FLOOD CONTROL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3542, 25 September 1926, Page 1

FLOOD CONTROL.

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. SCHEME’S EFFECT ON RAILWAY BRIDGES. Palmerston N., September 23. Further evidence by Mr Beasley, district traffic manager, Wanganui, as to the Railway Department’s attitude towards the .£450,000 Hood control scheme, was heard yesterday afternoon by the Manawatp-Oroua River District Commission. It was apparent, the witness thought, that the lowering of the afternoon by the Manawatu-Oroua affect the safety of the railway bridges at Longbnrn, Rangiotu, Aorangi and, perhaps, that over the Pohangina river at Ashhurst. Rail; way bridge piles on the Longbnrn bridge were some 55 feet in length, and were 30 to 35 feet in the ground. A fall in the river bed of five or six. feet might be serious, as in addition the velocity would be increased. These piles should last another 20 years. For the same reasons the stability of the Rangiotu bridge would be gravely threatened by the execution of the scheme. The Aorangi bridge was not so greatly menaced and there appeared to be little risk of materially affecting the stability of the Polrangina river bridge at Ashhurst; although, as he had stated, all the bridges might be affected and the expense of lowering cylinders and piles would be large. Further, said witness, there was a danger that, when the velocity of the Manawatu river was increased, the 1 works now protecting the Longbnrn bridge might suffer. DEPARTMENT’S OPINION.

To sum up, said witness, the opinion of the Railway Department is that benefits accruing from the River Board’s scheme are very small, and that the damage to works of and expense caused to the department as a result of de-grading the rivers will amount to much more than the value of any possible benefits. SAFETY OF POWER LINES.

Mr AY. A. Waters, chief engineer of the Mfanawatu-Oroua Power Board, called by Mr Baldwin, gave evidence as to wliat Ire had observed of the extent of the, last flood in the course of a tour of inspection of power lines. The roads bad been flooded to such an extent that he had been unable to negotiate some of them by car. “Your board deals with the most important commodity in the community—electricity—and is there not an increasing degree of dependency on it?” asked Mr Baldwin, who was answered in the affirmative. Witness- detailed the menance which flooding constituted to power lines, stating that, in order to guard against future interruptions, poles in some swampy, places were being “stayed” and switches altered so that they could be operated from boats in flood time. MANAWATU COUNTY’S OBJECTION. Mr .1. P. I lines called witnesses for the Manawatu County Council. The first, Mr H. 11. Hunt, chairman of the council, declared that one half of the surplus water over the county’s area went into the Manawatn and Oroua rivers and the other half into the Rangitikei river. It was deemed unfair, therefore, that all the county should bo rated for the flood control scheme on the lower reaches of the two first named rivers. If (lie 0150,000 scheme proved a success, his council thought it would benefit some small part of the county. The scheme should be made a national one instead of proposing to ask a small area of local bodies to boar the burden of the cost. To Air Baldwin witness said that, it the scheme resulted in increasing the ’rateable value of the comity, it would lie only fair for the latter to contribute towards the cost of the flood protection work. FURTHER EVIDENCE. HOROWHENUA. COUNTY’S POSITION. Palmerston N., September -23. Further, evidence in opposition to the Manawatu-Oroua River Board’s flood protection scheme was heard by the commission this morning. Air R. AI. Watson, S.M., presided. On resuming Air F. 11. Cooke (representing the Palmerston North Borough Council) asked leave to put in certain hooks and plans dealing with the geological formation of the area nllected by the board’s scheme. This was agreed The first witness called was Air T. Hobson, Alayor of Levin, who, in reply to Air Park, who appeared for the Levin Borough Council, said, we dccidediy object to the scheme because there will be no benelit to us. The trade would all go to Palmerston North and we cannot sec that we will benefit any more than Wellington would. Witness said that no part ol the borough of Levin was in the watershed ol' the Manawatu river. He did not think that any material traffic benelit would result as far as Levin was concerned. Air Baldwin: Levin is a fairly prosperous town is it not? Witness: We claim it to be.

Witness in reply to further questions, said that ho did not think any trade from Koputaroa district wont to Levin, as lie believed the people there went north, lie thought that most ol the people north of Levin went to the north lor their requirements. Mr G. A. Alonk, chairman ol the Horowlienua County Council and ilorowlienua Power Board, said that he had studied the question and he left somewhat lrieiidly towards the scheme, but he failed to see that Horowlienua was going to benelit very much, in las district, they had their own flood troubles.. The county was long and narrow and many rivers had to be dealt with. Even if the Aianawutu(Jroua river basin trouble were eliminated, the other difficulties would still remain. Horowlienua had a consider-, able length of mam highways to maintain and he considered that the county was giving a greater service than that which would be given to them by the scheme. Settlers on swamp and sandy land m the district had much to contend with, particularly those who had to deal with the drifting sand, it had also been necessary to form several drainage boards with special rates to deal with the difficulties of draining the swamp land. Again some of the country was not watered and irrigation had been resorted to. All these schemes cost money and settlers were rated accordingly. Another difficulty was met with in the case of the hill lands in the

country. Bonding this land, winch was very poor, had cost a considerable amount and rates were high. One property of 1900 acres warf paying £4O 16s in rates of which £Ol 6s 2d was special rates. Another of 827 acres paid a total of £24 13s lid, the specia rates being £l9 16s Gd. There had been no more serious flood losses in his county from the Manawatu than from other rivers which were the county’s care.

In 'reply to Mr Baldwin, witness stated that any river scheme that would give considerable benefit to a large proportion of the county would meet with liis approval. If that proposed by the River Board could be economically carried out, it would undoubtedly be of value to bis county as a whole. He did not think that there would be any advantage if his county were enabled to take tbe main road from Shannon to Koputaroa along the low-lying ground. The saving in distance would be about, only 20 chains, and he did not think that 'the cost of construction would be warranted.

HOW COUNTY WOULD BENEFIT. In reply to a question by the chairman as to how his county would benelit by tho River Board’s scheme, Mr Monk stated that, if there was an increased productive value, there would be an increased rating value, while some roads would be removed from the danger of flooding. To a further question, he stated that he was firmly or the opinion that the Makerua Drainage Board’s works had been responsible for the carrying away of the Shannon bridge. Mr W. N. Anuerson, engineer to the Horowhenua County Council, gave the commission details of the... roads that were affected by flooding of the Manawatu. Mr Baldwin: I think the value of a road depends on it being a continuous thorough fare? Witness: Yes. CASE FOR DRAINAGE BOARDS. This concluded the evidence from the Levin district, and Mr Limes, on lielndf of the Makerua Drainage Board, called Mr F. W. Connell, clerk to that hoard, who, in evidence, stated that the cost of the hoard’s hanking to date was £119,300. and that a further £SOOO would see the work completed. Bart of the hoard’s district was in the Horowhenua County and the other part in the Kairanga. In reply to Mr Cooke, witness staled that he was also clerk to the Manawalc Drni nnge Board, the rates levied b\ which body averaged £2300 per year. This board had been in existence for 26 or 27 years, and during the whole of that time it had been spending money on drainage improvement. The board had no means whereby it could raise a special loan of £6OOO. The last flood had done no appreciable damage to the work of tbe board. Mr Baldwin: How much is tbe Makerua Drainage Board raising at present on its general rate? Witness replied that he could nob answer offhand, but would have the information supplied to the commission.

In reply to further questions, witness stated that, if the River Board's scheme increased the capital value of the Makerua Board’s territory by £400,000, the limit to which the latter board would be enabled to rate would be increased*bv another £IOO,000. • NECESSITY FOB BANKING.

In evidence, Mr j Liggins. chairman of the Makerua Drainage Board, stated that lie. had resided in the district for 42 years and had taken a part in the formation of tho board. Witness then gave tbe commission details concerning the board’s banking works. Banking, lie stated, had been absolutely necessary for the safety of the district The work done was only such as tin* River Board would have carried out. and it was impossible to expect the 49 ratepayers in the district to benr any further burden, which was at present £6 10s.per acre. Personally, he was of the opinion that the River Board's works would cost four times the estimated figure, as engineers’ estimates were usually quadrupled in the long run. Cross-examined by Mr Baldwin, witness stated that the Makerua -Board had been forced to bank because of tho danger created by previously erected private banks. Tie denied that the hoard’s hanking had created a menace, ns stated by other witnesses. Tho commission at this stage adjourned for lunch. It will adjourn this afternoon until Tuesday next to allow the members to visit Wellington and secure certain information reMANAWATU COUNTY’S POSITION.

.Mr A. IC. Drew, for over 19 years clerk to the Manawatii County Council, gave evidence before the commission yesterday afternoon. The Oroua, Sluggish lliver and Moutoa Drainage Boards were witlrin the county’s houndary, as also was a part of the River Board’s area, he said. 'Witness cited figures giving the acreage charges which would result if the River Board’s scheme were carried into eifeet, and pointed out that the annual interest charges, including sinking fund and one per cent safety margin, would he. on tIoO.OOO, £d4,(iuo. Maintenance costs of the scheme on a 2 per cent basis would amount to .£II,OOO per annum, administration costs to about £O2IO per annum; and the cost of operating pumping stations, say,'£2ooo per annum. These, in addition to interest charges, would make for a heavy load on the land, and the Mnnawntu County for one would find it a hardship to pay £IO,OOO towards 5 the Hood control scheme. In addition there must he considered the ordinary county rates paid to local bodies —equal to about 4s 4-Ad an acre in the River Board’s area, and up to 7s 2jd in some other quarters. Of course, county rates were not so much per acre everywhere —it depended on the valuation. In the Kairanga Countv tire average amount for county and drainage rates was 4s osd per acre. In parts of the Makerua Drainage Board’s area the existing rates for the flood protection work done there were ae high as 20s od per acre per annum. Under the River Board’s suggested system of contribution some of the Mahawatu County, ratepayers would pay more than once —tor instance, those in the drainage hoards within the county. The River Board’s scheme would cause the county the loss of a valuable gravel pit at Whjrokino. The county roads suffered very little from floods. Mr Baldwin said that the witness s figures concerning maintenance and administration costs were worked out on a wrong basis. He would call Mr Hay later to explain tlio position. Counsel cross-examined witness as to the expense to which the council would be put in sharing the cost of replacing the Shannon bridge. Witness admitted substantial expenditure in the past in deviating a road in tire Whirokino area from time to time as it was damaged by floods. DRAINAGE BOARD’S CASE.* WORK IN MAKERUA DISTRICT. Palmerston N., September 24. The sitting of the Manawatu-Oroua River District Commission was continued yesterday afternoon, when, in continuation of the evidence for tire Makerua Drainage Board, Mr Innes called Mr S. Jickell, engineer to that board.

On oath, witness stated that loans to the value of £135,000 had been raised by his board, while the total expenditure to date had been £119,300. It was estimated that the sum and the balance then left of £9970 would serve to cover salaries and overhead expenses. Of the board’s area

2300 acres were in the Kairanga County and 18,700 in the Horowhenua County, the figures referring to rateable property. Dredging work had been started on October 9, 1920, and would be completed in two or three months’ time. The board’s scheme was a complete one and would be of great value to the River Board’s proposed works. The 49 ratepayers of the Makerua Drainage Board were quite satisfied with the work that had been carried out and considered that they were adequately protected. Referring to a statement made that morning by Mr G. A. Monk that the banking done by the Makerua Drainage Board had been responsible lor the carrying away of a span ol the Shannon bridge, witness stated that there had been banking on tbe Manawatu for 30 years prior to the Makerua Board coming into existence.

In reply, to Mr Baldwin, witness stated that, during the recent flood, 1800 acres of land between the Tokomaru river and the main road had been under water, owing to tbe board’s banking not having been completed. This concluded the evidence for the Makerua Drainage Board, whereupon Mr It. Taylor, chairman of the Bucklev Drainage Board, in evidence, staled that his body objected to tho amount it was expected to contribute to the River Board’s scheme. The latter body stated that, if the scheme were carried out, his board would have an increased rateable value for its area, but that was not wanted. His hoard was at present carrying out drainage work that gave satisfaction to nearly everyone concerned, and did not want to liavo to find more money to help pay for the River Board’s scheme. Replying to Mr Baldwin, witness admitted' that absolute immunity from flooding and an outfall that would give perfect drainage would bo of benefit to the ratepayers of his district, but his board did not want to ask its ratepayers to pay the amount assessed by the River Board for the extra benefit that would be obtained. He admitted that the land m his board’s district would bo excellent property if it were free from flooding. 1 ' IiOIIOIXiH'S POSITION. 11l evidence, Mr R. Edwards, consulting engineer to the Shannon Borough Council, stated that the roads in the Shannon borough were free Irom flooding. To Mr Cooke, witness stated that he was a member of the Palmerston North Borough Council, for winch body lie was also giving evidence. With regard to Palmerston and flood danger from the Manawatu, the proposed works of the River Board would not m any way affect the borough. He did not think that there was any danger to Palmerston North from the Orouu river. With regard to the big cut proposed bv the board, be agreed wilii Mr Holmes that it was a very risky job to take the water of the Manawatu over the Moutoa at a much higher velocity than naturally existed. The country, too, was very unsuited for the purposes of the cut. Witness inxd been acquainted with the protection work in the Palmerston NortliKairanga area for many years. At the Fitzroy bend it had taken 20 years to alter the course of tho river. The cut recently made there had eased the pressure of water to an appreciable extent. In his many years’ experience of this district, he could not remember many occasions on which the road to Shannon had been blocked: on the few occasions on which stoppages of traffic* had occurred, the water had come from the hills. The road to Foxton had also been blocked on comparatively few occasions. Asked by Mr Baldwin whether lie would have recommended the carrying out of the work done at Fitzrov hem I. witness replied that he would have done so .in regard to some, and especially in regard to that recently done. Mr Baldwin: Do you think that Palmerston North would reap more benefit from the Agricultural College, being put here than another 1800 settlers taking up their residence in tbe surrounding district? “A FAIRY TALE.” ✓

Witness: I regard that suggested increase in population like some of Anderson’s fairy tales.

Further questioned, witness admitted that an increase in population in the surrounding district would be of benefit to Palmerston North, but be was sceptical of the River Board’s scheme bringing this about. Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., chairman of the commission : Do you think tbe scheme worth while going on with, apart from any contribution by tbe borough ? Witness: Tf it can bo carried out at a cost that, the ratepayers can hear, there is no doubt that- it will do good. Mr Watson: And do you think it ran be so carried out?—Not at tbe estimated cost, which may easily he exceeded. SHANNON’S OBJECTION.

Opposition to the amount it was expect to contribute was voiced on behalf of tbe Shannon Borough Council by Mr .J, T. Bovis, town clerk, who further said that Shannon was immune from flooding by the Manawatu river. Mr Watson: I think the reason Shannon was cited was because of the stimulus to business caused by increase of settlement.

Witness replied that, if increased settlement came about, together with betterment of road facilities, business would drift to Palmerston North. To Mr Baldwin, witness admitted that, if the Makerua hank went in flood time, communication northward would he interrupted. ADJOURNS TILL TUESDAY. The commission then adjourned till Tuesday morning to enable it in the meantime to visit Wellington and procure certain required information.