MID-CANTERBURY DRAINAGE

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23444, 26 September 1941, Page 8

MID-CANTERBURY DRAINAGE

♦- Ashburton-Hinds Scheme < MINISTER’S OFFER TO DEPUTATION (P.R.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 25. Suggesting a subsidy of £ for £, the Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) told a deputation to day that a complete scheme for the drainage of the area of 96,000 acres in the Ashbur-ton-Hinds district could be gone on with as quickly as possible on that basis. ; , A subsidy of £3 to £1 was sought by the deputation, which was representative of farmers and the Ashburton County Council. While the Treasury and the Public Works Department suggested'that settlers should find two-thirds of the money, the Minister for Public Works (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said that from remarks made by the Minister for Railways (the Hon. R. Semple) and himself at Ashburton nearly three months ago, the settlers were entitled to believe that the subsidy would be substantial. “It is prettty hard to meet when the Minister responsible turns round and says that we could have been expected legitimately to do more,” said Mr Nash, in making his new offer. i “The deputation asked that all precedents be set aside, that the Minister’s promise should be put into'cl'iect, and that immediate steps should be taken to undertake the drainage of this very valuable area,” said Mr T. D. Burnett, M.P. Mr S. E. Taylor (chairman of the County Council) said many responsible farmers were now concerned that seepage from the Rangitata diversion irrigation race would have a very grave consequence. The springs between the Ashburton and Rangitata rivers were at an enormously high level and the settlers were forced to the conclusion that when the irrigation scheme was turned on their troubles would be accentuated. The settlers be - lieved that the Government would honour to the full the promise made by Messrs Armstrong and Semple that the water would not be turned into the irrigation canal until the drainage problem had been handled. Dual Scheme The drainage scheme was a dual one, one part being the clearing of the Hinds river, which could not carry any additional water at flood times, Mr Armstrong said. He had to be honest and say that the statements made by Mr Semple and him at Ashburton had been correctly represented. They had not promised what the Government’s subsidy would be, but they had agreed that the drainage should be completed before the water went into the race. It was only fair to say that the remarks led settlers to believe that the Government would'be a little more liberal than some departments had suggested. In all fairness, landowners and the local body should be called upon to contribute a larger amount than that suggested by the deputation. Some of the most valuable land in the Dominion would be benefited enormously by the drainage scheme, which would cost 6s an acre. The repayment would be hardly noticeable. Ho considered that the settlers were unnecessarily alarmed about future imgation seepage. The Minister for Agriculture (the Hon. J. G. Barclay) said he had intended to make an inspection of the land. When told that the general rate was ;/d on the capital value, he said he knew of some lands paying sd. It appeared to him that the Ashburton settlers could' well afford to create a drainage board, with the Government’s assistance. It seemed that the problem was two-fold and he thought it would be wise to leave out the question of seepage from irrigation. Even if there had been no irrigation scheme, the settlers would have had their drainage problems. The problem was complicated by the fact that Messrs Armstrong and Semple had both stated that no advantage would be taken of work on the foothills until something was done with the drainage at the bottom end. • -Was it correct to say That if the drainage was done the land would have an added value? Members of the deputation had added the productive value. Paying for Benefits Mr Nash discussed individual, local, and national interests in keeping the land at its maximum productivity. The question was whether the owner of the land or the collective area should benefit from the expenditure of public money or whether people who got the .benefit should pay. The Treasury and the Public Works Department had considered the scheme and said that the owners should pay two-thirds of the cost. The settlers considered that the Government should pay threequarters of the cost. -Mr Armstrong had already suggested that the drainage be done on a 50-50 basis. He did not want to argue. He thought the Treasury's report was quite honest, and that a subsidy of £1 for £2 was fair. •‘Will you take it straight out that you are going to find half of the cost?” asked Mr Nash. “On that basis the job should be gone on with as quickly as possible, to get it done.” ‘ "That won’t be easy. Mr Nash,” said Mr W. L. Newnham, Engineer-in Chief of the Public Works Department. Mr Nash replied that it was for the department and others to work out the best way of carrying out the scheme, which embraced the clearing of the Hinds river, cut-offs, and drainage. While he was disappointed with the subsidy offered, said Mr Burnett, he appreciated that Mr Nash had made his offer as man to man. Mr Armstrong said his view was that the river-cleaning scheme could be left over in the meantime.