Flood Control Argument

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 58, 11 March 1944, Page 4

Flood Control Argument

The Manawatu-Oroua River Board w’as presented yesterday with a scheme which, it is hoped, will end the deadlock existing over flood control in the lower reaches of the Manawatu River. The chairman (Mr. J. Callosen) reported on the visit he had made to the authorities in Wellington with Messrs H. Seifert and R. J. Law, when he had learned that the Textile Company had banked the site at Bryant’s spillway three to four feet higher than the proposed spillway, without reference to the River Board. In case of u flood this would obviously endanger Koputaroa and Makerua and also prejudice the upper Moutoa. He had empnasised the following points:— 1. That the board was tho legally appointed body administering ' the Manawatu River und that under the Act no one had the right to do any banking without our consent. 2. That the board’s duty was to distribute flood waters as equitably as possible. That suggestions to build a system of spillways was not a scheme to penalise any subdivision at the expense of others but was simply a method of allowing the overflow of excessive water at specilied points for the shortest possible period. 3. That suggestions the board had made for the distribution of flood waters in the lower reaches had been ignored by the company and banking had been continued without reference to the board until the present dangerous position had been reached. Undoubtedly the largo amount of flooding through Spring’s spillway last winter was largely due to the bottling up of the river lower down by the company’s banking. This in itself indicated what was coming to upper Moutoa unless the present position is rectified. 4. That at no time had the board been asked for locations or levels of banks for any specified work. 5. That the location of tho banking on Bryant’s was too close to the Shannon bridge to be other than dangerous. 6. That the responsibility for endangering possibly 200 families in Makerua would not be accepted by the board. 7. That if the Government wished to hand over control of the Manawatu River to the Textile Company they should say so and relieve the board of i its responsibility. However, Mr. FawI celt, Director-General of Agriculture, j disclaimed any wish to have that rci sponsibility. Mr. Callesen said that Mr. H. Seifert I had also spoken strongly along similar lines, emphasising that it was wrong to attempt to free flooding of flax lands at the expense of homes and high producing farms. Mr. Law had pointed out that Koputaroa was farm land and should have preference over flax land; that Koputaroa had to receive two hill streams with little outlet for flood water. Discussions then turned as to ! how much difference there should be | between Koputaroa and Moutoa* It | was pointed out that less than one foot would be useless. Mr. Law asked for two feet, Mr. Seifert supporting. ; Strong opposition to two feet was | voiced by the committee. Mr. Callesen | said he suggested to Mr. Law that he ' accept lft. 6iu. but he refused and in | any case it appeared that the commiti tee would not accept anything over 3ft. j Finally it was decided that Mr. Grant and Mr. Farquhar confer and arrange j a scheme to be submitted to Mr. Newnham (chief engineer of the P.W.D.) with the hope that all concerned would come to au agreement. Mr. Farquhar reported that he had met Mr. Grant and they recommended: (1) Acceptance of a master grade falling at the rate of one foot per mile on the river centre line, commencing at the Shannon bridge. On the left bank the Koputaroa subdivision will have not less than 90 chains of spillways with the top one foot below the master grade (50 chains to be above Paiaka). The Moutoa subdivision and the Moutoa estate controlled by the Flax Committee, will have not less than 90 chains of spillways with the top two feet below the master grade (50 chains to be above Piaka). (2) No restrictions as to height and dimensions to bo placed on the balance of the stopbank system between the spillways fronting the river. (3) The spillway top levels to be corrected for grade with a tolerance of three inches which would mean that the spillways would be built and maintained to within three inches of the agreed height. (4; The agreed level of the spillways to be the top of the vegetation growing on them (this to ensure that spillways are kept mown or grazed to prevent the overflow level beiug raised by the growth of fescue, etc. (5) The River Board to keep the Flax Committee advised of its spillway intentions above the Shannon bridge on the right bank. (6) The agreement to be subject to review at six months’ notice. Mr. R. J. Law still considered the difference in the levels between the Koputaroa and Moutoa spillways should be 2ft. but he was ready to compromise at lft. 6in. Mr. 11. Seifert wuuted to know who was going to be the controlling body even if tlie proposals were agreed to. Never in his whole life had he seen such flouting of authority. A critical point raised by Mr. Law was the grazing of the spillways. He said the Koputaroa side was grazed closely by sheep but there were no sheep on the Moutoa side and the probability was there would be a growth of vegetation which would lessen the effective value of the Moutoa spillways and at the same time lessen the margin of one foot contemplated between the opposite sides of the river. Koputaroa, he pointed out, had to pond a lot of hill water in flood time. The board adopted the agreement ! with a request that the Koputaroa - spillways be lft. 6in. higher than the Moutoa ones. It was reported to the board that Dr. Wall, without the authority of the board, had raised his entire spillway by two feet. The board instructed its i solicitor to take legal action against Dr. Wall. It was considered that Dr. Wall’s action would be detrimental to the whole of the board’s district, particularly Moutoa.