FLOOD RELIEF.

Shannon News, 15 February 1929, Page 3

FLOOD RELIEF.

MODIFIED MANAWATU-OROUA „ SCHEME. HQROWHENTJA COUNCIL APPOINTS REPRESENTATIVES ON DEPUTATION. ALMOST UNANIMOUS SUPPOBT OF PBOJECT.

Advice was received by the HproI whenua County Council on Saturday, from Mr B. W. Spencer, secretary of. the Eiver Board, undiv date of February sth, thatJ the 7ioard had resolved to wait on the Government, at a date to be fixed (probably in about one month's time), asking for a subsidy of £1 for £1 tovyards the cost of the Board's modified scheme of flood control of the Manawatu and Oroua rivers, which scheme was fully explained and discussed at the conference of local, bodies held on. January 24th. There was no opposition „ expressed then except by Mr J. Chrystall, a copy of whose proposed resolution was enclosed. This resolution could not then be voted on, as deleagates had not come with authority to | vote on any. resolutions, but to get information about the scheme. The secretary added that the Board had definitely resolved that local bodies would not be asked to contribute towards the cost of the scheme, as it was considered that local bodies' contributions would be fully covered, in the £1 for.£l subsidy asked for from the Government-in return for public benefit accruing when the scheme ia completed. As it was undoubtedly i» the interest* of the whole district to get the scheme completed, and as this could not be done.without Government assistance, the Board asked that the Council appoint representatives to join the deputation to the Government to request the subsidy. Mr ChrystalPs motion expressed opposition to the Board's carrying out the scheme submitted, owing to the probability of financial disaster to a district with limited resources through finished costs .vastly exceeding estimates. It affirmed' that the modified scheme was incomplete, as it did not make provision for the necessary bridging where the proposed spillway was intended to cross two Main highways. The motion suggested that tho River Board make another appeal by deputation to the Government for its decision on the best scheme of flood protection; and if found to b\; of sufficient national importance to assess the area to be benefitted for the maximum capital expenditure it can safely bear, classify the lands for permanent rating consistent with estimated betterment, take a loan proposal thereon, and if successful supply the remainder of the money'to the Public Work? Department to carry out the scheme.

The County Chairman v (Mr G. A. Monk) said that the 'conference, except for supplying information, had not taken the delegates very far. Only three or four representatives had saiil they had authority to vote on the proposal, so the thing became somewhat of a farce. An explanation had been given by the chairman and the Engineer of the Board. They said they were abandoning the previous propositi, under which certain local bodies were to be mulcted. The modified scheme would cost the district about £120,000 and % would be submitted to a poll of ratepayers wifjhin the Manawatu-Oroua river district, after which the scheme would be gone on with. There was nothing to fear in connection with portions of the county beyond the Eiver Board's area. If the Council wished to give this modified scheme their support, they,would appoint representatives to accompany the deputation to Wellington to request a Governmen* subsidy for the,work.

| Replying to Cr. Catley, who asked •what part of the county would be afjfeeted, the Chairman said it would be ithe portion arourtd [the river about | Koputaroa and Shannon.

j Cr. Barber: There are 20,000 a«res ; in Makerua and probably 5000 in Buckley. Cr. Kilsby moved and Cr. Gimblett seconded, that the Chairman and Crs Ryder and Whyte be the Council's representatives on the deputation. PRESENT GRAVE DANGER TO LANDS AND ROADS.

Cr. Barber, in supporting the modified scheme, referred to the danger, to lands in the Makerua drainage district under existing conditions in the event of a big flood in the Manawatu River. He stated that in the flood of July, 1926, the river rose to 13ft. 6in. at, (the Fitzhjerbert bridge" arjd was within an ace of going over the Makerua banks. The river had been known to rise to 17ft. 6in. at Fitzherbert, and the overflow from such a flood would mean a depth of 3ft. 6in. of water on the low-lying lands of Makerua, constituting a menace to roads in that district and Tokomaru. Cr. Gimblett said that Cr. Barber had revealed a very dfiiigerous position, and for that reason, if for no other, the Council should give the proposal their support. Cr. Jensen asked w'lat support the other County Council were willing to give to meet the Government as a deputation. What weight would this Council have? He contended that it was a matter between the Drainage Board and the people affected. Cr. Gimblett remarked that he did not think that Or. Jensen was conversant with the conditions as they were to-day. There was a very grave risk of loss of life, judging by'what Cr. Barber had stated. This county was not being asked to contribute outside the River Board's area. That being so, the Council should certainly send representatives to the deputation. The Chairman: The bogey was raised that, if you support this deputation, as a local body, you are lending yourselves to any subsequent proceedings and" practically admitting liability. If

we cannot represent this county on a deputation without committing ourselves and saying we are up to our necks in a liability, we are not very clever. I think we can represent the matter as it is, without, any liability. Seeing that a considerable portion of our rating area is in the Bivcr Boardfs area, and subject to very great danger, in representing to the Government that it would be a very fine thing they subsidised this money and allowed that danger to. be removed we would not be committing ourselves t> anything more than is embraced in the Eiver Board's area. If that 70,000 acres in the Board's district can reasonably be made immune from flood, then the £120,000 they ask the Government to spend will be one of the best payments ever spent in this Dominion. It is a wonderful piece of country; but one has to look at the, thousands of acres which are now only growing bog grass, but which' were at one time growing good English. grass,; thousands of acres having' been ruin-.; ed through lying for weeks under water last spring. CE. JENSEN'S OPPOSITION. Cr. Eyder said he did not agree with; Cr. Jensen, especially after the point! raised by Cr. Barber. He thought; that a certain amount of responsibility rested on this Council. , Cr. Jensen: I have not been in touch with any of the people who attended the conference* lam not in any way narrow-minded, as I have been accused of being, there. The Chairman: Who accused you of being narrow-minded? Cr. Jensen: At our last meeting when we had this discussion. The Chairman: I don't think so.

Cr. Jensen: ,1 thoroughly understand the position. I know what flood waters are. There is the danger that people who have their own burdens and flood waters to contend with may be and drawn in to assist others where their troubles are more than they can cope with. If wo could be instrumental in relieving others of their; troubles without adding a burden to ourselves where we do not benefit, I would say go ahead. Cr. Ryder has had his own trouble at Otaki River. I am the only one of the Councillors here who is in opposition to this. I am not really in opposition to the scheme, but I strongly object that we do anything where we may commit ourselves.

The Chairman: You are not prepared to accept their assurance?

Or. Jensen: No, I am not. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The Chairman: I am inclined to accept their assurance. Cr. Kilsby: This is somewhat of a surprise from Cr. Jensen. I am of opinion that, as a local body, we should certainly take some interest in this scheme, to further it, seeing that it is a modified scheme and that somebody must be at the head of it. Who is better able to take that part than the local bodies; it is part of their duty to assist this Board in furthering their scheme. It seems that it is only the people living in that area who are going to pay for it. What Cr. Barber says about flood levels is somewhat surprising, but it is worth looking into.

SAFEGUARD TO SHANNON

Cr. Barber stated that the modified scheme would act- as a safeguard to the new Shannon Manawatu bridge. At that place there was only a third of the waterway that there was at the Fitzherbert bridge. The motion appointing the Council's representatives on the deputation was carried, only the vote of Cr. Jensen being recorded to the contrary.