MANAWATU BRIDGE DEPUTATION.

Shannon News, 13 June 1922, Page 3

MANAWATU BRIDGE DEPUTATION.

HOROWHENUA TAKES NO ACTION. The Shannon Borough Council informed the Horowhenua County Council on Saturday, that it had decided to wait upon the Minister oi Public Works with reference to the Manawatu River bridge, with a view to urging him to take steps to form a contributing body comprising the Horowhenua Comity, Manawatu County, Shannon and Foxton Borough Councils. It was suggested that each should contribute equitable amounts towards putting the bridge in order and dealing with the question of the river. The Shannon Borough invited the Horowhenua Council’s co-operation, and asked that delegates be sent to comprise the deputation which would meet the Minister on Tuesday next, June 13. The Shannon Council forwarded a report and plan of the bridge and river, made by its engineer, Mr Edward. It was pointed out there was need for immediate action.

The chairman (Cr. Monk) said the County Council had been advised by its own engineer that the bridge was in no immediate danger, though there was scr'ous erosion at the western, or Manawatu end. The Shannon engineer saffi there was no danger on the westei n side, but their own engineer said ilie main flow was on that side, and the threatened erosion on the east si le was not serious. It was their engineer's opinion against another. The Shannon people were taking action because they said they did not want to be cut off from Foxton, but there did ini seem l’nuch danger of that. The banking of the Munuualu raver and tac scheme being earned out by die Makerua Drainage Board would affect the river by causing the \.ner in lime to concentrate at the biiuge, and possibly carry n away. In at was a serious maker, but tne Government gave the right m hank tfie river, lie did not know why the Shannon t eople should he takmg action. as the County Council was the controlling body, hut if they wanted to go to the Minister they could uo so.

Cr. Harkness: Don’t you thunk we ought to he represented'' The chairman: 1 have.mo doubt the matter will he referred to us by the Minister.

Replying to Cr. Ryder, the chairman, said there had been no erosion at the eastern end during the last 12 months. The engineer had tested the river with floats, and the channel was working the other way. Cr. Ryder: Floats want to be tried in flood time. That’s when tne damage is done. The Engineer: Floating timber goes to the west side of the river, and this causes erosion when held by the bridge.

The chairman: I don’t know if Mr Edwards has taken soundings of the river. The plan of the bridge shows the piies at the east end weie 9ft in' the ground, and our engineer says they are nearly that now. The engineer suit! the river had made up giound at the easte n side, and tnere had been no erosion for inunuio. hue cnuuinan said it was th.ir duly lo mtn cuu ill repair. j.ue DCai iiorowneiiua could do was to control uie river at the bridge, but eicewnere lie thought the, property owners should do something, lie ad\ .sea me council lo take no liability outside that at tiie bridge. Cr. Darkness: We should have a river board to control and say where banks should be pul, and similar matters. Cr .McLeavey: Too late n<_\v; the banks are up. Cr. Barber: They are under control

of an engineer

Cr. Ryder said he had not seen a commonsense bank built in Few Zealand yet. The hanks were constructed close up to the river ,and when tbe river overflowed there was no room for the Hood water, and damage resulted. The banks should be built some distance bcick from the rivers. Cr. Broad-belt said Shannon was trying to force the position, and the Council should not take any part in the deputation. The chairman said the Council had its own engineer to advise it and they were quite satisfied with his advice. Besides Horowhenua was the controlling body. Manawatu was also a responsible body, hut he believed it was not taking any part in the deputation.

It was decided that the Council take no action in the matter.