RIVER PROTECTION.

Shannon News, 5 November 1929, Page 2

RIVER PROTECTION.

MANAWATU-OROUA, SCHEME,

Speaking on the Public Works Statement in the House of Representatives, Mr Linklatcr (Manawatu) made the following reference to the ManawatuOroua Drainage Board’s scheme: “There is one important matter to which I wish to refer before this debate ends, and that is with regard to the Manawatu-Oroua river protection scheme. I would like the Minister to

say what decision the Government has come to concerning the request for a pound for pound subsidy for this great work of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board. It is a matter of very great concern to the settlers in the low-ly-ing portion of the Manawatu district, because almost every year thousands of acres of the best land in New Zea-

land is flooded. It should be also a matter of great concern to the Dominion as a whole, owing to the stoppage of production from the flooded areas. During last winter, no less than seven farms were flooded for over six weeks, so that the position is indeed serious. On the western side of the river, the protection works have been carried out to a great extent by flie settlers themselves and by private enterprise, but on the eastern side, the Makerua Drainage Board has constructed twenty-three miles of liver bank, giving protection to 37,000 acres of this very fine land. That land is being very closely settled, and the Minister of Public Works knows it well, because lie toured the district recently. In 1926 a Commission "was set up to investigate the matter, consisting of

Messrs Koch, Leighton and Watson. The Commission was to enquire what public benefit would accrue from the scheme and what amount should be the Gov-

ernment subsidy. The complete scheme was to cost £450,000 and the Commission concluded, after sitting several weeks and taking very complete evidence, that £201,000 should bo the Government contribution. However, the Board, after deliberation, considered that the sum that remained to be ' provided by the ratepayers was too large, and decided £o modify the scheme. The modified scheme is esti-

mated to cost £300,000, and the Government has been asked for a subsidy of £150,000, spread over five years. This scheme would provide for a cut of the river which would lessen the dis- ‘ tance to the sea by 20 miles. The

flooded area would be very much relieved by the construction of this cut, and I hope the Minister will see his way to give the proposed subsidy. The honourable gentleman knows the condition of the country that would be

opened for settlement if some effective scheme were carried out that would cause immunity from flooding, and I .ask the Minister if he cannot answer my question to-night, to let the Board have the Government’s decision on this important matter at the earliest possible date.”