MODIFIED RIVER CONTROL SCHEME.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 3899, 26 January 1929, Page 4

MODIFIED RIVER CONTROL SCHEME.

♦ DISCUSSED (BY LOCAL BODIES. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY WANTED. A conferenlce of local .body delegates was 'held at Palmerston N. on Thursday to discuss the Mana-watu-Oroua Rivers Board’s modified scheme tfor pa-eventing floods in the lolwer portion of the Manawatu river. Mr. W. S. Carter, chairman of the Manawatu-Oroua Rivers Board presided and the following delegates were represented: — Palmerston North Borough Council, Manaiwa'tu, Kairanga, Horowhenua County Councils, Manawatu Buckley, Sluggish River, Moutoa and Makarua Drainage Boards, Shannon and Foxton Borough Councils, Eoxton Har'lbour Board, Palmerston North and ' Manawatu-Oroua River Boards.

'The chairman said one of the objects of the conference was to secure understanding of the position of affairs in connection with the proposed scheme. It had been found impracticable to go on noth the whole Scheme owing to the huge cost, so the River Board’s engineer formulated a modified scheme in -which were embodied all the essential parts of the big scheme. Having adopted the modified scheme, the big scheme approved 'by the Commission had been wiped out and along with it the suggested contributions by the various local bodies interested. In the modified scheme the length of the river would l be reduced 27 miles and -one cut alone reduced the distance 22 miles. The new proposal ■would relieve 70,000 acres from flooding. He thought the Government should assist in the scheme as they had done in other districts. From, a national point of view it would be good business on their part. Provided the land could be made immune from floods the 70,000 acres could be made to prodffed much more than it was now doing while it would make way also for closer settlement. The River Board had gone to a great deal of trouble to get at the best route for the river deviation and it had been acknowledged by all the engineers at the iCiomimission that the 1 Board’s scheme was the best that could be devised. Supposing the scheme was not -adopted what would be the result? He foresaw a banking war with all its attendant dangers. The River Board engineer (Mr. F. C. Hay) briefly outlined the modified scheme which he said was on the line of the comprehensive scheme. He explained that a 13ft. bin. flood at Fitzhenbert bridge commenced to overflow at the Jacikeytown road. A maximum flood was 22 feet.

From the Jackeytown road to Poplar mill the present river channel could only take 36 per icent. of a 'maximum flood, the channel from Poplar mill to Shannon 30 per cent., and from Shannon to the sea only about one-sixth of a 'maximum flood.

'The estimate ft or the anodised scheme was £210,000, to which a contingency item of £17,750 had been added. With a Government subsidy the 'cost to the district would be £114,000. Mr. W. E. Barber asked about bridges, the engineer stating that he ihad allowed for a low level bridge on the Wox'ton-Levin road across the proposed cut and an access bridge across the Oroua deviation. Does the cost include compensation? asked Mr. R, Tanner. The chairman: Only the purchase of the land. Where do, we stand in connection with the financial side?” asked Mr. G. A. Monk. ‘ls it suggested that the original bodies cited should still carry the 'burden ? Or do you propose not to go outside the Mana-watu-Oroua River district?” The chairman said a £ for £ Government subsidy was necessary for the scheme to be gone on with. The rest of the money would have to be found Iby the land in the River Board area. Answering Mr. Lin'klater, the chairman said there was no means of making a levy on the Foxton Harbour Board. To Mr. Trueman, the chairman said the River Board had no intention of asking for another Commission, but what was wanted was the support o l f local bodies in the endeavour to get Government subsidy. Mr. J. Chrystall asked for assurance that the mandatory levies of the Royal Commission bad been nullified. The finding of the Commission was given all the force of a Supreme Court, judgment. ! The chairman gave the assurance asked for. Mr. 'Trueman: In other words the Board intends to raise • the whole of the £114,000 in its own district? The chairman: Yes. Mr. Trueman: And the local bodies ai;e free? Mr. Carter : Yes. Mr. Trueman stated that Foxton was practically unanimous in opposing the scheme in that there was a possibility of the wharves being silted up and the flaximill industry being unduly affected. That opposition was likely to remain active as long as Foxton was asked to contribute to the cost of the scheme. Mr. Monk said Horowlienua County was quite prepared to support the modified scheme as long as contributions were qot expected from the whole County and only from that portion of the County affected.

Mr. W. E. Barber: I can say the same for Manawatu County. It was when you included the whole County that you got opposition. Mr. Hay replied that it was proposed to pay £30,000 for the Makerua banks and the Makerua contribution toJho scheme would he about £02,000. Mr. J. Clirystall moved: “That this meeting is opposed to -the Ma-nawatu-Oroua River Board carrying out flood relief -works as per the scheme submitted, owing to the probability of financial disaster to a district with limited resources, through finished -cost's vastly exceeding- estimates; land, further, that the modified scheme is incomplete/as it does not make provision for the necessary -bridging- where the proposed spillway is intended to cross two main highways. This meeting suggests that the River Board should make another appeal by deputation to the Government for its decision on the best scheme of flood-protection and if found to be of sufficient national importance, to assess the area to he benefited for the maximum capital expenditure it can safely bear, classify the lands for permanent rating- consistent With estimated betterment, take a loan thereon and if successful, supply the remainder of the money to the Public Works Department to carry out the scheme.” Speaking to his motion, Mr. Clirystall remarked that the River Board’s district was already heavily loaded and no farmer would mortgage his land further for a •benefit that was very vague. He was afraid that he would be taxed out jof existence. Mr. Ghrystall also elaborated upon the -possibility of the scheme exceeding the estimated costs and drew attention to the fact that no provision had been made for bridging two important highways. That position was intolerable. He submitted that the Government was the proper authority to undertake the scheme and the only way things could lie made safe for the) settlers.

Mr. Perreau (Foxton) seconded the motion stating that lie had been instructed to oppose the scheme.

Mr. Carter informed the meeting that it was probably not known,by all present that the proposed spillway would take away several acres of Mr. Cln-ystall’s land. Mr. Barber, speaking as a settler, said the day would come when something would have to he done. Who would pay for the work then he did not know, but a great deal of opposition, he thought, was duo to want of knowledge as to the cost. Moutoa had not yet had a flood like that of 1892 and he didn’t want to see a repetition. A banking war would result in great cost to the settlers.

Mr. Carter considered that the last flood had cost the settlers five times what their rates would amount to.

Mr. Perreau pointed out that Mr. ChrystaM’s motion was not turning down the scheme, but simply asking th,at the Public Works Department carry it out. Mr. B. G. Gower: Before any scheme can be gone on with, a poll of ratepayers has to be taken. Mr A. Buchanan appealed for a wider view of the scheme which, if carried out, would mean an immense gain of over one million pounds in betterment alone. The capitalised value to the Dominion would be in the nature of £4,000,000. He thought with the large betterment that the extra rates required would easily 'be found. Nobody wanted a big flood and its attendant daanage, but if things were delayed there was that danger. The return would he about £l4 for every £5 spent and that was a sound commercial proposition. Mr. Hume said he would o2>pose the -motion as it would only mean shelving the scheme. It might take years to get the Government to move. “Let’s get on with the job,” he said. Others present concurred.

The -chairinan ascertained that seven of the local bodies represented would not he voting as they had no authority to do so. He suggested that the resolution be circularised the local bodies for opinion and Mr. Chrystall agreed to this course.

Mr. Monk said he thought the feeling of the meeting should be taken as to whether the Government should be approached in connection with the subsidy. Mr. J. Bovis (Shannon) asked that the circular to the local bodies state that no financial assistance iwas required, and only moral support. Mr. Perreau: If the letter states that I think you will have the support of the Foxton Borough Council. The chairman hoped that now misapprehensions had been cleared up the local bodies would 'give that support which the River Board so much desired. He thanked the delegates for their attendance and.interest shown. At a subsequent meeting of the 'Board it was decided that circulars should be sent to all local bodies at the conference advising that the board had decided a cTeputation should wait on the Government with a view of obtaining £1 for £1 subsidy for the modified scheme and requesting them to join. Each letter, it was decided, should explain that it was not proposed .to ask local bodies to (contribute to-' wards the scheme.