CATCHMENT BOARD

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24261, 19 May 1944, Page 6

CATCHMENT BOARD

POWERS UNDER ACT MR MACHINES ADDRESS “This new local body concerns everybody living in the area between Waipara and the south bank of the Rakaia river who owns a house, or a farm, 01 business premises, or is thinking of tuying or renting this kind of property/' said Mr W. Machin. a candidate for the North Canterbury Catchment Board, at a meeting of electors at Mount Pleasant last evening. ‘‘The board can put a first charge on all this property equal to one-fifth of its capital value (a charge of £2OO on a £IOOO house, or £IOOO on a £SOOO farm or business). The very large rating powers of the board extended to two and three-eighths pence in the £ on all capital values, which is almost exactly 1 per cent., or alternatively 3s 2d in the £ on annual values. It may vary the rate it levies on certain districts, but it may levy up to an average over the whole area of the amounts stated, said Mr Machin. ‘‘This means that it may collect from Christchurch ratepayers £300.000 a year. Sumner £IO.OOO, Riccarton £21,000, Heathcote County £18,600, Paparoa County £22,400, Waimairi County £57,000. These are large sums of money, and heavy impositions on householders. A house with an annual value of £97 10s, or 37s 6d a week, may be charged £ls 8s a year. A farm valued at £4OOO may be charged £39 12s a year. . “These charges on property are becoming so large that buyers must, in future, take them into consideration in the prices they will offer, especially when a buyers’ market comes again. If one has a farm for sale at £4OOO a buyer will inevitably say ‘the first £BOO may not belong to him at all--It may belong to the Catchment Board, because he may have to pay an annual charge of £39 12s to hold it, and this is 5 per cent, on £Boo.’ “The act says it is designed to make provision for the conservation of soil resources and for the prevention of damage by erosion, and to protect property from damage by floods. “The cost may be a payment in cash of 1 Pf. r cent, per annum, so those who framed the act considered it would cost every property owner the full value of his property (in rates, plus simple interest) every .46 years or so, in order to protect it. “Neither experience nor reason confirms this. Therefore it is imperative that men elected to the boards shall be trained and capable men, who will not be led away on wild-cat schemes, nor spend money for the sake of spending just because this act gives them the power to take it from property owners, both big and little. “Much Investigation Required” “Much investigation of a preliminary character will be required, and most careful study of the necessities of this area of New Zealand, together with the history of successes and failures in those countries which have made experiments in flood control. This is aneconomic question, and there must be no spending of pounds to save halfpence, and no spending for political reasons. I should like to see competent investigation of the possibilities of combining hydro-electric schemes—such as Otarama, and irrigation projects with river control and soil conservation—so that one may possibly help to pay for the other, and strengthen the control. This is a much more prudent and businesslike method of conducting public affairs, if it is at all possible, than merely dipping into the pockets of citizens who may require all their earnings in the days to come to meet necessary expenses against possible diminishing returns. “Much foolishness has been talked about reclothing the mountains with verdure and restoring the everlasting /hills which have slipped. This may go down from political platforms, but it will serve us better to follow the solid research workers who indicate more sober and less spectacular methods in restoring and preserving at commensurate cost the economic balance of nature.”