Ashburton River Control Scheme Inspected

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28618, 21 June 1958, Page 15

Ashburton River Control Scheme Inspected

Land users in the Ashburton district registered their objections to the proposed plan to divert the north branch of the Ashburton river into the south branch, as a method of flood control, when about 50 members of the Ashburton Land Protection Association took South Canterbury Catchment Board members and representatives of the County Council over part of the area to be affected by the diversion.

The party left Tinwald in the morning, travelling up the south branch of the river and visiting several properties said to be in danger of flooding under the proposed diversion scheme. From Mount Somers, properties near the diversion, which will run through the old course of the north branch, were visited, but by the time the north branch itself was reached it was too dark to see any possible danger points. The proposal, the most economic of three put forward, entails the diversion of water from the north branch immediately below the Ragitata diversion race siphon down an old river channel to the south branch, immediately below the confluence of Bowyer’s and Taylor’s streams. Stop-banks and terraces will be used to prevent flooding of the excellent farm-lands on the banks of the river. Objects of Inspection Mr H. R. Scott, chairman of the protection association, was the spokesman for the landowners. “The idea of the inspection is for catchment board members to have a look at the damage that would be done by diverting the river without sufficient protectidn against floods,” he said, before the party began its tour. “As you go around you will see country that will be definitely jeopardised by the scheme as it is at present.” Evidence of Flooding Evidence of serious flooding, and the loss of land, was given by Mr Scott on properties at Lagmhor. “Three acres of my land here were washed away,” he said. “When was that?” asked a catchment board officer. “I’m not sure, but they think it was 1906,” said Mr Scott. Much of the country in the area had been flooded in 1951, or had been threatened by floods, he said.

“The catchment board was appointed for the conservation of the soil, as well as the control of rivers,” said the board chairman, Mr W. Hall. “You don’t think we are going to destroy any soil? We want to make the Ashburton river safe for everyone. Many engineers have dealt with the river, and have found it economically impossible to deal with the north branch; it is far easier to put it into one stream, and have only that to look after.” “The object of this tour is to point out the pit-falls of the diversion, unless we have adequate protection,” said Mr Scott. “You’ll have adequate protection,” said Mr Hall.

At a later stop, on the property of Mr D. I. Fechney, Mr Fechney described to' the board how in 1951

the water had flooded his paddocks and gone through, almost to the road. “If we had • another flood, it would come over again,” he said. “That was before the river was cleared of willows to give an 800 ft fairway,” said the chief engineer of the board, Mr W. E. Lucey. “You haven’t had flooding here since.” Responsibility for Damage “The board, or rather, the rating district, will be responsible for any damage that is done,” said Mr Hall. “Any individual who is affected can make a claim through the courts. There is a considerable risk of the river coming down this branch, whether we like it or not. According to the scheme put forward, the present rating will do for the south diversion; if the rate is doubled or trebled we can, have one of the other schemes, keeping the river to the north.” By the time the party arrived at the north branch it was dark, and a discussion was held on the banks of the stream. “I consider that Ashburton township is in no danger of flooding at all,” said Mr Scott. “If I were in Ashburton, I wouldn’t sleep at night until I was sure the river was safe,” said Mr Hall. “The danger there is very great.” It was decided that a deputation from the association would wait on the board at its next meeting, to put forward further aspects of the case. The final comment of a strenuous day came from Mr Lucey, in reply to a remark by Mr Scott that the north branch would never return to the old channel, as proposed by the diversion, of its own accord. “Famous last words.” said Mr Lucey.