THE MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4544, 16 December 1930, Page 3

THE MANAWATU-OROUA RIVER BOARD.

OBJECTION TO CLASSIFICATION. MOIUTOAi SETTLER'S PROPOSE MORE EQUITABLE TAXATION. There was a representative attendance, of Moutoa. settlers at the meeting- of ratepayers convened by J.:.Qh>iVstal] last,evening- to object to ‘tiie Ala nawa tu - Orou a River Board’s adopted classification of lands in connection with its river protection proposals.” r The meeting was belli in the Town Hall sup-per-room and Mr. J. fOhrystall was voted to the chair. In opening the meeting he said that the time had come for Montoa ratepayers to speak the truth without embellishments and give the . Board facts without frills. lie suggested that the Montoa residents object collectively and individually to the Board and the Magistrate against the classification, which he termed most, unjust. They all knew how they had suffered as a result of the banking at Makerua. The Montoa had been deluged with water for five years and now the Montoa. set-tlers-were. supposed to pay for the Makerua baulk. The only failway would be.to value the banks in every sub-division and take a loan proposal and pay everyone according to the work done. That proposal was ignored by the Board and one sub-division had been singled out for special treatment. He then moved the following resolution :■ —

“That this meeting of Montoa ratjepayers emphatically objects to the serious injustice proposed by the Manawatu-Oroua River Board through the classification recently adopted for the levying and collection of special rates. We wish to point out that the Makerua ratepayers will pay an average rate of-2/3 per acre and the Moutoa ratepayers will pay an average rate of 0/10 per acre. This benefit in classification has been given to Makerua as a concession fog .existing stop, banks in that area complying with the requirements of the modified scheme. We respectfully suggest, an . equitable adjustment of taxation as follows: — (1) That the cost of the completion of stop banking the Montoa area to comply with the requirements of the modified scheme be charged to the Montoa sub-division. This worth is scheduled as Jobs No. C and No. 7 and the estimated cost to the Board is £3,500, working out at 5d per acre on a seven iper cent, basis. After paying this amount the Moutoa area would be in exactly the same position as Makerua and both areas should pay exactly the same average amount per acre towards the cost of the main spillway and cuts. (2) This amount is defined by taking' the proposed average rat© on all (loodable lands (as if no protective works existed) throughout the Board’s district. The total area proposed to be rated for the lpan is 65,228 acres. By excluding class H land, 9,149 acres and revenue to be derived therefrom at 9il per acre,. £343, the tloodaJble area remaining is 56,089 acres on which the average rate per acre would be 3/10. Montoa would then pay an annual average rate of 4/3 per acre and Alakerua 3/10 per acre. There would be sufficient funds in this adjustment to bring the Koputaroa assessment into line with justice without making, any change of- taxation in the Kairanga and Oroua .-mb-divisions. ” “That, I submit,” said the chair- .. . » nian is UNASSAILABLE LOGIC and I don’t know how the River Board will be able to get over it or turn the proposal down. If the classification was left as at present Moutoa settlers would have to pay 2/4 per acre above thenproper share in the scheme as the rate defined was 6/10 per acre agaiusL. JVFaikerua’s 2/3 per acre. Taken over the whole area' this meant that Moutoa was to be called on to pay £1,500 per annum more than it was entitled to which amount would pay interest and sinking fund on a loan of £20,000 all on account, of „ the Makerua bank. Worked out over the whole period this would repay for a loan of £56,000. *Mi\ W. E.; Barber considered it was unreasonable for the Board to expect Moutoa residents to go to Palmerston North to see the classification list but Mr. B. G. Gower (a Board member) agreed to leave lii.s copy in Poxton. The chairman referred to the fact that the lliyer BoariLbad first started out with a proposal'called the comprehensive scheme to cost £460,000. it then revised the work to cost £300,000 and called that at modified scheme, but that in turn had been re-modified to a scheme to cost £160,000. Personally he was suspicious of modified schemes.. They reminded him too much of "modified ' cheese —full cream with some of the butter-fat "left out —and in his opinion a modified scheme \yould create just as .great .a disaster as the modified cheese has been to New Zealand. Personally he would prefer to see the original scheme carried out if any. As far as he could see the only between the big scheme and the modified one was that one or two bridges had been deleted and a, mile: and, a half cut between Kaii Kari and Poplar and the Opui spillway dropped. The total. cost of. these works, however, had Jj?eeu qifget. hy .the inclusion of pumping in the Moutoa while the bridges would have to be built., He was sure the Manawatu County Council did not want to settle a liability of. £BO,OOO on its ratepayers for this wqelc. On Mr.

Hay’s own figures the modified scheme would cost double what it is estimated to cost while no provision had been made for interest and sinking fund during the time the work was being carried nut. At least 10 per eent. should also have been allowed for contingencies, but apparently very little notice had been given to this matter by the Board. The Board’s proposal to ern-rv out the scheme for under £460,000 was only beating the air and an attempt to hoodwink the ratepayers. The rates in the Moutoa under present conditons would a,mount , to over £1 per acre and ratepayers should take steps to prevent, the country being plunged into a sea of debt for it could not carry such a burden. Mr. (lower (River Board member) apologised for the unavoidable absence of the chairman (Air. A'. S .Carter) and said Mr. Chrya-i.-il 1 had painted the blarkost picture he could in regard to the scheme. He said anyone who visited .Makerua to-dav could not fail to be struck by the wonderful progress made since immunity from Hooding had been reached. If the Montoa could do that at reasonable cost it would he doing the right thing. The Board had no intention of proceeding further than with the classification of the land at present. He considered Montoa residents had paid more than live years’ rates as a result of damage during last January flood and there was every chance of a repetition of that. They should all support any reasonable, scheme that, would give relief. Makerua settlers were paying over 14/- an acre in rates, some as' much as 24/- an acre. The Govornmene had promised a subsidy of £IOO,OOO in connection with the scheme and they still hoped for more. The Board had done its best to obtain a fair classification but that rested with a paid classifier. The chairman.' The Board adopted it though. 'Mr. Gower said that, it hail ailiqited the classification for economic reasons. To condemn the whole scheme was wrong. He had been farming since 1880 and knew something of the conditions obtaining in the Moutoa. They could only half-pie farm there owing to Hoods. The whole swamp had gone back considerably since the Makerua bank went up. Air. AV. E. Barber seconded the motion and congratulated the chairman on his scheme. He agreed however, that the River Board’s scheme had to come, but wlicn it did it- would have to he as a National undertaking. The chairman said- if the Board gave effect to the resolution all Afoutoa land would be reduced by two classes. The motion was then put and carried unanimously. Messrs J. ICbry,stall and W. E. Barber were deputed to place the resolution before the Board. ’ It was also decided to ask the Board what provision it was making in the scheme for maintenance. Many other details were discussed and the meeting 'terminated with a vote of thanks to the chair.