FLOOD CONTROL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 3965, 6 July 1929, Page 3

FLOOD CONTROL.

SHOULD GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE THE WORK? MOUTOA MENACED. The suggestion of Mr. A. Buchanan at Thursday’s meeting of the Manawatu-Oroua Power Board that there was more likely to be unanimity of opinion in favour of the board’s river diversion scheme if the Government was asked to undertake the 'iwork instead of the board, provoked a lengthy discussion. Eventually, the .board decided to approach the Government asking that the Public Works department should take over the wofik as an •alternative to granting a £ for £ subsidy, district to subscribe towards the cost an annual levy of not moire than £IO,OOO, which is -roughly a rate of 3/6 per acre. 'Consideration of this new aspect of the diversion scheme came really as a corollary to a request by the Makerua and Buckley Drainage Boards for permission 'to make certain cuts (part of the Board’s big scheme) in order to relieve erosion on banks. iMjr. H. Akers remarked that if the various Drainage Boards went on doing these cuts, the ManawatuOroua Board would eventually see its scheme completed without doing much of the work.

The chairman (Mr. W. S. Uartejr) expressed the opinion that if many more cuts were put in at the upper end of the river, Moutoa peo - ple would have to wake up. l Mr. Buchanan then suggested asking -the government to do the whole job :and the board would then find the whole of the district" with at. Mr. R. Tanner: That is the way I look at it. Those against the scheme aire afraid of the cost. “Your proposal is to ask the government 'to 'do the work and tax the land?” asked the chairman of Mr. Buchanan, to receive an affimative reply. Mr. B. G. Gower observed that cuts all over the district were going to be to the detriment of the lower end. The only way to handle a river was to start at the bottom and work up. The chairman: All this piecemeal wofik is tending to swamp 10,000 to 12,000 a'cres of the Moutoa.

Mr. Gower: It not Moutoa alone but- Buckley and Makei’ua as well. The chairman: Wholesale cuts by different boards are going to drown Moutoa absolutely, because it is the least protected. The whole scheme is 'the only way of relieving the settlers on an equitable basis and while we are justified in assisting the settlers, wei are going in a vary dangerous direction if we allow cuts to be put in so as to assist the flow of water on to the lower lands. Mr. Gower observed that the main difficulty in carrying out the whole schemd was that t'he hulk of the expenditure was at the outlet and it was only natural for settlers who could get a measure of relief without that heavy expenditure at the outlet, to do so. The Board, however, should consider the whole of its ratepayers. Floods were high enough now but with cuts, they would be feet higher at the lower end. He would rather favour going to the government, and ask it to do the work and rate the district for it. Mr. H. Barber mentioned that in suggesting that local bodies should apply for permission to put in cuts, the engineer was overlooking the whole scheme. The chairman: In the'event of its not giving us a 1 subsidy of £ for £. Mr.Gower: Would the motion mean that the government would not grant a) subsidy? Mr. Buchanan: No. The cost would be proportioned according to benefit received by t'he land and the community. Mr. Tanner: We are in a tangle and everyone has got dissatisfied. We can’t go on with the work and we are stopping others. The Chairman explained that a suggested .amendment of the Act would give the board power to go ahead. Mr. A. Seifert considered that •banking alone had proved useless.

Mr. R. J. Law agreed that the Buckley and lower areas had been the dumping grounds for water for the last 30 years except during the last flood When, as a result of the Buckley Drainage Board activities; that area had been dry for the first time in history. Mr. Seifert considered there .was something in Mr. Buchanan’s suggestion but thought it should be qua lined by fixing the maximum rate by the district at £10,500, which was equal to 3/6 per acre. The government would have to meet all expenses over that amount. The Public Works had the men and the machinery for such a job. The following resolution was carried: “That failing the government agreeing to the hoard’s request for a £ for £ subsidy for the modified scheme, the. board ask the government to undertake the work and rate the district for benefit received, the maximum not to be more than £IO,OOO per year.” This was proposed by Mr. Buchanan and seconded bv Mr. iSeifert.