EROSION ENDANGERS ROAD.

Shannon News, 11 April 1922, Page 3

EROSION ENDANGERS ROAD.

WHO SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE?

HOROWHENUA DECLINES RE-

SPONSIBILITY,

The much-discussed question of remedial measures for the erosion oy the Manawatu River at a point near the bridge that endangers. the Shan-non-Foxton Road was again under the notice of the Horowhenua Couirty 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 the Manawatu bridge and its approaches. 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 consideration, 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 to the. expense. The question for the Council to consider was whether the bridge was in danger; it need not concern itself with the road, that was not. its business. The eng neer said no, and Cr. Ryder said no. If what they said was right, and the bridge was not m danger, why should the Council worry? It could not be said that the point where the erosion was taking place was) on ihe approach to the bridge. He would suggest, if the Council was satisfied that the bridge was not endangered, that it take no action.

Cr. McLeavey said the Manawatu County Council had a clear duty to perform in protecting the road, which was unquestionably under the control of that body only.

Cr. Barber agreed with this. Ihe roacl 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 bordering on the ridiculous to say that the approach to the bridge could be considered to include halt a mile/ of road. In reply to a question, he said the Horowhenua County Council was the controlling body in regard to the bridge, not the road. Cr. Ryder said any engineer who proposed to shift the road without adequately blocking the erosion was not in his sane senses. If such an absurd course was adopted the trouble Would occur again.

Cr. Harkness said the Council should candidly express its opinion of the affair to the Manawatu County Council.

The chairman: I expressed mine to the representatives at the conference very clearly. On th motion of Cr. McLeavey,' it was then decided to write to the Manawatu County Council and express the opinion on the subject that the Horowhenua County Council held as indicated by the discussion.