership of same. Witness said that lie had been for 18 years a member of the Manawatu County and during that time wonderful improvements had been effected in the district against the flood menace. Mr Baldwin: Is not a county effected by way of communication, as regards floods? —Yes. The drainage boards are detrimentally. affected by the rivers?—Wo want a satisfactory fall. The full efficiency of drainage and river work then depends on the river control ?—Yes.

Witness, continuing, said that he had carried out much banking work, as liad the settlers in the vicinity of Himatangi. Certain boroughs have been cited for this commission; would the property in them be materially affected by efficient river control? asked counsel. Witness replied that there was little doubt but that the. towns would enjoy the privileges of reliable communication and unhindered activity in the respective industries. Referring to drainage, witness remarked that a proper fall was essential, and an efficient outlet was equally as important. Then, if this were not carried out, said counsel, the lower lands would bear a heavy burden and the higher land would be waterlogged?—Yes. Mr Baldwin : Did the Makerua people warn the settlers that they were going to construct the stop-bank?—There were not many to notify, but they held several meetings at Palmerston North. Have the stop-banks had any appreciable effect of flooding on the opposite bank?—Undoubtedly, replied witness, and lie went on to describe the differ-

ence in the river. He explained that the velocity of the floiv had also increased with the years. Cross-examined by Mr Tunes, tho local bodies’ representative, witness was asked wliat was his opinion of the proposal to extend the watershed. “I am in favour of it,” he replied, “hut I would like to see it a national undertaking, Mr Cooke: Don’t you see that, if the Makerua banks are doing you damage, your banks must be doing the same to the properties below you ?—To a certain extent. EFFECT ON PALMERSTON NORTH. Then what effect will the scheme have on Palmerston North from a business point of view?—As the'population increases so will the business. To any appreciable extent?—Yes, hut I cannot say how much in figures. In wliat • time?—As the settlement takes place on the surrounding land. Mr Cooke then asked if the scheme were not too large a proposal to carry out so suddenly. Receiving a reply in the affirmative from witness, he questioned him as to whether the scheme would be better carried out piecemeal. “1 do not think so,” said Mr Barber. . , ■ , , Mr Baldwin: During the years that Foxton has remained stagnant do you consider that the average flax yield lias remained the same?—l am not prepared to answer the question, but I should imagine the average remains about the same. “lIABD HIT.” Edgar Pratt was next called in evidence. A settler in the Lockwood area, witness said lie had been hard hit by the last flood which had been his worst experience. During his six years’ occupation of his farm he had had three floods, and this year all his land was under water, resulting in the loss of a quantity of stock. 'Die section had been flooded for seven or eight days, the fencing was all razed to the ground and silt was deposited on the property. He estimated the damage by the recent flood to his land at £SOO, with 32 months’ setback as regards work. If your sons were relying solely on the capital in the farm, I take it that you would have been ruined? queried counsel. Absolutely, replied witness?. John Henry Wilton, a settler in tho Manawatu district for 34 years, and with farming interests at Rangiotu, next gave evidence. Mr Baldwin: Do you,remember the 1897 flood?—Yes.

Wliat was the effect as high up as the Kopane? Witness then detailed his experiences in this connection. At Oroua, ho said, there were hundreds of sheep held against the fences, having been drowned. The 1902 flood had blocked the Foxton railway line . for three weeks, the rails being carried away and the permanent way scoured extensively. If a 1902 flood occurred now, you think we would have four feet more water than previously'?—Yes. How much of the lower banks of the Oroua were flooded during this year.— The whole lot, I think. Palmerston N., Sept. 3. Thomas John Newtli, farmer at Moutoa, said that he had 63 acres of land, three acres of which had at various times been taken by the river. He was averaging 2501bs of liutter-fat when the property was’ sold, but lie eventually took it over again, after having been away for five years. The land was then in a bad state, and necessarily had to be reconditioned. The property was opposite the break in the river "hank which occurred during the recent flood, and, although the .si ><•!< was saved with difficulty when I lie waver overf lowed, the land suffered badly. Crops were destroyed, and six inches to two feet of silt cov r creel the section. '

Mr Baldwin: You are not talking at random? —No, I dug a hole in a medium levelled position and stood up to inv knees in pure silt and. sand. You think the covering will spoil tli<> land tor at least two years?—Yes. Then really and truly you have also lost the whole of your spring crop?— Yes.

You are bound to lose by way oj the effect it will have on your cows?—Yes, I have 20 acres covered in silt which will be useless. “1 estimate my loss at £3OO due to the flood,” said witness, “and that is a conservative estimate.” Kenneth Easton, a settler in the Moutoa district, was next called in evidence. Witness said that he had 140 acres, which had been in his possession for the last 13 years. He had In-ought the property from the rough state and had effected considerable improvements to same. Witness, in roplv to a question, said his average butter-fat yield per cow was approximately 2401b5. . •‘Tho reason why 1 ask for these figures.” said counsel, “is to establish to the commission, without a possible shadow of doubt, the class of land we are dealing with, as the average for New Zealand land is estimated at 184 lbs per cow.” You signed that petition made cut for the abolition of the River Board, did you not? queried counsel. Yes, replied witness, with a smile. . Then wliat do think about it now? 1 would be in favour of the board carrying on if it were able to complete this scheme. Even if you were, obliged to pay a small extra rate.—Yes, 1 would. William Wedell, manager of a property near the Taonni swamp, said that' portion of the land lie controlled was subject to periodical floods due to the Manawatu river and drains, and his worse trouble was with flood water. This year all the stock had to be put mi the roads as a measure of safeguard and even now some of the annuals were not yet hack on the land. Hns would have a serious effect upon the working ol the property. On -do bead of stock', he said, “we have made a loss of £4 per head.” Mr Baldwin: Were you flooded to anv considerable extent before .lie Oroua river broke its banks? Yes, the property would have been extensively flooded by the Manawatu river even it tlie Oroua had not broken in. If then, von had adequate protection’from floods, would, you improve the land?—That is the intention. Mr Watson. S.M.: If the land were free of water wliat would you consider tlie improvement in value. £~O l >e acre, say?—l should say so. The commission adjourned at this : t,me until Monday. September 20, when the evidence for the boaid will tie completed.