EROSION ENDANGERS ROAD.

Otaki Mail, 12 April 1922, Page 4

EROSION ENDANGERS ROAD.

WHO SHOULD TAKE THE . INITIATIVE? HOROWHENUA DECLINES RESPONSIBILITY. Tiie much-discussed, question of reimedial measures for the erosion oy the Manawatu River at a point near the bridge that endangers the Shan non-Foxton Road was again uiidei the notice of the Horowhenua Coun ty Council on Saturday. The Shannon Borough Council wrote in pursuance to its resolution asking if the Council was prepared to send its engineer and representatives to a conference of the engineers of the local bodies concerned

in the preservation from erosion of 2 the Manawatu bridge and its ap-f proaches. It was pointed out that the matter was one purely for experts. The Manawatu County Council wrote stating that it recognised the matter was one for expert consiclera tion, and would be pleased to accept the Shannon Borough Council’s suggestion. However, as the Horowhenua County Council was the controlling body it waited for its decision The chairman said that he had gathered from a conversation with Sir James Wilson that the Manawatu County Council treated the road for a distance of half a mile from the bridge as the approach. The part of the road endangered was not in the Horowhenua county, and Shannon was not interested beyond the fact that it had no desire to have communication with. Foxton cut off. It was for that reason that it was prepared to contribute 1o tbe expense The question for the Council to con sider was whether the bridge was in danger; it need not concern itself with the road, that was not ils business. The engineer said no, and Cr Ryder said no. If what they said was right-, and the bridge was not in ! danger, why should the Council worry? Tt- could not he said that the point where the erosion was taking place was, on the approach io the bridge. He would suggest, if the Council was satisfied that the bridge was not endangered, that- it take rio j action. I

Cr. McLeaVey said the Manawatu County Council had a clear duty to perform in protecting die road, which was unquestionably under the control of that body. only. Cr. Barber agreed with this. I lie road was in danger and if after it had been protected the Manawatu County Council considered the bridge was in danger they could make fresh advances.

The chairman said it was borderJ ing on the ridiculous to say that the [approach to the bridge could be couVsidered to include half a mile of -road. In reply to a question, tie I said the Horowhenua County Counci l was the controlling body in regard to the bridge, not the road. Cr. Ryder said any engineer who ■ proposed to shift die'road without f adequately blocking the erosion was Snot in his sane senses. If such an j absurd course was adopted the trouble would occur again. L Cr. Harltness said tire Council “should candidly express its opinion j of Hie affair to ttie Manawatu County ,t c-ouncil. j The chairman: 1 expressed mine to j -be representatives at the conference very clearly. i On th motion of Cr. MoLeavey, n I was then decided to write to the ' Manawatu County Council and exj .press the opinion on the subject that j the Horowhenua County Council held las indicated by the discussion.