EROSION IN N.Z.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 69, Issue 264, 20 August 1949, Page 6

EROSION IN N.Z.

Defence of Commission CRITICISM OF CATCHMENT BOARDS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 10. A stout defence of the findings of the Sheep Industry Commission on soil erosion in New Zealand farmlands, was made in the "Legislative Counfcil this afternoon by Mr K. Eddy (Wellington), who was a member of the commission.

Mr Eddy said that maps, examined by the commission showed allegedly, eroded areas were quite wrong in many instances, and were gross exaggerations of the true position. The tactless methods adopted by some catchment board officers had antagonised farmers. The erosion problem was nothing like it was represented to be by ‘catchment board propaganda.” Mr Eddy said lie believed that with the co-operation of the Public Works Department and county councils, erosion could be prevented without the need for catchment boards to send men out with theodolites and theories.

“Catchment boards are the best propagandists in the world,” Mr Eddy said. “The CommunisY Party has nothing on them. They purport to be the friend of the farmer, but when a man comes along and says he has the power to take a couple of your paddocks without compensation, it’s liable to make anyone see a little red.” He had noticed that one catchment board member had said that if they did not get some money they would have to close down, said Mr Eddy. That might Tie a good way of getting rid of them. He acknowledged that catchment boards had done a good job, particularly in Canterbury, Manawatu and on the East Coast, but he considered nothing they had done could not have been accomplished by co-operation between the Public Works Department, county councils and farmers.

Mr Eddy emphasised the' need for spreading superphosphate in high country in order to encourage new growth after pests had been controlled. and urged the need for more labour, roads and modern amenities, including electricity. Much relief could come from the pool account, in which farmers alleged there/were £43,000,000. The low country farmer relied greatly on a supply of sheep for fattening from the high .country.therefore the high country men had a legitimate claim upon the pool account, Mr Eddv said. Mr F. Waite (Balclutha) agreed with Mr Eddy on the question of erosion, asserting that such propaganda was a boomerang “thrown back” to theoreticians by the commission.” Lie advocated the utmost supplies of lime and superphosphate for hill country, and considered that the Soil Conservation Council and most catchment boards had done a good job.