SELWYN RIVER CONTROL

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27500, 6 November 1954, Page 9

SELWYN RIVER CONTROL

Economic Report Considered

catchment board DISCUSSION

Th short, the yearly cost of the Jni'um is three times that of the risk ' Xrei” Mr c ' Mor H aa Williams, £ aninarising the economic report on g m Selwyn river improvement which was considered at yesf; grdar s meeting °f the North Canter- ' Catchment Board. The report, * said, was all that was needed to g the scheme as utterly un- ■■■■■ gave the farm production B jggft in the 1936, 1945, 1951, and 1953 the major ones since 1923—at a 123138, the value of the land lost at : 2f1040, private bridges at £625, prill lie drains £625, and damage to i tmty roads and highways in 1951 S sd 1953 at £ 7115 - The losses from 17 fl mer floods were assessed at £34.000, | eiost £17.849 for the only flood H easured. that of 21.600 cusecs in 1953. § tout 50 per cent, of the areas flooded fl js fertile soil used for arable fl ming. . . I ffhen the chairman (Mr R. M. D. a fcnson) proposed that the board fl sould go into committee to discuss I e report circulated to members, Mr jUiams expressed his objection. r “This is purely public business and cannot see any reason why we | cold go into committee,” he said. 3s discussion should be in open £ Sard, so that the public could know 1 erything. The ratepayers at the - 1 veil meeting were limited by not f ng the economic report before i; if the report had been available, result of the meeting might have i different. Wholly Factual Report ii the report was wholly factual and S j expression of opinion was con®ed in it, said Professor G. Job- * j gns, supporting Mr Williams. It was fl statement of facts relating to the > dwyn scheme, and he was anxious i avoid going into committee. Mr Johnson: Right I am quite ■ anpy about it ■ Professor Jobberns moved, and Mr Shankland seconded, that the board jnnally adopt the economic report. . congratulating the staff on a very i trough report, Mr Williams said it , ns a balance-sheet with all credits , nd no debits. It translated the losses 4 3 ym floods to present-day values. The s 3 iheme was estimated to cost £431,869, i - loan of £123,000 by the ratepayers j 1 eing required. The total annual pay- * > lent by the ratepayers was £15,399 1 i :d could be compared with an insur- t I ice premium. The total annual cost i as £27.697. Taking the losses over ■ >e last 30 years, the scheme would . revent an annual loss of £9700. Not * m individual on the board would , link of. taking out a policy costing 3 nee times the risk insured. The Seli ynwas about the only river in which J ?■ sre was no loss of soil by erosion, 1 ecause the river did not run to the c a. The soil was deposited in Lake $ | tamere or on the land. 1 Shortage of Labour j “If we were in a depression and t icre were unemployed and resources t ' machinery, there might be some i s ■gument in favour of this, as you < I wild be creating some asset,” said 1 r Williams. ,f ßut the position today i that we are unable to get sufficient < hour fully to utilise the resources we i •vs. If the Selwyn scheme was to be s i ried tomorrow, it could be operated s dy at the expense of other works, ; i e should not jeopardise the work of ] -« Meeting Christchurch, Rangiora, and c S aiapoi. On this report the work, is ; terly uneconomic.” - Mr E. J. Stalker said Mr Williams • d overlooked the value of the land t :fi over the years. Many thousands 1 years would go by before the soil < eposted in Lake Ellesmere would r j j available for production. Christ- ] » arch and the whole of the board’s 5 | a depended on the productivity of 1 lie soil It was not a matter of s | smds. shillings, and pence. The board 1 ■ as given a mandate to protect the s . a cost of the scheme, when I j g e wider view was taken, was defin- j -- dy within the reach of the county. $ ' e did not agree that the contribu- j | an being asked from the ratepayers k a fair one. The State had to be 1 1 ade to realise that it should pay a 5 r greater share of the cost of the t 1 ork. which was largely national. He i of contractors who were pre- 1 ired to invest in machinery for the i a dwyn scheme. , 1 • “What we have before us is a col- < | tition of statistical matter,” said Pro--3 sot Jobberns. “We should submit i e report to the Soil Conservation 1 fundi and if we are assured of a s tsidy we should proceed with the 1 snfleation asked for by the IrweH ] Value of Production * Ifc J. M. Pickering said Mr Williams , i is virtually correct as far as he went, it he had made a notable omission he total production from farming, e valuation of the area was expected rise to £2,750.000 when the revalttab was completed, and it was reason- » to assume that the gross farm- ! production annually was about half s figure and also that production “ c©d improve with the flood menace i moved. If production increased by g Per cent, the added value would be 50.000 a year. .At some stage of the journey, somelag will have to be done.” said Mr Shankland. “The board has been in the position where a scheme ; necessary. We cannot turn round f n say it is not necessary now and : too costly.” Professor L W. McCaskill said far- •: ’ Js who were not menaced by floods 3 « the opportunity of increasing profction but were not doing so. He ■i widered whether the effort to find the reduction in the flood areas was 2 orth while. «r Williams said most of the losses ' 1 the Selwyn area were of crops | M were due not to floods but to the , R- D_Dick (soil conservation offi- *) said the Treasury used the capital - * Hue of the area to be protected, and M • t* l ® production value, when consubsidies. b board adopted the report, ftofessor Jobberns moved, and Mr 0 ,T - SeH seconded, that the report be g to the Soil Conservation fl Jncil with an application for sub®y and that the accompanying letter 6 Prepared bv two members of the “ ♦ Board’s Mind “Not Known” . his name was proposed to pre--1 . tlle better, Mr T. W. Preston said: ,7 is not a fair task to give two ■Sr when they don’t know the f M of the board” I J/ae board is no advocate of this a raeme," said Professor McCaskill. “It I rpreriuced the scheme and the eco- / °®!e report. It is up to the rate- - * s not - or the board to push ? L We are acting only as agents for 1 xStepayers.’’ I the discussion, the chairman 1 members saw Mr Williams’s ( ?Jts of view. Preston said the board should ybe a rubber ftamp. The Soil ConRation Counwl would expect the to give its ideas on the scheme, the general tenor of the meet- £ « that we are rushing things a jEJ will be Happy to withdraw my “Jhon.” said Professor Jobberns. Mr Bell’s motion, the board deyi that the staff should prepare a consideration at the next