FLOOD CONTROL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3545, 2 October 1926, Page 1

FLOOD CONTROL.

ENGINEERS RE-EXAMINED,

PALMERSTON N. Sept. 30. On the resumption this morning of the sittings of the Manawatu-Oroua River District Commission, Mr S. Jickcll, on being recalled, was examined by Mr Baldwin, counsel for the River Board.

On oath, witness stated that lie had been practising as an engineer in this district for a large number of years and knew the Manawatu river very well. In 1907 the scheme that had then been proposed for river protection had received his approval. That scheme had been very similar to what was now proposed. There were,, to his knowledge, 12 to 15 new farms in the Makerua swamp that had gone in in the last two or three years as a direct result of the protection work of the Makerua Drainage and undoubtedly the carrying out of the lliver Board’s scheme would bring about further settlement throughout the district. He agreed that the scheme would be of benefit to the district and would bring about increased prosperity provided that it could lie carried out at reasonable cost. The work would have to be done some day. Benefit to the Foxton Harbour Board would result as a carrying out of the scheme by reason of the shortening of the river between Foxton and the Heads and of the fact that future development work would be made easier. Mr Baldwin at this stage intimated that the River Board did not seek any contribution from the Harbour Board. Continuing his evidence, witness said that, if the board’s scheme were gone on with, work should be commenced at several points simultaneously. He was opposed to the suggestion that only part of the scheme should be carried out as a trial. Questioned by Mr Cooke, witness stated that the higher river velocity that would result if the scheme were gone on with would have the effect of sending the bar at Foxton further out to sea. Examined by Mr limes, witness stat,ed that ho had not vet formed an estimate of the value that certain of the Makerua banks would be to the Board’s scheme. MAKERUA WORKS. Evidence was then tendered by Mr Hay concerning the benefit the Makerua’ Board’s protection works would he. to the River Board. The cost of purely river works that would be of value he placed at £57,945, with another £4OOO for floodgates on the Tokomaru river. Allowing 5 per cent, of the above amounts for depreciation of plant during construction, there was obtained a total of £65,145. Replying to Mr Cooke, witness stated that he had no idea of the value of the privately-erected banks oii the Oroua. Undoubtedly, portion of them would be of benefit to the board’s scheme.

. Mr Baldwin pointed out that any ratepayer who had erected a bank that would be of value to the board had power to approach the board for compensation, similarly to a local body.

Witness, further examined by Mr Baldwin, replied to criticism by Messrs Fitzgerald and Holmes concerning the width of the cut in the Moutoa district, both of these gentlemen having maintained that the width proposed by Mr Hay was too small. Tt was well-known to river engineers, he stated, that a river was designed by Nature not only to drain the country, but also to level it by carrying down silt to the sea. A wide channel, with a lessened river velocity, would defeat this object, and the piling up of the silt in the channel and the raising up of the river bed would mean that, sooner or later, there would again be the danger of flooding. The width he proposed for the channel was 1300 feet,’with a berm width of 100 feet on each side. This proposal was supported by the Public Works Department. As regards de-grading, he was surprised that Mr Holmes anticipated a lowering of flood level by 19 feet at Bourke’s drain, and lie could only assume that the fact of the shingle and the different nature of the soil through which the river flowed from Jackeytown upstream had been overlooked by him. The de-gradation might have reached the amount stated if the material had been silt from the sea to the Gorge,, but, with the quantities of shingle being brought down and the de-gradation thus being counteracted, the lowering could not reach the figure stated. LOCAL BODY CONTRIBUTIONS.

Regarding the amounts that had been suggested by him as the contributions to be paid by the various local bodies, Mr Hay said that, after hearing the evidence tendered to the commission, he would raise Levin’s quota from £SOO to £ISOO or £2OOO. The other boroughs and the drainage boards he would leave the same, but he now thought that the amounts previously asked of the county councils were on the low side, and ho would suggest that the basis now be 40 per cent, of the capitalised betterment, instead of 30 per cent. Regarding Moutoa drainage, the effect of the cut and the degradation he had assumed would be to lower the low water level of the river and permit the flood gates to operate for a longer period per tide. No difficulty would be experienced with the proposed pumping plant in handling local water from thi sarea. The big cut would not interfere with any existing tramline. Examined by Mr Cooke, witness stated that the extra 200 feet that had been added to the width of the cut would involve compensation being paid for another' 170 acres of land, of an average value of £SO per acre. This £BSOO would not increase the estimated cost of the scheme, as the amount allowed for contingencies was quite sufficient to cover this and other unexpected expenditure. Replying to a farther question, MiHay stated that the total width of the land that would have to be taken for the cut plus the stop-banks would be 1600 feet. EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. VALUE OF SCHEME TO PORT OF FOXTON. PALMERSTON N., Oet. 1. Yesterday afternoon saw the last witness heard by the Manawatu-Oroua River District Commission, and proceedings were then adjourned till this morning, when counsel will address the commission. The first witness hoard in the afternoon was Mr R. McMurray, a member of the Foxton Borough Council i and Harbour Board, who stated that

he estimated that the Railway Bepaitmeat would make a saving n, per annum if it were able to bung i coal to Palmerston North through tho sc port of Poston instead of by rail tiom d Wellington. In the case of the coal » required for the Palmerston North cc gasworks, there would bo a saving of « £730 per annum. Similarly, with the e coal used by factories and private in- e dividuals in the district, there would « bo another big saving. If the port w were improved, as Mr Hay said it P would be by his scheme, there was no s, reason why all the butter and cheese I produced in the district should not be t shipped through Foxton. _ It the ltivei t Board’s scheme were carried out, theie would bo no reason why small.steameis e should not go up the river as far as t Uaninotu. During the last flood lie i I estimated that about £9OOO had been a lost in wages by the fiaxnnll employees of the district. . „ , Replying to the chairman (Mr K. ti M. Watson, S.M.) witness stated that e Foxton could be relied on as a port t for suitable steamers. Questioned by Mr Bergin, witness stated that he did i not know of any back-loading from . t Foxton at present other than tat i cattle. The Railway Department had f discontinued getting its coal through i Foxton because of the shipping ser- l vice not being satisfactory. Prior to 1 tho war about a dozen • boats had traded to Foxton, but now there was c only one. He knew that higher pre- 1 mi urns were demanded by the insurance I companies for boats trading to Fox- 1 I to ßecalled, Mr A. K. Drew, clerk to the Manawatu County Council, stated that, if the River Board’s scheme were carried out, the capital value of the Kairanga, Manawatu and Horowhenua Counties would be increased, with the result that those particular counties would have to pay increased Hospital Board levies to the benefit of the other contributing bodies. .At this stage Mr Baldwin intimated that, in regard to the value that portion of the Makerua banking would be to the board, it had been agreed that the Public Works Department should decide the matter. On oath, Mr S. H. Lett, of Rangiotu, farmer, gave it as his opinion that the damage to the' Manawatu Drainage Board’s drains consequent on tho July flood would be more than £2O, the sum stated by the chairman of that body. This concluded the evidence, following which the commission and counsel conferred on various matters, an adjournment then being made till this morning. FINAL STAGE OF COMMISSION. addressesTy COUNSEL. PALMERSTON N., Oct. 1 With the evidence concluded, the I Manawatu-Oroua River District Com- 1 mission heard the addresses of counsel tin's morning. Mr Innos first addrosssed the commision, but prior to presenting his subI missions on behalf of the local bodies 1 I he represented expressed the appreciaI tion felt by counsel and interested I parties for the way the commission had I afforded such full opportunities to local bodies to present anything they thought might be of value. Replying, the chairman (Air R. Al. Watson, S.M.) stated that the commission, in its turn, appreciated the way the evidence had been given. Dealing first with the position of the Kairanga and the Alanawatu County Councils, Air Innes stated that any effective scheme which was certain to eliminate floods was a scheme to be accepted and conI sidered with a view to it being carried out. He admitted that that portion of the Manawatu County Council near Rangiotu, and the territory under the 1 jurisduction of the Aloutoa Drainage Board, as well as that portion of the Kairanga County Council’s territory near Rangiotu and at Taotiui and Lockwood would benefit by an effective flood control scheme. He admitted also that the lower portion of the Sluggish River Drainage Board’s district near Rangiotu would benefit if there was a loweriug of the river level. The I evidence of the bodies he represented showed that they were not actively opposed to the River Board’s scheme, but were rather in favour of it provided that would be effective and would not be a mere speculation. If I the scheme, on being carried out, failed to do that was expected the result would be disastrous, for £450,000 would have been wasted and 1300 acres of I valuable land would have been thrown out of productivity. The River Board, lie reminded the commission, had to prove tliat there would be an actual benefit from its proposed works to any of the bodies that were expected to contribute. Only one man had gone thoroughly into the details of the scheme—Air F. C. Hay, the board’s I engineer—and counsel admitted that, before final approval was given to the proposal, other experts should be obtained to make a thorough examination of it. With regard to the Kairanga County Council’s position, he submitted that no contribution should be asked of that body, as the only benefit that it would receive would be to that I portion of its territory which comI prised the Alanawatu Drainage Board’s, district. The latter body, counsel submitted, should be the contributing I body in this case. There would be no I benefit to any other portion of the I county. Similarly, with regard to the I Manawatu County Council, tho only I portion of its floodablc lands comprised I the districts of the Aloutoa and SlugI gisli River Drainage Boards, which, I lie maintained, should he tho contributing bodies. The Alanawatu County . I Council was itself asked for £IO,OOO, which it was now suggested should he raised by 33 1-3 per cent., while the two I drainage boards mentioned were each I asked for £3OOO, the ratepayers of the county thus being expected to find together £19,330. The burden, subI mitted counsel, should fall on those I who were to benefit. With regard to the position of the Makorua Drainage Board, that body took the attitude that it had already done its share to provide against floods and considered that it should be credited for that I share. Finally, counsel submitted I that the scheme was in the nature of I an experiment and that it should be thoroughly sifted by experts before being gone on with. ONUS ON BOARD. I After dealing with various legal asI poets in connection with the board’s I constitution and proposals, Air Cooke I submitted that there was an onus on I the River Board to prove that the I scheme would be successful. The estiI mated cost was in the vicinity of half-a-milliou pounds, but this figure lie suggested, would certainly be exceeded. If the scheme were a failure the result would be ghastly and tho ratepayers would be left with an enormous burden. Mr Hay had formulated a very carefully thought out scheme from the engineering point of view, but it was not right with a scheme of this magnitude that the financial side should bo left to the engineer or the carrying out of tho work to the board. It had been suggested by one witness that tho Government should bo asked to undertake and prosecute the carrying out of the work, should tire scheme be proceeded with, and this counsel supported. Despite the care with which the proposals had been thought out, there was no guarantee that the scheme would he a success, and it was worth noting that several engineers had given evidence criticising details of tho scheme. Another thing the commission had to bear in mind was the fact that claims for compensation might be brought against the board by persons who were deprived of water

along the old course of the river. It was contended that the board’s district was too small, and that AVoodville, in fact the whole of tho watershed, should be brought in, as well as tho Oroua Drainage Board and the Feuding Borough Council. In regard to the scheme itself, the commission had to decide whether the proper width had been adopted for the cut, and whether concrete protection might be necessary, on which points there had been differences of opinion between tire engineers who had given evidence. The commission also had to bear in mine, whether there would not be a large expenditure for extra land and compensation. Regarding the benefit the River Board said would obtain with tho carrying out of the scheme, many I thought‘that this would he outweighed by the burden imposed. Further, tho elimination of flooding would detrimentally affect certain lands. Flax, for instance, in the opinion of Dr Cockayne and others, became subject to tho ravages of yellow-leaf disease if. its roots were exposed through tho withdrawal of water, while evidence had shown that certain farm lands benefited by periodical flooding. Air Watson intimated to counsel at this stage that he would like to sec them obtain from the bodies they represented an expression of opinion on the engineering side of the scheme. If I unanimity could be obtained, he stated, this would be very helpful to the commission. . At the conclusion of Air Cook s address the commission adjourned for lunch.