MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4532, 18 November 1930, Page 4

MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER BOARD.

iCLAS’SitFKCtA'TION QUESTION.

At last week’s meeting 1 of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board the chairman (Mr. W. IS. Carter) said (that it had ibeien intended that the chief business of the way would he to adopt the classification list, , hut it was now stated that the proposed rating list was not ready and the matter would have to be held in abeyance. Reviewing the position, he said that it was intended to go to the ratepayers for a loan of £200,,000', while a Government subsidy had been promised of £1 for £2 up to £IOO,OOO, mak- , jug the £300,000 total required for the modified scheme. The Makerua area was not to receive £70,000 in addition to the adjustments under the classification and that was a point which needed to be emphasised. It had also been found necessary to provide for pumps at a cost of £1.5,000, which was not embodied in the original scheme and this naturally had involved a readjustment of the figures, although the classification figures were still based on the £200,000 total. 1 ■ The present problem was to get the land properly classified, but •the question was whether the kind or the farming community generally could meet the cost involved, declared the chairman. The classification, however, would lmye to be finalised, following which’full consideration could be given to the matter and it would then have to be considered if, under the circumstances, the scheme should not be held in abeyance. ' ESTIMATES OE SCHEME. “Owing to the decisions of the board (a) not to purchase the Malkerua. stopbanks; and (b), to instal pp.mping plant! and also owing to the fact that certain of the jobs in the modified scheme have been carried out as separate area, works, there is some uncertainty existing as to the actual amount of the estimate of the modified scheme,” reported the engineer, (who submitted the following list of works still to be carried out and the amounts shown were declared to he the costs to the River Board, taking into consideration the Government subsidy of £1 for ( £2. Amount Job No. Name £ 1 Rush Flat (Cut , 3,500 2 Foxton (Cut 14,000 ' 3 Moutoa Spillway 91,000 4 Opui (Spillway 10,600 5 Tributary Cut 10,600 6 Moutoa banking " 700 7 Moutoa banking 2,800 11) Paid Paid 'Cut 2,400 12 Pages Cut 1,400 .13 Kairanga banking 6,300 Rangiotu Cut 3,000 15 Straightening Oroua 600 17 Stophanking Oroua 2,200 -18 Main [Dm. Floodgate 900 19 Pumping Plants 10,000

£160,000

Tlie engineer remarked tliat in regard to jobs 1 to 5 these works consisted of the diversion of the river or of flood waters and were of common interest to ali subdivisions. Six and seven were works to benefit the Moutoa subdivision, while 11 to 13 were woflks to benefit the Kairanga subdivision. Fourteen 'to 17 were to benefit the Oroua and Kairanga subdivisions; and 18-19 the Oroua subdivision. The pumping henefitted all subdivisions and might be included with jobs 1 to 5, making the cost of the work of common interest £139,700 and those of special interest, £20,300. ENGINEER ASKS QUESTIONS. In regard to the classification of the modified scheme, the engineer stated that tlito completion of the list had been delayed owing to the time taken to harmonise the new rolls with the old and to the fact that all the new rolls were not on hand.

“I also And some difficulty in making the adjustments suggested by mlembers of tlie board and yet retain a logical result in the classification,” he said. “It would help considerably if the board would give ia ruling on the following questions which affect primarily tlie classification of lands on the outskirts of the River Board area, or lands receiving slight or indirect benefit.

“Should land, now reasonably free from Hooding - owing to the existence of privately-owned stopbanks, be rated because of the River Board taking over the maintenance of those banks?

“Should lands drained by public drains, part of a general system which is proposed to be served by pumps under the board’s scheme, be rated even though these lands •are not subject to flooding and their actual drainage betterment through the effect of the pumping and other River Board works may be small and even negligible? “Should high lands free from Hoods, but paying Drainage Board rates, be included in the River Board rating system because of improvements effected to the drainage system by the River Board’s, works tending to reduce the Drainage Board’s maintenance rate ?i “Should high lands, where access will be improved as a result of the River Board’s works, be rated? • “Should lands which are in a low rating class and which contain some high country have the high separated from the flat land and put into a different class? THE BOARD DECISIONS. The questions raised in the engineer’s report were then considered individually.

In regard to Number 1, the hoard members decided to give an affirmative to the question, this being decided on the motion of Mr. Hume, seconded by Mr. Low. An amendment, that the question be deferred for further consideration, was moved by Mr: Buchanan and seconded by Mr. 'Speirs, but was lost by five votes to three. It was proposed by Mr. Buchanan, seconded by Mr. Low, that the board affirm the principle of question Number 2. Number 3 was answered in the negative, the motion being moved by Ml. Speirs and seconded by Mr. Gower. The fourth question was also answered in the negative, a motion by Mr. Hunite (seconded by Mr (Barber) for an affirmative view being taken suffering defeat, only the two members voting in favour of the motion. In regard to the last question, it was left to the discretion of the engineer to decide on the matter.