PROTECTION FROM FLOOD.

Shannon News, 18 June 1929, Page 3

PROTECTION FROM FLOOD.

CUTS PROPOSED AT MAKERUA RIVER BOARD AGREEABLE IF INDEMNIFIED. PART OF THE MODIFIED SCHEME At a meeting of the MnnawatuOroua River Board held last week a proposal from the Makerua Drainage Board to carry out two cuts in the river near Coley’s bend was discussed. During the recent floods, the Makerua banks were badly broached at this particular spot and it was with the idea of preventing a recurrence of the trouble that the Makerua Board made this proposal. Mr W. S. Carter, chairman of the Manawatu-Oroua- River Board, who brought up the matter for discussion, stated that the chairman of the Makerua Drainage Board (Mr J. T. J. Hume) had interviewed him in connection with the matter. Briefly, the Makerua Board proposed to put in two cuts which would relieve the pressure on the banlcs and reduce the length of river, at that point from one and threequarter miles to half a mile. The Board was unable, however, to undertake this work itself and desired the Board to do so.

Mr F. G. Hay, engineer of the River Board and the Makerua Board, explained the proposal, which he said would have the effect of reducing ..the flood level at the top end of Moutoa. He had placed alternative proposals before the .Makerua Board, the first being a scheme to move back the banks and which would entail moving Mr Coley *3 house and paying compensation. The second proposal had been to carry out that portion of his modified scheme applying to the river at Coley’s bend, and this proposal had met with the approval of the Makerua Board. Mr Carter stated that the Makerua body could not carry out the work itself and would require assistance. It was intended that the cost should be borne by a special rating area, so that the financial burden would be localised.

A difficulty arose, however, when the Board’s solicitor, Mr P. E. Baldwin, reported on the legal aspects of the proposal. Mrßaldwin was of the opinion that, however willing it might be to do so, the Makerua Drainage Board could not legally absolve the River Board from liability for damage caused by the cut to any property owner.

In reply to a question, the Chairman stated that the proposed cut was according to the plans drawn up by MiHay and was part of the Board’s modified scheme. He was of the opinion that- if the Board could be of assistance to the Makerua and Buckley Drainage Boards, by aiding them to have the cut put through, it was its duty to do so but it was not its duty to incur any liability in the matter. It was pointed out that the Makerua Board was counting upon the proposed cut being taken over by the MakeruaOroua River Board at a later date and incorporated in its modified scheme, when the Makerua Board would' be paid for the work. The following resolution was finally carried: —"That the Manawatu-Oroua River Board will comply with the request of the Makerua Drainage Board, and is willing to comply with a similar request from the Buckley Drainage Board, provided that these Boards, or ratepayers in separate districts,. effectively indemnify the Board against claims for damage.in thc ! future brought about- by the execution of the work. ’ ’