COMMISSION APPROVES RIVER DIVERSION.

Shannon News, 14 January 1927, Page 3

COMMISSION APPROVES RIVER DIVERSION.

UNDER PUBLIC WORKS CONTROL. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY OF £200,000 The Commission set up to report upon the proposal of the Manawatu-Oroua River Jboard to divert the lower reach--v es of the Manawatu river to secure' immunity from flooding and a satisfactory ; drainage system, has presented its report tc ihe Governor-General. The findings ui the Commissioners have now been released for publication. ine National Aspect. The Commission was directed to inquire generally into the necessity or expediency of the Government granting a subsidy towards the cost of the operations, the River Board being 0/ opinion that the Government derive a benefit therefrom and particularly into the tollowing matters: (1) The extent to which the operations would provide a better location for roads or highways or make roads and highways safe- for through traffic at all times of the year; (2) the extent to which such operations would benefit the Government Railways by reason of improved waterways or otherwise: (3) the extent to which the aforesaid operations would generally lessen demands on the Government from settlers suffering from loss or damage to. their properties by reason of flooding; (4) whit should be the amount, period and rate of such subsidy, and what conditions (if any) should precede or be attached to payment of such subsidy; (5) whether further legislation, would be necessary to en-

able, effect'to'be given to the findings iOt the Commission; (6) any other recommendations or advice arising out 01 the premises. < Government Should Subsidise.

The report continues: "Tour Commissioners have been impressed with the magnitude of the task set them, especially as no previous attempt has been made to examine exhaustively the extent of Government benefit from the carrying out of river-control works. Generally speaking, no Government subsidy should be granted to any river improvement scheme which i 8 unsound from an engineering or an economical standpoint, and your Commissioners have therefore endeavoured to make their inquiries on these two heads as full as possible. In reporting on the engineering aspect of the scheme, we desire to preface our remarks with the statement that river control is not an exact science. It would be foolish to attempt to predict with detailed certainty the effect of a scheme "of the magnitude Of the one now under consideration. It will »e s*en from the evidence ttiat Mr. Hays scheme is generally, though in certain cases subject to technical modifications, approved by the many engineers who gave Evidence, and that with a modification as to terms and width between stop-banks, to which Mr Hay has agreed, the Department of Public Works is prepared to approva ' it Certain of the differences in engineering techniquo - could, doubtless be adjusted by experience as the work proceeded. As will hereafter appear, your Commissioners recom- ." mend control by , the Public Works - -Department of the River Boards -carrying out of proposed works. Sub- - • -lact to such control, your Commis- . doners farther recommend that the

scheme is one which the Government should subsidise, provided that sufficient benefits be found to accrue to the Government from such subsidy. Your Commissioners recommend that the lands to be improved by the operations should bear as much of the cost as they can be equitably loaded with, bearing in mind that a part of such loading is paid in the shape of rates to CouAty Councils and Drainage Boards. To this loading should be added the contributions from the Boroughs. *The difference between the sum of these amounts and the total cost of the scheme must if the scheme is to go through be found by the Government. If this difference, is so large that the advantages, which can be ascertained to be likely to accrue to the State and its inhabitants generally from carrying out the proposed works, are incommensurate with it, then clearly it is inexpedient for the Government to grant tfce money required and the whole scheme is financially unsound." Estimated Government Benefit. The Commissioners then report at length upon the national benefits likely to accrue from the scheme and estimate these as follows: — £ Increased population . .. 250,000 Benefit to property .. .. 4,000 Highways improvement .. 12,000 Benefit to Railways ... .. 6,650 Lessened settlers demands 33,000 Total . ...... .- 345,733 None of the above benefits will, however, bo immediate, and the Commissioners consider that Government benefit under the above heads should; for tho purposes of immediato apportionment, bo taken at 8/14th of the ultimate betterment. This, on the above figures, gives a nett benefit of £197,562. To this sum should be added £IO,OOO allowed as benefit in respect of reduced bridge replacements, which is practically an immediate benefit. The total Government benefit under all heads is therefore computable on the speculative basis which is necessarily a large element in tho computation, at £207,562. In the opinion of the Commissioners, assuming that all preliminary and administration expenses are included in the estimated cost of the scheme, & subsidy not less than £201,041, spread over a period of five years, will be necessary. Local Body Contributions.

Tho Commission al3o inquired into the proportion of the cost that the local bodies cited should contribute. After contir.ming the exemption of the Foxton Harbour Board as it was not a local body within the meaning of the Act, the report states: As to contributions from Borough Councils the Commissioners are of opinion that the word "benefit" means advantage of any kind which can be pecuniarily estimated, and they consider that each of the four Borough Councils cited, will derive sorrfe such advantage. It is impossible to estimate with precision the amount of pecuniary benefit but that is not to say that the Borough Councils will not derive any benefit which can fairly and reasonably be apportioned in money. The growth of towns in New is largely dependent on the production and prosperity of the country districts which they serve; any many witnesses

from the areas subject to flood stated in evidence that they dealt in one or more of the towns cited. The Commissioners consider that the proposed works of the River Board will provide a considerable degree o! immun-ity-.from" flood and a betier iocafion lor roads. The area of the JManu-jvatu-Oroua' River District, i.: :;u exceedingly fertile one, am! il S;s ex-pected-that immunity from i':oed will substantially increase reduction from, and permit of coiiKiiVrahry closer settlement- in, the area. increased production and increased pqUlcment in tho River Board's area should bring about an increase in the. prosperity, and consequently in the population, of the towns affected, and ihe Commissioners consider that an increaso in the population of a Borough must in due course bring about an increase in revenue to the Borough Council. Benefits to Palmerston North. A road through the Makerua subdivision would shorten the rcite from Levin via Shannon to Palmerston North by some 4.3 miles, would provide a more level way, and with stability would tend to send the vast bulk of the business from the Makerua subdivision to Palmerston North. Moreover any increase of business in FO'xton and Shannon and, in lesser ratio, in Levin, would bo reflected in Palmerston North. The Commissioners have carefully perur.ed the report of the 1908 Commission, and they are aware of the recommendation therein that the towns should bo excluded from contribution. 'L'hey think however, that the growth of motor traffic has, notably with regard to Palmerston North, changed tho situation of town and country in the past eighteen-years as is evidenced by the great growth of Palmerston North during that period, and they consider that any further change in methods of transport will be in the direction of lessening the time occupied between town and country. In the opinion of the Commissioners immunity from flood in this area will bring more lasting prosperity to Palmerston North and consequently more* revenue to the Borough Council than any single known undertaking.

, - Tho Commissioners have also given consideration to tho following: (1) That a considerable amount of the estimated expenditure on the proposed works will be spent in Foxton, Palmerston North and Shannon ddring tho first five years of construction; (2) that the estimated betterment to the lands in the River District, and consequent benefit to the Boroughs cited, will not be fully realised for fifteen years. For these reasons your Commissioners recommend that tho following amounts should be respectively apportioned to the Borough Councils cited as follows: £ Palmerston North .. 10,000 Fqxton .. " 1.000 Shannon . '.. .. .. 901 Levin 60i County Contributions. In dealing with the question of contributions from County Councils and Drainage Boards, the Commissioners express regret at the scanty and inexact nature of the evidence tendered. In computing County contributions they have taken the betterments estimated by the Valuation Department for the County Ridings within the River District on the basis set-out ir, the Government Subsidy Report; they have assumed that rating will remain as at present; they have also, as the Counties were revalued at different times, and as a new valuation, of the ridings in the River District would entail modification, adjusted, with the assistance of tho Valuation Depart, ment, the existing valuation of those ridings accordingly. They have further made a Reduction throughout of 20 per cent to allow for possible .full estimated betterments not accruing at the end of the period of fifteen years: and they havo taken 7/ 14th of the nett rating benefit in view of tho fact that an immediate apportionment is desired.

The report then deals in detail with the computation of the betterments to be derived by the Counties,, which are estimated as follows: Kairanga. £2,064; Horowhenua, £5,844; and Manawatu, £9,612; total, £17,520. Th«. computation is based on unimprovea values and does not take into consideration the fact that valuations witi receive certain betterments before the period of fifteen years, of which the Counties have the benefit.

The report continues: "It is obvious, that the County Councils will further benefit by lessened maintenance costs of roads and certain other undertakings by reason of lessened damages thereto arising from flood. Of the total benefit to these Counties under this head the Manawatu County will receive more-than half. The Manawatu County, however, will loso from its rating area owing to th£ new channel proposed to be cut through the Moutoa subdivision some, 13GO, acres of excellent land, and the loss to that County in rating will therofore be material. The Commissioners think it may well be that this loss should by way of an equity be set off against tho benefit tho Manawatu County will receive under this head. As, also, the bulk of the flood damage under this head is in Manawatu County, so it is clear that tho benefit to Kairanga and Horowhenua Counties 1b relatively small.

L Tho Commissioners therefore recommend that the following amounts should bo respectively apportioned to the County Councils cited: —

Kairanga J'J" Horowhenua .. .. •• '** Manawatu , a As Regards Drainage Boards. Regarding Drainage Board contributions, there was unfortunately no reliable information before the Commission of the estimated betterment

irom the proposed river operations Of '.ho lands h. the respective Drainage Districts. At the same time it was clear that the several Drainage i3oards cited would receive a benefit in rating which though impossible of absolute estimation by the Commis- • sioners on available data was nevertheless an actual benefit. 11 was clear that the Drainage Boards would further benefit from the proposed river operations by lessened maintenance costs of drains owing to greatei fall and lessened damage from flood. The Commissioners therefore recommended that the following amounts should be respectively apportioned to the Drainage Boards cited: — £ Sluggish River ' 2,503 Moutoa . . 2,711 Makerua 18,416 Buckley (as existing) . . 28X Manawatu . . . .. .. 5,871 3lakerua Protection* Works. The Commissioners were also instructed to determine whether any of the protection works carried out by tho Makerua Drainage Board were likely to be required for the efficient carrying out of the River Board's operations, and, if so, whether the River Board should bear a. proportion of the cost of such protection works, or grant some commensurate consideration to the lairds within the district in respect of such works. Mr. F. C. Hay, the River Board's consulting engineer, admitted that certain of the protection works would be of substantial benefit to the River Board's operations and agreed to items totalling £65,045. It was thereupon agreed between counsel for the River Board (Mr. P. E. Baldwin) and counsel for the Drainage Board (Mr. J. P. innes) that a written statement by Messrs. Jickell and Gilmour bo submitted to the Public Works Department to decide what portion of the cost of the Drainage Board's works should borno by the River Board. A conference was held in Wellington and as a result the Commissionei's recommend that the River Board should grant to the lands within tho district of the Makerua Drainage Board a consideration commensurate with tho sum of £71,5)75. That consideration the Commissioners recommend should be granted as follows: Makerua Drainage Board's apportionment of cost of proposed works. £18,416; balance (to be paid by the River Board to the Makerua Drainage Board in cash or a cash equivalent or to be allowed by tho River Board in tho River Board from the lands in tho Makema Drainage Board's area), £53,559. Total, £71,975. River Board Contribution. After considering several bases of computation and checking from actual instances of holdings in the River District, the Commissioners consider that, subject to certain deductions hereafter set out, a fair estimate of the maxim Urn of rating w,hich can be borne by the various lands comprising the River District is five-four-teenths of the estimated betterment of those particular lands. The Commissioners stress the fact that mathematical correctness is not possible in computations of river works—the probabilities only can be considered, allowing as much margin of safety as possible. They have approved this ratio taking the following elements

into consideration:, (1) That the cost of construction is assumed to be spread over five equal . annual payments;'(2) that tho,period for the full realisation of betterment is taken as ten years after the conclusion of the construction period, of fifteen years in all; (3) that the ratepayer shall receive some portion of the betterment, above provision for interest and sinking fund, having regard to the venture on which he engages. The deductions which must necessarily be allowed to the ratepayers are, the Commissioners consider, as follows: — (1) Rates paid by them to County Councils and Drainage Boards to which a proportion of the cost of the River Board's works is charged for increased rating received by such County Councils and Drainage Boards; (2) cost to the ratepayers of internal drainage of their lands, the estimated betterment being on the assumption that the lands will have perfect internal drainage. The Commissioners were Messrs. R. M. Watson, S.M., of Feilding (chair-man),-A. C. Koch, of Atickland, enginer, and H. E. Leighton, of Wellington, land agent.