LAKE ELLESMERE DRAINAGE.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20905, 12 July 1933, Page 15

LAKE ELLESMERE DRAINAGE.

TO THE CDITOB 07 TES P&ZB3 Sir,—May I be indulged in to the extent of having another tilt in the lists about Lake Ellesmere drainage? A promoter of the scheme has not yet retracted the statement that reclamation would be carried bo far as to leave only 10,000 acres of water. At a subsequently date a meeting was reported in your columns in which the statement was made that 38,000 acres of water would remain. Although Professor Percival was quoted as an authority on game and fish in the first statement, he, in answer to questions put to him in a letter, based his assumptions from data obtained during an 18 months' biological survey of the lake, understanding that the lake would remain at normal low level. Normally, according to his findings, there exists 10 to 12 times more food than is necessary for the existing stock of fish. Before that can be assumed there must be some fairly accurate estimate of the head of fish in the lake, their number, average size, rate of growth, fertility, capacity for food, etc. This will necessarily include all classes of fish, both anadromous and katadromous, large and small, flat and round, from silveries and bullies to eels and flounders. The smallest fish have to feed, and many of them in turn provide food for the larger. As the lake exists to-day, it provides employment for a certain number of professional fishermen fishing for flounders and mullet. It has been netted extensively of late by many of the unemployed. Fourteen thousand trout taken last season, averaging 31b, is not an inconsiderable item of food supply, apart from the other benefits derived from angling for them. On the bird side we hardly need so much biological survey to know what will happen if the lake area is reduced to any extent. Even birds are competitors for fish food in that many of tnem feed on the weeds which harbour the smaller fish and forms of fish food. It is inevitable that there will be an immense reduction, if not total loss, of black swan, grey duck, blue heron, bittern, pukeko, and stilts, to mention only a few of the native birds whose beauty, rarity, peculiarity, and utility are daily being dinned into our ears. The last qualification has also some bearing on the productivity of the water. Recently there appeared in your columns a report on the geological survey of the surrounding land and lake bottom by Dr. Marshall, for the Public Works Department. Besides telling the composition of the soils their potash and salts content, etc., he declared them good for agricultural purposes, and said that upwards of 100,000 acres can be improved and reclaimed. Subsequent to that at another meeting, a speaker was somewhat i concerned as to what might occur to land laid bare and exposed to weather, fearing the soil would blow off. but he was assured that it was unlikely, although it might not grow grass for | two or three years. Now, is all this I scheme to be carried out to grow ! grass? Good arable land to be turned over to grass, of which there is more than enough for all the farmers in New Zealand! It looks very like In this instance that what was said early in the controversy is without doubt true: water can be farmed just as land can, and its productivity can equal, and often exceed, that of land. Ar® we to understand from Dr. Marshall s statement that the possibilities of reclamation are within the scope of the proposed scheme, and, i 1 so, will the Progress League stop at the 38,000-acre mark, 'or is all this but the beginning of the end of Lake Ellesmere. But in the construction of a mole on an ocean beach, exposed at an times to the fury of the Pacific and accumulation of drift shingle from a mighty river like the Rakaia, it occurs to the lay mind that the first sensible step to be taken is a hydrographical survey of an extensive length of coast line. It looks as if. with the money at disposal, the scheme would be a farce, like the diversion of the Waimakariri mouth. Less than oO miles from here there is a mole which can hardly be called an unqualified success, and at about the same distance there is a part of Blueskin Bay which it was suggested should be reclaimed at Waitati. Twice a day it is an unsightly mud flat. It might be made useful at little cost, £ut the scheme fell through. In Lake Ellesmere we have a national asset of extraordinary value, and to tamper or tinker with it to diminish its possibilities would be a grave error, I think. Yours, etc., JQHN maCONIE. Dunedin, July 11, 1933.

TO THI EDITOB Of THE PMSi. Sir,—l should like to assure Mr Gread that I am not opposed to draining the lake and giving relief from flooding to lakeside farmers In my letter of July 8 I pointed out my position as regards the factors which I considered affected the efficiency of the projected mole, since this course appeared necessary, and stressed the importance of the erosion on various sections of the coastline from Timaru north. I might even have gone as far south as Oamaru. If the scheme has foreseen the effects of this, and taken steps to obviate it, then I am completely satisfied on that point. I even expect it to be maintained that the danger is illusory, as Mr Gread evidently thinks, but knowing that there is a difficulty, I should be failing in my duty if I did not point it out I am not concerned with the political or financial aspect of the case except as an ordinary ratepayer who likes to see public schemes well thought out before operations are commSome's3 years ago I walked across the spit which blocks the entrance to Lake Forsyth, dodging the waves, so you see-my length of experience is almost as long .as Mr Gread s Some of the contentions in his letter are not clear to me, hut that may be my fault. The apparent stability of the spit near Taumutu does not satisfy me that no erosion occurs there, for material eroded from the beach is carried over into the lake, adding to it on that side, and thus maintaining an appearance of absence of change. However, we are evidently entirely agreed on what is happening at the mouth of Lake Forsyth.-Yours, etc., B. SPEIGHT. July 11, 1933. TO THE EDtTOB 01 THE fBIBS. ! Sir,—Once again will you kindly tolerate me in advocating the permanent drainage of Lake Ellesmere? After a period of 40 years since the lands were taken up and provision was made for permanent drainage, we have arrived at the opportune time when the work should be carried out without further delajr. The survey and estimates for a job that will satisfy all parties concerned have been submitted to the settlers, and unanimously approved, and we feel that when they are carried out it will be the last of a 40 years' claim against the Government for specific performance of contract. If it happens that the just claims of the settlers are turned down, then I would say that the law of| specific performance should be repealed, as it is binding by law among private individuals, and I do not think I the Almighty would absolve the Gov-1 ernment from the binding conditions I of. a written contract, as certified in clause 107 of the Land Act, 1893. Aside from all written claims, if I were a member of the Government it would be a claim I could not turn down without a twinge of conscience. The survey has been careful and complete, all the ifs, pros, and cons carefully considered. In addition, the Government slogan since the war has always been "Produce more." Well, when we get our lands they will eventually become

famous in production of clover, which is one of the best paying crops on a farm, and it flourishes on the Ellesmere lands.

I have just been reading a letter in your issue of July 6 by a "Sporting Farmer." I class him as a very poor sport; it seems to be sour grapes that are troubling him. Nobody stopped him from going to the ballot when the settlement was started. He does not seem to know what he is talking about when he says that large blocks of a 1000 acres are held at 6d an acre. After the settlement was first started it was found that there was still a large area left at a low level, all below the level of two feet above zero, and the occupiers only get it on an average of once in three years for a few months. It was only usable by men who had other lands, and they got it at 9d an acre. For myself, I have already paid £l2 an acre, and the rent goes on for ever, so what has the "Sporting Farmer" to complain about? My holding is a small one, and I took it up to supplement my earnings at a time when wages were 7s a day. I found it very hard to get off the storekeeper's books, and felt lucky to get a clean sheet after harvest once a year. But as a penalty for settling at Ellesmere my children lost their education, and after spending £4 an acre, when I asked for a loan of £SO under the Advances to Settlers Act to build with, I was told that I had not sufficient security for the smallest sum that they could lend, £25, and if they took it back at surrender value I could only get £1 an acre. . Some years later, when Sir Joseph Ward was speaking at Little River, 1 happened to be at the meeting, and, as usual, government benefactions to workers cropped up. I tried in an interval to tell Sir Joseph my experi--1 ence in trying to sample government benefactions. I said that my expen- ! ence was that one party would give lit to you in the eye, and was proceeding to say what another _ would do when Dr. Thacker, an aspirant for political honour at that time, stamped the floor with a big stick, and blocked me from finishing my sentence. I I was going to say that the other party would deliver the knock-out; but l gaw Sir Joseph after the meeting, and explained the drainage question as being a hardship to the Ellesmere settlement, and he expressed his sympathy, and promised, when opportunity offered, that he would be glad to do what he could. I feel that if he were here now with surveys and estimates available, he would do it now; To that there is a peat chance for our Government to win laurels, for when it drains the waters of Ellesmere our children will rise up and bless it.— Yours, etc., p GREAD. Ataahua, July 7, 1933. I