WAIMAKARIRI RIVER TRUST.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18591, 16 January 1926, Page 15

WAIMAKARIRI RIVER TRUST.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE MESS." Sir,—l haive read Mr Morgan 'Williams's letter in to-day's ''Press" upon, this matter. As a City man motoring up the North road during the holidays,

I was amazed to seo that the scheme proposed to be adopted by the liiver ] Hoard with- regard to diverting the ( AVaimakariri lliver takes a considerable area of what must be amongst the mosfc fertile and valuable farm lands in the Dominion. I do not think that the people generally really understand what is proposed to 'be done by the lliver Trust in carrying out the No! 2 scheme. The taking of this land will be a distinct loss to

Canterbury for all time. It -would be M interesting to know what produce tho , laud proposed to b© taken has grown t. since it has been brought under culti- ® 6 vation. Ido not suppose that any a tract of land in the Dominion has pro- e duced more than the tract of land pro- 11 posed to. be taken. "When one remembers that the scheme proposed to be adopted was an alterna- '1 tive scheme, and that the original No. d 1 scheme was to utilise the ojd riverbed and. go over Irishman's Flat and p tako land which is not good farming E land, and most of which is old river- S bed, one can only express surprise at ic the adoption of the No. 2 ■ scheme. People taking an interest in public w affairs and whose properties will bo u rated should see for themselves what! s j land is proposed to be taken —look at c; the old riverbed and Irishman's Plat through which the No. 1 scheme would go, and then ask themselves if from a business point of view a very grave mistake is not being made.

I understand engineering opinion is about equally divided between the two schemes. , If this ba so, it is surprising that the waste land which would be j dealt with by the No. 1 scheme is not used rather than destroying valuable farm property together with houses and fann buildings by the No. 2 scheme. . As an instance of what that liver will do on this loose friable land, one has only to look at tho cutting from the cutting bridge. This cutting arose from' a mere six-foot cutting in triable soil — it is noiv three-quarters of a mile wide in certain places. Once the Waimakariri is, by tho No. '2 scheme, turned into an artificial channel constructed 1 on similar loose friable land, can any engineer say that it is not going to despoil further land than is at present contemplated ? How is it proposed to hold it in check ? The matter from the point of view of production is 60 important that the people who have to express an opinion, upon the matter and whose properties will bo rated for this important work, ought to make themselves fully acquainted with what is proposed to be done. I am informed (and I should like to know if it be a fact), that one prominent member of the Board who voted in favour of the No. 2 scheme, has already admitted that when voting for it he had no idea that it took away such a large block of valuable farming land. —.Yours, etc., cm* MAN. Christehurch, January loth, 1920.