MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER BOARD SCHEME.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3586, 13 January 1927, Page 3

MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER BOARD SCHEME.

ROYAL COMMISSIONION’S

REPORT.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY RECOMMENDED.

The commission, which consisted of Mr It. M. Watson, S.M., of Feilding (chairman), Mr A. C. Koch, rotirod engineer, of Auckland, and Mr H, Leighton, land agent, of Wellington, concerned itself with three separate inquiries. The first was generally for the- purpose of determining whether the Government would receive any direct benefit from the Manawatu-Oroua Board’s operations, and, if so, whether the Government should contribute towards the scheme. In the second place the commission sought to ascertain whether the local authorities in the river district would derive benefit * from the River Board’s scheme, and, if so, whether (and in what proportions) those local bodies should contribute.' The third investigation related to the question as to whether. any of the works of the Makerua Drainage Board would be of benefit to River Board, and if the board took them over what should it pay. The sittings of the commission commenced on August 28 last, and the final report was presented on October 27. CONTROL OF SCHEME.

The commissioners expressed themselves as being of opinion that, generally speaking, no Government subsidy should be granted to any river improvement scheme > which was unsound from an engineering or an economical standpoint, and they therefore endeavoured to make their inquiries on those two heads as full as possible, having regard to the limited time at their disposal. The scheme prepared by t(ie boards’ engineer (Mr F. C. Hay) was generally, though in . certain cases subject to technical modifications, approved by the many engineers who gave evidence, and with a modification as to terms and width between stop-banks, to which Mr Hay had agreed, the Public Works. Department was prepared to aprpove it. Ihe commissioners recommended control by the Public Works Department of the River Board’s carrying out of proposed works, and that the scheme was one which the Government should subsidise provided that sufficient benefits be found to accrue to the Government from the subsidy. COST OF SCHEME.

The estimated cost of the River Board’s scheme was stated as £071,J70, made up as follows Scheme prepared by the board’s engineer, £4o0,00l), Makerua works, £71,975; and internal drainage, £50,000. In the opinion of the commissioners, lands to be unproved by the River Board’s operations should bear as much of the cost of the operations as they could be equitably loaded with, bearing in mind that a part of such loading was paid in the shape of rates to county councils and drainage boards to which part of the cost of such operations should be apportioned. To that loading should be added the contributions from the boroughs. The difference between the sum of those amounts and the total cost of the scheme must, if the schenio were to go through, be found by the Government. If this difference were so large that the advantages, which could be ascertained to be likely to accrue to the State and its inhabitants generally from carrying out the proposed works, were incommensurate with it, then clearly it was inexpedient for the Government to grant the money required, and the whole scheme was financially sound. ESTIMATED BETTERMENT. The commission arrived at the conclusion that the scheme proposed would give to the district a total betterment, made up as follows: Kairanga 1^8,331 Oroua 28,070 Kppu'taroa 104)744 . Moutoa 265,631 Makerua (taking no cognisance of existing works) 436,840 The commissioners determined that the lands themselves could stand only five-fourteenths of that betterment, equal to a sum of £358,434. Certain deductions, including the amount to bo paid by the local authorities, cost ol internal drainage, etc., were made, which brought the five-fourteenths monetary equivalent down to £oi.L,loU, as representing all - the lands could stand in the way of rateß. INC REASED POP PL A TION. Dealing with the benefit the Government is likely to derive from the proposed works, the commissioners state as the most important of all factors that arising from increased settlement in the area of the Manawatu-Oroua river district and consequent increases ol population in adjoining towns. Hie fact was stressed that the river district was from the point of view of produotivity of the Dominion at loafct above the per capita average value to the State. In that connection, attention was directed to the evidence of Mr \\ . J. McCulloch, instructor in the Department of Agriculture at Palmerston North, who, allowing 100 acres to each farmer, and a carrying capacity of 45 cows to the 100 acres, estimated an increase of population in the area owing to closer settlement of 1800 persons. The evidence of many witnesses showed that Mr McCulloch’s estimate of carrying capacity was a very conservative one, and his estimate ol 100 acres to a family liberal. It was a well known fact that increased settlement and production in the country served by a New Zealand town brought about an increase in the population and prosperity of that town. It was impossible to estimate in any case what the exact ratio of increase in population of a town following an increase in a country district would be, but the commisioners thought it might well he taken at one tor one. That gave a total increased population in town and country of 3000. The Government Statistician (Mr Malcolm Fraser) considered that £4.63 was an annual net contribution per capita to the Government which might reasonably, though with some speculation, be taken, after allowance for Government expenditure as well as For Government revenue from all sources. Assuming an increase of population of 3500, that increase of population was, on Mr Fraser’s estimate, equivalent to an annual contribution to the Government of £16.205, which, capitalised at 6 per cent, gave a value to the Government of £270,083. The benefit computed on the foregoing basis would not accrue for a considerable period, and it was speculative, but not, the commissioners thought, an over-estimate. OTHER BENEFITS. “While dealing with the matter of Government benefit arising from increased settlement (and, from increased settlement, increased productivity), add the commissioners, “we desire to refer to the following: (a) The Dominion is oarrying, in the unproductive portion of its national debt (which has arisen mainly out of past wars), a sum of approximately £100,000,000. Assuming an increase of population to the extent of 3500 (roughly one-fourth per cent of the present population) it follows that the present population would bo relieved of a part of the unproductive debt amounting to approximately £250,000. (b) If ‘human capital’ has in New Zealand a value similar to that which was recently computed for Australia by Mr C. H. Wickens, F.1.A., F.S.S., Commonwealth. Statistician, .viz., £1246 per head, then the probable increase of population in this area (which should from a fertile area (Continued on page 1),