MANAWATU OROUA RIVER BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3595, 5 February 1927, Page 3

MANAWATU OROUA RIVER BOARD.

A meeting of the Man aw a tuOroua Eiver Board was held at Palmerston on Thursday, there were present: Messrs W. Carter (in the chair), A. Buchanan, A. Seifert, J. B. Gower, H. Akers, J. Richardson, J. C. Harrison and H. Barber. The engineer, Mr P. C. Hay, was in attendance. The expenses incurred by the Commission appointed to inquire into a scheme for protection in flood times were forwarded, the various contributions being as follows: Government contribution, £409 Os 3d; local bodies contribution, £327 10s lid; Makerua Drainage Board contribution, £B3 Is Bd. The Commission bad ordered that each party to the inquiry should pay its own costs. Accounts totalling £2B 14s 8d were passed for payment ' The following are the receipts and expenditure of the Board since its inception: (September 28, 1922 to January 31, 1927): — RECEIPTS. First adm. rate (flat rate of Is 3d per acre) £4487.6s 6d. Second adm. rate (rate of Is fid for A, Is for B, 6d for C), £2569 8s Id. ‘ Work done, £296 19s sd. Fines, £52 Os 2d, making a total of £7405 14s: 2d.

The Board has details for each year available for ratepayers on application to the clerk. The amount of £8642 12s 6d shown in the above statement represents the total expenditure of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board from September 28, 1922 to January 31, 1927, .a period of four years and 7 four months. "During this period the River Board has been engaged in doing the essential preliminary work necessary to produce a sound and economic scheme for the protection of the district from flood waters. ‘ * > LEGAL. This work consisted first of all in getting amendments to the legislation governing River Boards’ powers and actions —the most inport'ant being: The rating and classification clauses which will enable the Board equitably to apportion the financial burden amongst its own ratepayers and others. The clauses providing machinery to impose a fair proportion of the financial burden upon other local authorities who will profit by the Board’s operations. EXPENDITURE.

The Board had also to have all the necessary survey and engineerinf' work done to enable it to adopt the best scheme for the protection of the district. The work consisted of making complete and permanent surveys of the banks of the Oroua and Manawatu Rivers and of all possible or suggested routes for the diversion and control of floodwater. The Board has kept (and is still keeping) records of the flow of the Manawatu River and has collected all possible data in connection with the technical side of the problem. (For the information of the ratepayers affected it may here be stated that advance warning of floods and gauge readings at Fitzherbert bridge can be obtained from Mr. A. E. Ward by ringing telephone 0860). Comparative estimates of all possible methods of controlling flood waters have been made and the investign/Rms so made have convinced the Board that the scheme adopted by it is the best in every respect. Detailed estimates of the scheme adopted for the control of the Manawatu and Oroua rivers have been made and these have been checked by engineers of the Public Works Department, who have also expressed their approval of the. scheme. The scheme is estimated to cost £521,9/5, including the sum of £71,975 to be paid to the Makema Drainage Board for river works to be taken over by the River Board. ECONOMICS. The Board has also had investigations made into the economics of the scheme. The betterment accruing to every property in the district if the scheme is carried out, has been estimated and the Board after careful consideration decided that the limit which the. lands could pay towards the scheme was 5/14th of the betterment, an estimate which was confirmed by the Royal Commission. GENERAL EXPENSES. Besides the cost of the above the Board has had to pay for three elections, has had expenses of- classification, the' cost of deputation to the Government and the general administrative charges common to ull local bodies. COMMISSION. On the application of the Board a

Royal Commission was set up to determine what proportion of the cost of the scheme should be borne by thirteen local bodies cited. The Commission reported that these bodies should contribute £59,804. The same Commission recommended that a Government subsidy of £2Ol, 041 should be made towards the scheme. It will thus be seen that the result of the Board’s operation to date are:

To have perfected the legislation under which it acts so that the financial burden will be equitably apportioned. To have obtained a comprehensive scheme of flood control by the Public Works Department. To have obtained a recommendation from the Commission whereby the Board’s ratepayers have to find the sum of £1261,000 to get a* scheme costing £521,000.

EXPENDITURE. Advertising 196 19 0 Aeroplane, account 38 0 0 Commission Exs. paid 97 18 2 Election expenses 46 12 11 General expenses 299 8 6 Bank interest .187 18 6 Insurance 67 19 9 Legal expenses ' 654 3 4 Printing and stationery 162 15 10 Rent account 150 9 2 Travelling expenses 790 13 11 Salaries .3952 5 1 Cost of rolls 68 17 4 Furniture, Engineer’s Office 74 0 5 Petty cash 63 3 4 Plant 43 10 o Survey’s accounts 1062 0 0 River work (Pearde) 34 1 6 Ward and Salmon (suspense) 154 6 10 Ditto (direct) . 2<r 15 0 II. Bay River Board 10 16 3 Classification cost 518 17 8 ' y £864212 6