ASHLEY RIVER CONTROL

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26985, 10 March 1953, Page 11

ASHLEY RIVER CONTROL

Flood Protection Discussed RATEPAYERS SEEK ACTION .„£ ?h,ey river control and flood protection were discussed until 11 o'clock ?™ eve . nir ! g at a meeting of ratepayers lJ om ?, ts tower reaches at Woodend More than 100 attended, and though no ®S r,s Yr re r ade ' most present wiUmg to accept the higher North Canterbury Catchment Board rating proposed. A good number were keen that the rating boundary should b® extended to include the whole of the Ashley watershed. Th® meeting had been called on much the same grounds as a petition recently presented, said the chairman the Catchment Board (Mr H. B. Anderson), an invited speaker. He expressed the board’s concern about the losses suffered in the Ashley floods and its determination that they should not be reneated. In April, 1951, the Ashley river account had a credit of £3120, Mr Anderson said. A year later it had dwindled to £759 through the ex(with a Government subsid v of three to one) of £13,259 on flood repairs and little maintenance. Up to last December another £9250 gross spent leaving £240, and £45,000 was required, to reinstate the ?A m « ge of the floods in January. Of this figure the district fund would have to provide £12,000 apart from the sub?iaY- Ashley river rates now brought m £3750 a year, rents £290, and £? yalt . ies £250 > a total of L 4? Ashley river area must £3(XIO a year to wipe out that £12,000 and £3OOO for ordinary maintenance of protection. The board had suggested that not less than £6OOO might be sought locally for flood reP air » and that the Government be asked for a grant of £21,735 so that the debts could be paid off in two years and provide £3OOO for maintenance. In Wellington it was found that there was little hope of a gift from the Government apart from the subsidy. . Uhe Ashley rate was one of the lowest m New Zealand, Mr Anderson With tables reading down A, C, etc., land classifications Ashley --‘d and .3d; the Manawatu 2.4 d, q n?ij an d; Gisborne area 4.6 d, n olB< l’,lJ 7< i’.' BBd ’ and - 35 d; Hawke’s Bay 2.12 d, 1.69 d, 1.27 d, ,85d, ,21d, and dd: .Ashburton 2d. Id, and ,sd; and South Oran IJd, 9-16 d, and 9-32 d on n&w valuations, which were lower than the old starting at 2|d: and Opihi (comparable in value with the 2?’ 1 - 6 d» L2d - - 6d « and -4d. Mr Anderson traced the estj&lishment of the Ashley scheme by the Government and the damage and cost of successive flooding and the board’s pla ° to expand staff and divide the northern area for closer attention. Secret of Ashley Control

The chief engineer of the Catchment Board (Mr H. M. Reid) described the design of the first Ashley scheme with a channel tapering from 2000 ft to 900 ft near the mouth, to take 44,000 cusecs and 70,000 cusecs with no freeboard. In 1936 a big flood caused the railway bridge to be widened and the banks lifted to take 100,000 cusecs safely. Although no accurate gauging had been done it was claimed that 100,000 cusecs had been exceeded. The Ministry of Works years ago had urged the importance of keeping the channel clear and maintaining the groynes which were the secret of Ashley control, Mr Reid said.

Developments in the January flood were described by Mr Reid; Had the railway embankment held, not much water would have got through, he said. As it was it saved water getting into the Cam and. down to Kaiapoi. Unfortunately plant could not be .got through * for some days to mend ’ the main break, but when it did the board’s men worked 33 hours continuously to turn the river and £lOOO a day was being spent. He mentioned the lack of maintenance through shortage of money. / “The Catchment Board was set up to deal with these rivers and from what

we have heard the job has not been done,” said Mr L. B. Scott, first of the local speakers. “W’e want to know what will be done. We are not bucking at paying,” said Mr Scott. “We want others to pay their share. Everybody’s water drains into the Ashley and we poor devils at the bottom get the lot. Steps should be taken to prevent us being in that position.” Mr Duncan Petrie, who presided, said ratepayers wanted protection and wanted to know the board’s proposals. No reconstructed plan for the Ashley had been considered, said' Mr Anderson. The board was not convinced that the present control was not up to requirements. “I can’t promise that we have a remedial scheme in the immediate offing,” he repeated. Adequate maintenance was the essential.

Answering a barrage of questions, Mr Reid said the board needed more surveys to come to any fresh decision. All this took time. If he had been in the position of the flooded farmers he would have been exceeding their swearing. . “You’d have had a hard job, one man cried. “I’ve had the advantage of being m the Army,” said Mr Reid. Lengthening the Rangiora bridge was suggested. “How long would that take and how much would it cost?” asked Mr Reid. The bridge would take all the water that came down in January. He doubted whether it exceeded 50,000 cusecs. The bridge had 9800 to 9900 square feet of waterway. To approve four new spans costing £24,000 a strong case would have to be advanced. Even then more embankments would be needed. If the bridge was shifted, he was certain men would want to shift it back in 20 years. Mr Petrie said the river’s normal route was round the end of the bridge. Aggregation of Shingle Asked about the effect of shingle building up, Mr Reid said this aggregation was one of the biggest problems of river control in New Zealand. Aerial photographs gave a good picture of what was happening. After a nice meander the river came to an island near the bridge which swung it at right angles into the south bank. “We think we are on to it and have an idea to force the stream on to the north bank,” said Mr Reid. “We don’t want it,” said a resident of that neighbourhood. “I’ve put my foot in it,” replied Mr Reid. “I mean along the north bank instead of directly into the south bank. If we can get ahead with plans I am certain the banks will hold.” “I, for one, am disappointed with this meeting,” said Mr* J. Tutton. “I thought we would hear some real policy.” After expressing his views he moved that a waterway be provided under the railway embankment to lead flood water into the rubbish dump and then back into the river as a buffer, but there was no seconder. Mr J. Wesley complained about the board taking shingle from the upper side of the groynes at Waikuku, causing, he alleged, undermining. “As one who gets most of the flooding in the ponding area I say it is no good making stopbanke unless the channel is cleared,” said Mr C. W. Humm. “For the love of Mike increase the rates and let’s get some protection. Most of us losers would pay a mighty good rate. Clear the channel, loosen the islands, and the river will take them away.” Supporters of Mr Humm agreed that men were willing to )say. It seemed that the scheme could be effective if maintained, but the board had always run out of money, they said. The petition seeking reclassification of the whole area of the watershed of the Ashley river was then mentioned. Mr Reid said that in the new Selwyn scheme this was planned. “I don’t know how the high-country 'men will feel about paying for work down toward Ellesmere,” he said. “All Should Contribute” All the flood water came from the Ashley County which paid only £2O in river rates, said Mr Petrie. All people along the river should contribute. Reclassification was done every six years, Mr Anderson explained. The area could not be enlarged unless a new all-embracing scheme was pre-

pared, which would require much investigation. The board’s whole survey staff had been eight months oh the Selwyn getting data before designing was even attempted. The hill-country men would then have to be persuaded to accept inclusion. At present the board had pbwer only to increase the rate in the present Ashley rating district. Classification simply defined the extent of vulnerability. Ashley members of the board were invited to speak. Mr C. S. Ayres criticised limitations of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act. If rating areas could not be enlarged the act should be altered. In his opinion much trouble arose from the Ashley being squeezed within narrower banks in its lower reaches. He discussed south bank protection. “What about the north bank?” asked one of the audience.

“That’s got Mt. Grey,” Mr Ayres replied amid laughter. “Is Mr Ayres in favour of the Rangiora borough being A classification?” said a questioner. “I’ll tell you this,” he began. “Answer,” cried the audience. ‘‘This requires a careful answer,” said Mr Ayers amid more interjections. “We pay 20 times more per acre than you do in the country,” he finally answered amid daughter. Mr Hugh Petrie, another district member of the board, said a new scheme must come “to rope in the whole watershed.” The more floods there were in* the Ashley the more ridiculous the Oxford-to-the-sea scheme appeared, he said. He could not see the Rangiora bridge banks or the railway embankment holding better, and thought the relief cut under the railway would be helpful. “The question is what will be done?” said Mr A. Turnbull. • “I don’t know,’’ Said Mr Reid. Without complete data he would make no promises. Asked what increased rates would go to. he said: “First to paying off the money spent already—about £14,000 to £15,000 so far.”

Mr C. W. Humm’s motion to approve a rate increase met objections that without notice it could not be presented.

Mr E. J. Stalker, chairman of the board’s finance committee, closed the discussion. His committee Suggested an increase of 45 per cent, for the Ashley rate, he said. Half would be required for maintenance and half to pay off flood repairs, which would take four years, without a Government gift. The Government had given £250,000 for overseas flood relief, but such gestures would be possible only as long as rivers did not depreciate production. “Over any area we can only rate for benefit received,” he explained.