FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION.

Shannon News, 21 April 1925, Page 4

FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION.

The great, complete river • control scheme, designed to give the Mann-, watu and Oroua Rivers the best channels to the sea, to remove flood menace and improve the drainage of the whole district, as held in view by the Manawatu-Oroua River Board, is estimated to cost £435,000. However, the •'■’limit' that the lamias within the Board’s area can afford to pay for the benefits- derivable from such a scheme ds £250,000. . Without outside assistance this proposal cannot be put forward as b. , business proposition, judged by the above facts. Therefore, at Friday’s meeting oi the Board, the engineer, Mr. F. C. Hay submitted as an alternative a modified-scheme designed to deal with floods up to about 17 feet o*n the Fitzherbert Street -gauge, plus a medium flood in the Oroua River. The' cost was estimated at £174,000. This modified scheme is designed to 1 control such a flood as the above within defined limits. These limits, it was sta£ed, were such that later on improvements could be effected within them and- further steps taken to attain the -complete ' scheme of river control, without ; abandoning or rendering obsolete any of the works included in the modified scheme. It was estimated that floods up to 17 feet on the Fitzherbert guage did. not Occur more frequently than once in every ten years, or ten times in a century. Included in the original scheme, in addition to the levees and cuts required was the purchase of land and the building of bridges. Details of Scheme.

In detailing the scheme, the engineer put forward the cost of necessary works- to effect the scheme, such as snagging the lower channel of the Oroua £BOO, excavation for levees 2,000,000 yards at 1/6, ‘£150,000;* culverts, floodgates, etc. £8,200; diversion cilts and purchase of several areas £6,000; flowage rights, £9,000; total, £174,000. Item four of the above was not absolutely essential and could be omitted if the price put on the ; land was unreasonable. With regard to flowage: rights, wherever the limit of the carrying capacity of the river channel was reached, spillways to take the surplus waters were provided. The first was at the end of Hamilton road oh the right bank of the Manawatu and began to operate when floods reached 14 feet on .the Fitzherbert gauge. Under present conditions the land, on which the spillway was proposed • flooded when .the ? river reached 13 feet on the gauge.! The land would therefore be less affected by floods under the proposal even though it was a spillway—than it was now. It was estimated /that floods would operate given this spillway twice in three years on the average and then only for a few hours. ’After -passage of flood the unwatering- of the lower portion-would be carried out by Ia; 3 foot culvert. The area that would be affected in the direct path of flood waters was 76 acres; the whole area Eof spillway lever'to the river bank was 256 acres.

Flowage and spillway. From the above, the engineer considered that flowage rights would be obtained for nothing. The next<place where flowage rights* were required on the right Ibank was at Rangitane, when 33 acres ,of land, floodable at present were required for spillway purposes. The same remarks applied to this place as to the previous one, and the engineer considered that compensation here f or flowage rights would also be ‘Ail. On the right bank opposite Rangitane an area of 171 acres would be used as a spillway. Of this area 113 acres w£re already - floodable l and would be less flooded under the improved conditions of the river channel. Flowage rights would be nil. The balance of 58 acres was protected now by the Makerua levee, and compensation would be payable on this area. Mr. Hay estimated the flowage rights at £5 an acre, or £290l Of Westmere, 64 acres would be left within levees and utilised-for the passage of flood waters. All the rest would be fully protected. It was now flooded at. 13ft. 6in. on the Fitzherbert gauge, and -would not be flooded under the improved conditions till about 14ft: 6in. Compensation for flowage rights was estimated at nil. The by 1 spillway at Moutoa contained within levees 1622 acres; the lower portion was now floodable at 9ft. on the gauge, and the upper portion at about 12 ft. Under the new conditions the area within the levees would flood at about 10 feet on the gauge. Provision had been made for unwatering the lower portion of the area after floods had subsided. There were low-lying swampy lands in part of this spillway which would get a rich deposit of silt and be improved. Flowage rights as a whole were estimated as worth £BllO, and in round figures £9OOO had been included in the estimates for this item. It would be noticed that this scheme did not include cuts through the Rush Flat, or Manawatu Kuku. No bridges -were required. Transport facilities were, if anything, improved under the scheme, though Shannon Road and the Whi/okjno Road would be occasionally blocked. The engineer went into further' details of the scheme with a map.

Modification Dearer in Lons Run. Mr. Gower asked if this modified scheme or the other was to be presented to the ratepa^rs. Another that Mr. Hay was merely submitting the modified scheme to the Board. The chairman remarked that it was all a matter of expenses, and that if the Government would render its assistance, a definite step could be taken. • The engineer said that if it came to a choice between the two schemes it would be cheaper now to go on with the complete one. It was for the Board to decide whether to proceed with the latter, or to leave the completion of the scheme to posterity. Although the modified “scheme and its extension would cost > more than the other in total, there were nevertheless undoubted benefits ( to be'gained from its employment. Various aspects of the scheme were then discussed. , The chairman stated that the Board had got to that stage now where it had to decide what its future was to contain, whether an endeavour fo solicit the aid of the Government in the big scheme, or to start a small one as a preliminary. 'Mr. McDonald said that the Board was now in a quandary owing to the lack of support that had been accorded the big scheme, and he thought it was now impossible to carry on with it. The ratepayers were very much opposed to it, and the Board had now either to submit to them something that, would cost less than the original, or throw up the whole thing. He certainly did not favour the latter course, but thought "the modified scheme before the Board a

very good idea, and thought that it should be given further consideration. It was decided to defer consideration of the scheme until next meeting.