MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER PROTECTION SCHEME.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4482, 24 July 1930, Page 3

MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER PROTECTION SCHEME.

DEPUTATION WAITS ON PRIME MINISTER. Practically every local body and business interest in the Manawatu district was represented at a deputation which waited upon the. Prime Minister (the Hon. G. W. Follies), the Minister of Lands (the Hon. E. A. Ransom), and the Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. A. J. Murdoch) yesterday, to ask that the Government should grant a subsidy amounting to £150,000 towards the cost of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board's flood protection scheme. 'The Prime Minister promised consideration. Those present were Messrs W. S. Carter, chairman of the ManawatuOroua River Board; Mabin, representing Levin and Co. (farming interests) ; Hume, River Board, Makerua Drainage Board and Tokoinaru Dairy Co.; H. Barber, River Board and Makerua Drainage Board and Horowhenua County

Council; Ogilvie, flax industry and farming; A. K. 'Spiers, farming; C. Spiers, River Bear’d and flax industry; J. Carter, Mfvkerua Drainage Board and secondary industries; B. B. Wtood, settler; Longuet, .representing A. S. Paterson and Co. and farming interests; Allan, representing Wright Stephenson and Co. and farming interests; Foster, chairman of Sluggish River Drainage Board and settler; Thynne, representing Abraham and Williams and! farming interests; 'F. Wilson, flax industry and farming; J. R. llardie, Palmerston North Borough Council; W, E. Barber, chairman Manawatu County 'Council, Moutoa Drainage Board and settler; B. G. Gower, River Board, Moutoa Drainage Board and settler; F. Woods, settler; R. Law, River Board, chairman Buckley Drainage Board and dairy .factory; E. Sutton, flax industry; Rough, flax industry; .J. K. Homlblow, Chamber of Commerce and Hospital Board; Perreau, Mayor of Foxton; Phillipps, Palmerston North Hospital Board; W. L. Fitaherbert, Palmerston North Borough Council, Palmerston North * River Board and Wellington Harbour Board; J. B. Mac Ewan, dairying and (business interests. The deputation was introduced by Mr. J. Lin(klater, M.P., who referred to its representative nature, lie said the low price of hemp had caused a lot of unemployment in the district, and if the scheme was adopted albout 40 men could be absorbed. Another avenue of employment would be opened up when the land was drained, as land would be brought into production which was second to none in New Zealand.

Mr. J. A. Nash M.P., said the question was of the utmost importance, as 70,000 acres of the best land in New Zealand were affected. The rating in the district was mot excessive considering the quality of Ihe land. There was always a danj er of the banks of the river breaking, and one could imagine what a disaster that would be. Large areas of land were being washed out to sea- during flood time, and there was an urgent need for action. Mr. Nash said that in addition 1o losing considerable ai’eas of land ouch year, the settlers were under •he constant fear of losing their slock. The deputation was seeking monetary assistance. The board was prepared to put on 100 men and to retain them in employment for five years. They asked the Government to give a subsidy of £150,000, spread over a period of live years. If they had an assurance that the subsidy would be forthcoming, the board could go to its ratepayers and ask them to mi fict ion the raising of a loan. One

group of settlers had spent £140,000 in in akin"' the land safe from Hoods, and this had been successful. They were game enough to shoulder a rating obligation of 11s to £1 an acre, but the land was capable of, carrying it. Tihe scheme would cost £330,000, and the River Board was asking for a subsidy of £1 for £1 up to £300,000, spread over (lye years, - which meant only £30,000 annually. The Government was subsidising relief work .at the rate of £2 for £l, and the board could ask for this though it •would mean over £43,000 annually to the Government.. In going to the ratepayers the board wanted to be able to ishow that the Government was backing the scheme. Some machinery was needed and might be hired from the Public Works Department at a cost of £15,000. iMr. W. S. Carter,' chairman of the River Board, said all sections of the community realised the importance of the question. The Manawatu district had not had very much financial assistance, and they thought it was time they had a turn. The scheme which was proposed had been approved by the engineers, but the fact was that the settlers themselves could not bear the burden of the expense. The losses from flood damage amounted to £20,000 a year, but the potential productive wealth of the area would be ten times that if they had security from floods. Mr. J. K. Hornblow, Chairman of the Hospital Board, stated that its finances had been strained owing to unemployment and it hoped to see the drainage scheme started. Foxton had 75 unemployed registered. The scheme would greatly reduce the risks of flooding the main highway from Wellington to Auckland.

In replying, the Prime Minister said there could be no doubt that •the deputation had made out a very strong case. If the finances of the country had been normal, the Government would have had no hesitation in acceding to the request of the deputation, but unfortunately

the finances were not normal. However, he would be prepared lo submit the matter to Cabinet in order lo see what could he done.

Members of the deputation expressed satisfaction with the Prime Minister’s reply.