CUT IN MANAWATU WANTED AT BUCKLEY.

Shannon News, 5 July 1929, Page 3

CUT IN MANAWATU WANTED AT BUCKLEY.

BOARD SYMPATHETIC. BUT NO AUTHORITY YET TO GRANT PERMISSION. . Tlte clerk of the Buckley Drainage Board (Mr J. T. Bovis) advised the Manawatu-Oroua River Board yesterday that the Board's engineer (Mr F. C/lIay) had submitted to the trustees, two schemes for improvement and stabilisation of the flood protection in the Board's district. The schemes had been submitted and the trustees had decided to adopt the scheme which provided for the cutting off of a bend in the Manawatu opposite the Koputaroa stream. The estimated cost was £3700. The meeting decided to ask the River Board to carry out job 9 in the modified scheme of flood control, the Buckley Drainage Board undertaking to find the cost and assume all liability. (Job 9 of the modified scheme consists of cutting off a bend in. the Manawatu opposite the Koputaroa stream. The length of the cut is 8 chains and will cost £2OO. The land severed by the cut is 36 acres, which at £35 per acre will cost £9OO, making the total estimate £llOO. The principal benefit will be to Koputaroa but has some interest to Makerua) Mr *R. J. Law explained that the Buckley Board wanted to prevent erosion of its banks and also bring the banks up to an even grade. There were 316 chains of stopbanks of an average of 18in. below grade, although in some places they were 3ft .below. At nine places erosion had reaehedthe danger point and any flood might breach the. banks. Putting the cut through'would be a cheaper proposition than the scheme of work required if the cut was not undertaken. The saving would consist of reduction of earthworks and protective works. Omitting the cut the cost would be £4OOO and with the cut £3700. The area to be benefited would be 2400 acres to be the rate to provide interest and sinking fund 'on £2OOO (the Government was to be asked to find the balance by way of £ for £ subsidy) would be Is 3d per acre. Mr R. Tanner asked what the Buckley Board would do if it could not get a Government subsidy? Would it not pay.the ratepayers to pay 2/6 per acre and do the work themselves? Mr Law said the settlers would have to face that possibility. Mr Tanner thought those affected would be well advised to pay the 2s Gd per acre and get freedom from floods. Mr Law: The river now makes a sweep of one mil'e whereas the distance can be reduced to 8 chains —the length of the cut. , . j The chairman (Mr W. S. Carter) ex- I Tilained that the Board could not really, give permission for the cut until an J amendment was made to the Act, for'' the reason that at present the Buckley Board could not indemnify the River Board. However, the Board were seekr ing an amendment of the Act that would simplify river board activities in that respect. Mr Law asked that the River Board approve of the scheme. The chairman stated that the River Board was prepared to go on with such cuts as the Buckley Board suggestel just so soon -as they could get indemnity from the local body affected. The amendment to the Act would provide for that. The ■ Makerua Board had asked for something similar. There was j no doubt that if the cut was put m it would be a wonderful relief to the Koputaroa. Mr A. Seifert thought the Buckley j Board should be given permission to fix up its banks. They .had the line of the River Board's work. He moved that the meeting'approve of the BuckIcy scheme so that they ,could go ahead .with bank protection. . The motion was carried.