BUCKLEY DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

Shannon News, 12 February 1926, Page 3

BUCKLEY DRAINAGE COMMISSION.

DAIRY REVERTING TO FLAX CONTROLLING THE FLOOD WATER. The Buckley ■Drainage Commission Messrs T. A. Johnston, Resident Engineer to the P.W.D. at Shannon, and Chairman; of the Commission/ N. H. Mackie,- Government Valuer, and S. A. Broadbelt) held a further sittinglast week. The proposal is to include a considerable area of land in the existing Buckley Drainage Board far the purpose of drainage, and objection is taken to this by Messrs Spiers, A. Ross and Petersen so far as it concerns their land. Mr G. Watson, of Wellington, appeared on behalf of the objectors, and Mr R. J. Law represented the petitioners. Mr. A. Boss, also . an objector and owner of 650 acres, of which 548 acres were in -flax, gave evidence that he had endeavoured to develop the' remainder f.s dairying land—a thing the previous owner had ben unable to accomplish and witness stated it was his intention . to a-evert. to flax. As a flax-grower of considerable experience he was competent to express an opinion on the subject'of flood-water and its benefits to the growth of flax. The general effect was the protection of the roots, destroying the grubs and insects that lodge in the roots and destroy the blades—he was r not referring to the yellow leaf but to msect pests. The deposit of sib after a flood had the same effect as r. fertiliser putting'. back into the soil what the flax had taken out. Thus if river floods were excluded from flaxgrowing, the industry was endangered, provided, of course there was a sufficient fall to drain the water from the land within a reasonable, time. ' Ho would be pleased to cut the existing banks, as there was no doubt but that within'the past two years the crop had deteriated, and the roots were gradual-, ly creeping out of the ground, whereas the property had been the best 500 acres of flax in the Manawatu, and the objectors were quite confident the cause pf the falling-off could be attributed to the drainage. The remaining acreage could not be developed into a paying proposition so far as dairying was concerned, but was profitable flax-growing land. That also applied to Spiers' property adjacent. Both Spiers and Peterson 'had tried dairying, but their efforts had resulted in failure. Mr. Watson: It has been suggested that the people who want the drainagescheme can get all they want and protect themselves, by a bank erected between Spiers and McGill 1 ? Mr. Boss. Speaking as a layman they wquld get the necessary protection without interfering with us. >Mr. Watson: On the other hand, the scheme they want is the putting-up of , a bank alongside the pres'ent County drain—would that benefit you in any way? Mr. Ross: It would be detrimental. We haven't the outlet and banking up those drains would throw tihe water onto the back properties, which, a't present, are reasonably dry. Only the back country would be affected where there is no ponding area and. no outlet. Apart from the exclusion of beneficial floods and silts, you are going to have stagnant water thrown onto this country. Surface and stagnant 'water should be kept from flax. Cross-examined bv the chairman, witness stated he was not competent to say what it would cost to bring the land up to a condition suitable to dairying. Some said about £ls to wu, and he thought this would not.be excessive as there was timber throughput his district. ' •' . With regard to the Aratangata dram, vou state you haven't sufficient outlet Do you mean, there is insufficient tali J' —No the volume of water coming down since the banking scheme has made the river higher at our end and for a considerably longer period, therefore there was no outlet for the river. Banking-up the drain wouk' mean throwing the water back and .ugner up,, ami the drain was not of suiheient eapn«:ty to'hot a the water for such f oe-iod ond ! to fniit the outflow oi watc- when th- 3 foil. At present it was a ponding area, protecting the country above it. If a bank were constructed on the boundary of Spiers and McGill's properties witness said, he would receive benefit—provided the back water was kept out, but the petitioners wanted to keep the water from their property and dump it onto the objectors! . . Mr Mackie: If a comprehensive scheme were evolved on that particular portion, would you, then, dairy on it or convert it into flax?—l would, probably,'' dairy on it-an ideal dairy farm if properly protected.' They will have to bank as'far as the Whirokwo bridge, before keeping out the water. Cross-examined by Mr. Law witness stated he certainly had contributed something towards the Koputaroa banking which, he was told, would keep the water off the land, but the lock was soraethimes shut down for a week or ten days. In reply to Mr. Watson witness stated he had not received his money's worth out of the scheme. After all the money spent, he did not think they were any better off. Mt F G Hav, engineer to the IVlakerua Drainage Board said he was famii- « iar, in a general way, with the land be- . tween the Koputaroa stream and the Aratangata Drain. He had aJ r o taken levels in that area in connection with the Kiver Board's proposals. Mr. Johnston: Can, you, _fiom memory, compare these levels.with corresponding levels in the Moutoa ?-U ,, the general swamp level m the Mpu tarolis higher than the general swamp level in the Moutoa. For instance the lowest point in the Moutoa is about M feet above low-water springs at i oxton Heads, while in the Koputaroa the lowest level is about 91 feet above Koputaroa springs. In the Moutoa the 9 feet level is above Karikan dram corresponding to the level of 9« feet on the lower portion of Chrystall's property, used for dairying. 'Mr. Johnston: That is to suy, lands on the Moutoa sid'c, at corresponding levels, have been successfully datryed on f -.presumably. I would like to say further, ydth reference to these, that

the river on the Whirokino Boad and the low-lying country of Bryant's are 2-J to 3 feet lower than the swamp on the Koputaroa side. With reference to the lands on the Aratangata drain, do you see any reason why, in a general system of drainage, they could not be effectively drained?—No, they can be effectively drained.

! If the main banks hold, do you con I sider that the Koputaroa lauds will be more subject to flooding, than previously?—Yes. If the people on the Moutoa side intimately bank, the position for Koputaroa would be worse still"?—Yes. , Do you care to express an opinion as to the'position of the Koputaroa areas in the event of the River Board.s scheme being ultimately carried out?— Tho Koputaroa, in' common with the rest of the district, would be absolutely safe from floods and in a condition to be drained. That is, if that scheme were eiiectively carried out, the necessity for elaborate banking on the Koputaroa side would be minimised?—No. It would be necessary to devise a scheme, in conjuction with the Board's scheme, to take the flood waters from the Koputaroa and Tokomaru streams. In your opinion would a drainage board be able, more effectively to deal with the situation that has arisen, or may eventuate, better than individual settlers?—Yest; With regard to the flax ar'cas between Koputaroa and the Aratangata, would it be possible, at no great cost, to provide for periodical floods of the flax areas, if desired?—Yes. Flax could be irrigated with water and silt to any depth required, without detriment to the other land. Do you 'consider that the land towards Whirokino bridge could, from an engineering and drainage point of view be advantageously included in on? comprehensive scheme, embracing all swamp areas from the Mangaone stream down to Whirokino bridge?—Yes. It would be cheaper to protect this land from small floods with the Moutoa open than with it closed. That must be considered if you are going in for protective works. I had to make an estimate for the river board in connection wit.i breaches made by the November, 1924, flood; and a comprehensive scheme tor strengthening and re-making the bankwas from £3OOO to £4OOO. extended down to what is now Mr, Ross' property and included the repairing' or flood-gates and a little bit, of banking to keep the Koputaroa out of this area. I think it would be from *o to £4 an acre, on the whole acreage. Fakerua has cost about £6 an acre. Everything .included, banking wouM cost about ninepence "per cubic yard. Mr' Watson: If the Moutoa people were to embark upon a banking scheme would'not a war develop between thb Moutoa and Koputaroa people as to whose bank should be the higher?— Sure to be. All these local banking schemes aie more or less temporary, dependent upon what the neighbours are doing?—Yes. The petitioners suggest banking up the Manawatu, putting a stop-bank along the County drain, and then banking the Koputaroa on both sides: Can you, as an engineer, tell us whether it would be possible to devise a scheme that, excluding the objectors, would give petitioners (all possible protection?—Yes, quite. There would be no engineering difficulties. Do you happen to know the soil formation along the drain.—Yes. There is •i Jnver of claf over peat, the latter m some cases 35 feet deep, but a ban.* could extend to the railway lino at Koputaroa with perfect safety. ' The scheme should embrace the land right down to Whirokino Bridge?— Ypn, from an economic point of view. Messrs C. and R. A. Spiers, and F. .b._ i Newman also gave 'evidence as objectors.

Mr. Watson then summed up the case for the objecting parties. Both Mr. Hudson ad'Mr. McGill, in their evidence, omitted Mr. Newman ; and all those between him and the Whirokino bridge because they were aware the latter objected, and that if they brough them into the schem'e the petitioners would be unable to get the requisite majority of ratepayers. It had also been virtually admitted that Mr. Newman and the'other settlors at the Whirokino bridge were in exactly tae same position as the objectors. It was the same type of land, devoted to the aanio purpose and subject to exactly the same conditions. It would be monstrously unjust to bring in these three flax mills. The whole trouble in tho matter was 1 that the petitioners represented the pastoral.and dairying industries and were trying to drag in a group of isolated settlers carrying on a different industry. One wanted the floods, the other did not. One wanted dry ground, the other did not. That should be the natural boundary between the two. The suggestion that dairying could b'e conducted on wet ground was not a fair test, as practical men were satisfied that flax-growing was the belter proposition, and the very fact oi their reverting to flax weiH to prove I they were working on the right Jincs, and thev wore justified in their conclusion that they still had the right ot carrying on in their own way. Why should they be dragooned into supporting a thing for which only the most, nebulous reasons had been advanced J The success of any local body depended upon the harmonious work of the people in that local body. If the flaxmills were brought into the schem'e, the board would be faced with a muss ot compensation claims, which they would have to'pav if either the lands or livelihood of the flaxmillers were affecteu. It was obvious that that was only the first round of the fight, and it would be impossible to got harmonious workin"- between the settlers if the dissenting minority had their rights overridden by the majority. Fights oyer the raisinf of loans, over classification and in general, the matter would be a thorny and difficult one. The promoters of the petition had not placed any tangible scheme "before Be Commission as to their intentions. if they got the project, going, and he submitted further, that no case had been made out as to why those three unfortunate men

should, be included in the drainage board's area, but a good case had been made for their exclusion. Mr. S. Rolston stated, in evidence, that 106 of his 222 acres were in flax. It was far better as a flax-growing proposition as the accumulatin of floodwater absolutely killed the grass, and so he preferred "to have the flood water in. At one time lie had been very enthusiastic about the drainage scheme and had his own banks, but although it certainly held back the water, the water in the narrow channel was confined for a longer period than hitherto and the accumulation of local stormwater ruined the grass, etc. Should this scheme go through, and the 'eastern side of the Aratangata drain be banked, it would mean that witness, and Messrs Winiata and (Newman would, have a greater proportion of stormwater and they would b'e considerably worse off than before, for the simple reason the water would not have sufficient ground on which to spread. A good deal of the water coming down tire Koputaroa was not drain water, but water from the mountains, doing- good instead of harm. The iicciunulnted drain-water kills everything coming in its path, except flax, although it 'lamaged that. The only thing it would not kill was blackberry and goatsriie.

In conclusion, Mr. Law said that Mr. | Watson, in his suining-up, compared I ho j land from Newman's and onward a--being in the same condition as land belonging to the objectors. The conditions governing the two areas were entirely different, as the objectors were affected by Koputaroa water, while those from Newman's and downward- 1 received Aratangata water. If the local water interfered with working in the. flax swamps, the work as proposed would be of benefit to that land. If they wanted the flood waters and silts, these could still be obtained. Mr. Hay. in his evidence, had said that the land could be controlled-' and if the protective work were carried out the objectors could still grow flax as good as that of to-day, Mr. Law's statement concluded the hearing, but the Commissio7i'ors' lindI ing will not be published until later in the month, as the report must receive the endorsement of the Minister for Internal Affairs,