CUST MAIN DRAIN

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24983, 18 September 1946, Page 10

CUST MAIN DRAIN

Sir, —Mr Machin, replying to our letter, has deliberately evaded a serious question by playing the man instead of the ball. Why excavate for a further eight miles? At Fernside, erosion is rife. At Flaxton the water in the drain is above the level of the land. We realise that the diversion will reduce the peak flood risk, but still maintain that a large area at the lower end will get no relief from seepage and bad drainage until after the drain is cleaned. Will nothing be done until after the diversion (four or five years)? If so, what then? Even after the diversion this stream will still be the drainage outlet for a large area of land. Under the diversion scheme we shall have to pay more rates, probably on class A. This we don’t mind, provided we get the immediate relief to enable the land to produce more.— Yours, etc., RAINEY BROS. (Flaxton). GAVIN TURNBULL (Flaxton). F. G. SCHROEDER (Ohoka), A. E. WILLIAMS (Kaiapoi R.M.D.), C. E. PUSCHEL (Ohoka). September 16, 1946. [“Without distinguishing the ball from the man, the simple answer is that a trained engineer, who has known these drainage problems intimately for more than a quarter of a century, and who is supported by other engineers, considers that the solution, propounded by the five who signed the letter, would be entirely inadequate and would be a waste of money,” said Mr W. Machin, chairman of the North Canterbury Catchment Board, in reply. “The solution of the problem lies in the comprehensive drainage scheme, which has been put forward. If this scheme can be commenced by the middle of next year, the farms of these gentlemen should derive benefit within 12 months or so of the commencement. ” This is the simple answer.”]