FLOOD CONTROL.
MODIFIED MANAWATU-OROUA
SCHEME.
HOROWHENUA COUNTY SEEKS FURTHER INFORMATION.
DELEGATES APPOINTED TO CON*
FERENICE,
A lengthy discussion took place at the meeting of the Horowhenua County Council on Saturday, when a letter i was received irom the MaftawatuOroua River Board notifying the Council of. a conference of local bodies, to be held on Thursday, with- a view of sending a deputation to urge the Government to subsidise the Board’s modified flood control scheme, particulars of which,were appended. The result of the Council’s consideration of the matter was that delegates were appointed' with power to act. The Chairman (Mr G. A. Monk) said he' "vC’as : going to suggest that, in the appointing of delegates, the Council might give them somewhat of a free hand, as . there was nothing definite in the Board’s communication to .provide that thi3 Council was released from any future liabilities in regard to the scheme. Although he had no reason for-saying so, the modified scheme might include such liability. He suggested that Cr. Whyte and himself be appointed to represent, the Council. Cr. Jensen asked whether, :n the event- of the Horowhenua County Council being included in the scheme, a rate would be levied over the whole county; The Chairman replied in. the affirmative; but. added that in a modified scheme it v;as more than likely that they, would not be called upon to contribute. There were certain drainage . districts'and the River Board district, which included a portion of the county, but ; not the whole county. Cr. Jensen: What position would the Manawatp county be in? It seems to'me that they are after drawing the whqle of the district from Waikanae ' into this scheme. The'Chairman: The Commission’s report was that we were included, and th'ey suggested that we be levied for £SOOO-' to £7OOO over the whole county. Cr. Jensen: I strongly object.
/ The Chairman: I did at the timevery strongly. v ■ Cr. Jensen: People who would kav» no benefit whatever in the draining ! of certain of- these, lands should not be charged in such a scheme. I do not know whether we should send a representative, but rather say that we do not recognise any liability, . and leave it to the River and Drainage Boards to fight it out. An amendment was moved by Cr. , Jensen, that instead of being represented at the conference the Council reply that they do not wish to contribute to the scheme. There was no seconder for the amendment. Cr. Gimblett said he thought that Cr. Jensen had taken rathey a narrow view. No one had thought of drawing in Te Horo in any scheme. The Chairman: Oh, yes. Cr. Gimblett: I think the Commission said the Horowhenua County would be liable for a certain amount. I would agree with Cr. Jensen to cut out tho southern riding, but the county as a whole is responsible to a certain extent'. If we can help any scheme to relieve those lands from flood, we have that responsibility. If you look right along the river bank you can see the trouble we have. There is never a Council meeting but river matters come in in one way or another. Cr. Jensen: I.wish to protest against Cr. Gimblett drawing in Te Horo riding.
Cr. Gimblett. I have not. Cr. Jensen: I mean that the majority of the Horowhenua county would not benefit. Cr. Gimblett: Question. Cr. Jensen: Take all the land into consideration and you will only find a small portion of the county, and there is- a Board to control that and it is the proper thing to control it, because the people get the benefit. The Chairman: Before we go a iff further, I must limit you to one speech each unless misrepresented. • Cr. Barber said he did not think that Cr. Jensen had grasped the position. Tlie Chairman ’g suggestion was that the Council be represented by delegates with power to act, provided that there was no liability to the Council. Cr. Ryder said he took quite a different view from Cr. Jensen. The speaker agreed with him on one point —namely, that the southern end should not be drawn into the scheme; but he did think that this was quite a serious matter, affecting a big portion of the county, and the right thing was for t.Wo members of the Council to go to the meeting. He did not think it was the Tight course at all to treat the matter as unimportant and turn it down: Cr. Catley considered that the Coua* cil should be represented at a confer! once: of this nature. This was a stupendous scheme, and if the results at>tained were what were hoped it would •benefit not only the Horowhenua county' but the whole of New Zealand, because the land would be made to
produee very much more than it was doing to-day. He asked, however, * that the Council should not be committed to anything until the Councillors had had a chance to consider the new proposals. Cr. Kilsby supported, the proposal for , the appointment of the delegates. .He said that, seeing that this may be a modified scheme, they would go to
the conference, and find cut what it i was, and would come back and put it before the Council. That was the time for the Council to take action as to whether they thought that it should be over the whole county or not. He tbdught' that the southern end should n'oi'be. brought into it to the same extbtft as the northern end. On account
of fhe Council’s roading schemes, portions of the county would be brought in. There were portions subject to flood and impassable at times. That was one reason why the county as a whole should have some say in rhe matter.
Cr. Whyte expressed the' opinion that the Council should have representation on the conference. At the same time they should not commit themselves. The object of the conference was tj have a general discussion. He considered that whatever was done should be brought before the next meeting of the Council, when a full discussion should take place. If the Council thought that the .scheme was for the benefit of the district as a whole, they would recommend it. The (Chairman stated that, about two years ago, he was' required to give ■evidence as to why other portions of the county, should not be loaded for this scheme. He put in several days preparing evidence, and gave it before the commission. The result was that the county as a whole was held liable for contributions of £SOOO or £7OOO. Whether his evidence ieduced or increased the amount had been a matter for the Commission; he coniu not. say what effect it had. He did his best at the time with the materials he had to prepare to give evidence on. Cr. Catley asked if the Council would have a chance to object if they were committed to a. greater extent than'they thought they should be. The 'Chairman: I don’t suppose there will be another Commission.
Cr. Barber said that the major scheme of the River Board had been for something between £450,000 and £500,000, but they were frightened to go to the ratepayers on that, and had made a modified scheme costing approximately £200,000. It was of benefit to a very large aiea in different counties. If v the Board got the sympathy of the ratepayers in these various counties could go to the Government and probably ask for a £1 for £1 subsidy or something of that description relieving .the local bodies of the 1 finding of the Commission. Those in the area who weie going to be affected would then votej as to whether this money should be raised. It had to go to the poll in the River Board area. Then the Board would want the sympathy of ail the area, to enable it to go to the Government and ask for a subsidy. The stronger the deputation, the better chance the Board would have of get ting the subsidy. The Chairman remarked that the Council’s delegates would want to know' whether the County was going to be released under the modified scheme; but the Council should not sit down and say that a benefit that could be got by the people interested should not be gone on with. The Council should assist them as much as possible to get the benefit they wera seeking. I
Cr. Jensen: If you support a petition to meet the Government, are you not giving some kind of support?
The Chairman: I cannot help supporting the thing. Cr. Gimblett: Have the Council power to load one particular part of the county for this -gurpose. | The Chairman: No; it must fall on the county. Cr. Jensen: I object to assist people to make their property valuable at other people’s expense.
The Chairman: I think there are benefits attached to this scheme which would accrue and become national. The benefits “would not wholly be on the properties concerned. Otherwise Why would we 'be worrying about it? The motion that the Chairman and Cr. Whyte represent |the Council at the conference was by the Chairman, seconded by Cr. Kilsby, and carried. Cr. Jensen called for a division and recorded his vote to the contrary. The Chairman: Now there is the question as to whether we are to have a free hand. I
Cr. Kilsby: It is not consistent if they vote against your having a free hand.
Cr., Gimblett: I am not in favour of sending delegates away and tying their hands. /
The Chaifman: I have tried to make clear that.we are opposed to the Council as a whole having to bear this burden. What we ask is a free hand to 'vote as we think fit on the motion that will probably be tabled—that a deputation wait on the Minister ask- " ing for Government support of this scheme. I may vote against that; I cannot tell till the discussion takes place.
It was resolved that the Council’s delegates be allowed a free hand at the conference. Cr. Jensen again voted' in opposition.
The Council also decided that the County Engineer (Mr 1 J. T. M. Brewster) accompany the delegates.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SNEWS19290125.2.24
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Shannon News, 25 January 1929, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,709FLOOD CONTROL. Shannon News, 25 January 1929, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Copyright undetermined – untraced rights owner. For advice on reproduction of material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.