RIVER ENCROACHMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2430, 26 November 1892, Page 4

RIVER ENCROACHMENT.

At the special meeting of the Geraldine County Council on Wednesday, after Mr Talbot had spoken in reference to the request of the Pleasant Point deputation for river protective works (as reported in our last issue), Mr Quinn said he was surprised ct the deputation coming to the council and asking them to turn the river under the bridge. A previous deputation had been refused assistance in protecting land, and now they tried to get it by a side-wind, talking about the river and the bridge, and saying nothing about the land. It was not straightforward, for there could be no doubt that what was meant was the protection of property. Mr Quinn mentioned other settlers along the river who had gone to expense themselves in protecting their farms, Mr Aspinall had spent £6O; Mr D. Hoare, of Kerrytown, Mr Oldfield, and Mr Fitzgerald had spent considerable sums; so he had himself. If the council began this work there would be no end to it, and all those who had laid out money themselves would be entitled to a refund. It was no doubt .a serious matter for the people concerned, and he wished the council could help them in an impartial manner, but he did not see how they could do so. While sympathising with them, the council had to do its duty by the ratepayers generally, and could not give the assistance asked for. Mr Barker agreed with the previous speakers. It was impossible for the council to spend their ordinary revenue on local matters. He came from a district where no part was threatened by rivers, and he did not see how the ratepayers of that district could be asked for money to protect other localities. The people of the Point bought their land subject to these risks, and if the river threatened to flood them out he did not see who else should pay for preventing it. It was a great pity, and he fully sympathised with them, but their danger was not an affair for the County Council to consider. The sooner they formed a river board the better.

Mr Howell wished to point out that in this case a board was impracticable. The district above the township was small and poor, and the ratepayers there could not form a river board themselves, and the people down below, who were not in such immediate danger’, were not likely to join. It was difficult to say how far the river could damage the district, and the limits ef probable danger would have to be decided before a board could be formed. If the people above could get those below to join there would not be much difficulty, but that was just the difficulty. It was the fact that the turning of the river under the bridge was made a feature of the meeting at the Point. If the river could be turned for a slight expenditure it might be tried as an experiment. Colonel Eichbaum said they made no claim for protection of property at all. He too could name persons who had spent money in protecting their properties; he had himself spent £l5O, and he would not dream of asking the council to protect his property. Mr Morris spoke of the uselessness of the bridge in time of flood. Surely, the bridge being there, they were bound to keep the water under it. He had been stuck up by the river, and mentioned others. It seemed to him any person would have a claim against the council if anything happened to him in the river. Mr Talbot thought it was impossible to say that protective works two miles away would turn the river under the bridge. Mr Howell quoted from the engineer’s report, showing the great danger of serious damage being done. It was this danger, and the practical impossibility of forming a river board, that altered his view. As to turning the river under the bridge he did not look upon that as a very serious matter, for if there were no bridge the council would certainly not build one. In reply to Mr Talbot, Mr Marchant said that he could not give an opinion as to the result of the suggested works in turning the river permanently. Mr Talbot said they might then spend £250 there, without the slightest effect upon the river at the bridge. Mr Marchant said it was a very bad river indeed, as there was no channel, no terrace to confine it. The expenditure mentioned might be successful in turning the river, and on the other hand it was just as likely that the river would strike in again below the works, and make the situation as bad as ever. When the guestion of the stock bridge came up rat, he suggested that it would be better to turn the river by works extending up stream from the bridge, but the council thought that a stock bridge would be a surer way of obviating the difficulty of crossing stock in flood times, as protective works might not stand. Mr Talbot suggested that it was possible the next flood would carry the river to the other side.

Mr Mackay: Or through the Point township. Mr Marchant saw nothing to stop it.

Mr Talbot moved and Mr Quinn (seconded—'“ That this council regret that it cannot see its way to accede to the request of the deputation re protective works above the Tongawai bridge on the ground that the council must decline to undertake any responsibility or spend any of its funds for the protection of any private property.” The mover repeated that the request was made in the interests of private property : if thorn had been no private property in danger fcliflV would never have had such a deputation.

Mr Howell moved and Mr Balfom' secondedasan amondineiit.-“Tlmfc considering the urgency of immediately proteciing the banka of the Teng-iwai in the interests of the district, and also as an experiment in training the river under the traffic bridge, the work suggested by the engineers be carried out.” On being put to the vote the amendment was lost, and Mr Talbot’s motion carried by 4 votes to 2.