Wairarapa Times- Age MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1941. FARMERS & RIVER CONTROL.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 22 September 1941, Page 4

Wairarapa Times- Age MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1941. FARMERS & RIVER CONTROL.

(GENERAL support was given by members of both main parties in the House of Representatives to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Bill, but when the Bill was being considered in Committee, some Opposition'members took the alarmist view that it would expose struggling hill farmers and others to bureaucratic persecution and to oppressive rating and sought to establish safeguards against these supposed dangers, by giving primary producers increased representation on the council which is generally io direct, the administration of the legislation.

No obvious justification appears for the gloomy anticipations entertained and expressed by critics of this latest attempt to deal with the problem of erosion. The Bill establishes powers of control and of rating, but it provides also for the abolition of a large number of rating authorities, many of whom have been muddling ineffectively, over an extended period of years, with problems of river control. As the Bill was drafted, it contained a clause establishing powers to control farming practice and methods as these bear on erosion. This clause has been deleted, but it seems doubtful whether, in working practice, the. deletion will be found to have been justified.

In any case, it is very much in the interests of all farmers, as well as of other sections of the population, that the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Bill should be given a fair working trial. For years past hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent annually in this country in attempts Io set limits to damage by erosion, and for the bulk of this expenditure there has been obtained either a very poor return or no return at all. In light of the experience gained in other countries. where the problem is being handled to much better effect than in New Zealand, it is a strangely pessimistic view that the legislation now approved by the House of Representatives is likely to impose injustice or hardship on the occupiers of land.

Lt may be noted that while the central authority now being se t UD —the council —is to include Public Works Department engineers in its membership, the legislation also provides that the catchment boards which are to control and administer districts throughout the Dominion are in all cases to have at least a majority of members elected in the district concerned. The essential question at stake, however, is less that of representation than the substitution of efficient methods lor iuetlicient and wasteful methods. The duty of the council will be to see that the best engineering skill available is brought to bear upon problems of river control and that the best possible return is obtained for money spent on ■works in this category.

j\s some members of the House of Representatives did not fail to point out, New Zealand is able to show many examples, and results, of bad engineering in bygone years. It certainly does not follow, however, that we should now allow engineering problems to be dealt with by those who have no engineering qualifications. The practical alternative to bad engineering is not inaction or despair, but the employment of competent and efficient engineers.

Nowhere is this bet lor worth while than where problems of river control are concerned. A great deal of what has been accomplished in other countries in that field of enterprise undoubtedly may be applied, profitably and with great advantage, to New Zealand. The most should be made of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Bill as opening the way to development on these lines.