OXFORD-TO-SEA SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25932, 12 October 1949, Page 3

OXFORD-TO-SEA SCHEME

FARMERS OPPOSE PROPOSAL DEPUTATION WAITS ON EYRE COUNCIL To seek the support of the Eyre County Council for their opposition to the Oxford-to-the-sea drainage scheme, a deputation of Eyre County farmers waited on the council this week. After hearing the deputation, the chairman I (Mr J. E. Horrell) said that the councillors had differing opinions about the proposal, but as a body the council . wished to withhold its decision. The deputation, comprising Messrs J. Matson (Ohoka), W. Bradley (West Eyreton). J. Madelcy (Clarkville). R. Catherwood (Swannanoa). R. Bennett (Eyreton), and G. Brown (Clarkville), was introduced by Cr. C. M. Harman, who said that many farmers were conI cerned about the possibility of the scheme being imposed without their being able to record their opposition. It was satisfied that if the original drainage scheme in the district was restored to good order it would be capable of handling the problems, said Mr Matson. The experts had made their decision during extremely wet years, when the rainfall was as high , as 37 inches annually. If they in- 1 spected the district to-day. after a prolonged dry spell, they might be of a different mind. Mr Madelcy said that after a personal investigation, he thought that if the Eyre was tampered with it would ! affect the underground water over a > large area. He was quite sure .that a , ' large part of Ohoka and Swannanoa depended on the Eyre for underground : water. Other members of the deputation ; I supported these remarks, and most ! I said they knew of very few farmers . | who were in favour of the scheme. Mr ( | Catherwood said all his farmer neigh- ' bours were against the proposal. An- | other complaint against the scheme c j was its expense, said members. ■ l One of the main troubles appeared to 1 . be that the ratepayers had never been ; I taken into the confidence of the authors | of the scheme, said Cr. W. F. Ashe. He I suggested that a referendum might be ! advisable. ; | The chairman. Mr Horrell. said he I . was one of those who supported the : scheme. Possibly one of the main : I troubles was that the scheme was not. t i p’roperly understood. After the recent meeting at Ohoka. when officers of the i ■ North Canterbury Catchment Board I explained the scheme, several farmers 1 [ withdrew their opposition. The cost of the diversion of the Eyre was much I less than the cost of cleaning the bed 1 properly. There was also the Cust 1 | main drain to consider. I “I might say that during my term on the council I have always tried to taken the broadest possible view, and ' I I can honestly say that if this scheme | is not gone on with I can see some ' | enormous problems ahead of this [ council.” said Mr Horrell. After the deputation had withdrawn. Mr Horrell gave four main reasons : for his qualified support of the scheme. ! They were: (1) tremendous expenditure ; ; would be needed on the Eyre river, i otherwise there was a serious possi- ! bility of disaster if a big flood came: I (2) no other method of controlling the ■ main drain erosion and outlet ap- , 1 peared reasonable; (3) the serious posii tion at Bennetts creek; and (4) the I problems of Colliers creek. The qualifications related to the underground I water and Ihe proposed “shingle pad--1 dock” at the point of diversion of the Eyre. 1 | Cr. Harman said that a stalemate ap- . i peared to exist at present, because Mr ■ Machin had said he would not hold ; j meetings until the whole of the subi sidy was available, and Mr Semple had said that the subsidy would not be completed until there was agree1 ment about the scheme.