Selwyn River Control Plan Abandoned

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30739, 1 May 1965, Page 1

Selwyn River Control Plan Abandoned

No scheme for controlling flooding along the Selwyn river and its tributaries could be justified economically on the present financial system, hence, “no more of the North Canterbury Catchment Board’s time and public money should be spent to no purpose,” the chief engineer to the board (Mr E. B. Dalmer) said in a report received by the board yesterday.

“A very large sum has been spent preparing schemes and reports which in a few years will be of little value except as his-

torical records,” Mr Dalmer said. “The time taken up in preparing and considering schemes for the Selwyn river has delayed some schemes and prevented investigation of others.”

“This is the sorriest story I hope I ever have to tell the board,” he added verbally at the meeting. On the recommendation of Mr Dalmer, the board decided to abandon further surveys or investigations, and the preparation of new schemes and

reports, on the Selwyn river; to concentrate on the maintenance of assets already created, up to a 20,000 cusecs standard; to construct no new works out of rating money; and to try to set aside £5OOO a year as a flood-repair reserve.

There were floods of 23,000 cusecs in 1961 and floods of about that size twice in 1963. A further resolution was also passed, on the motion of Mr J. M. Pickering, “that approaches be made to higher authorities for greater assistance over the whole Selwyn problem.”

Mr Dalmer’s fifth recommendation was to abandon rating and scheme works in the Malvern County part of the catchment. This was held over for" further consideration. Mr Dalmer said in bis report that “above the Main South road ratepayers had had very little” for the £2OO a year they had been paying in rates to the board.

The report and decisions will be sent to the county councils affected and to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council, and will be brought to the notice of members of Parliament from the board’s area later this month when they meet members and officers of the board and inspect some of the board’s works.

Mr D. B. Dallas, district commissioner of works, said the Selwyn was only one of the many marginal schemes which could not be financed under present subsidy arrangements. "It boils down to there not being enough money in the soil conservation vote.” he

said. "Perhaps New Zealand has reached the stage where the easy schemes are over, and the marginal ones will have to be tackled, necessitating higher rates of subsidy.” Mr D. R. Wilkie said the Selwyn schemes had been based on accepting a certain river flow and trying to contain it. But improved vegetation could reduce the debris from a catchment by 80 per cent or more, and water runoff by from six to 13 per cent. Other measures which could act in the same direction included retention dams in the upper catchment and waterspreading practices which put a good deal of water underground. If all this could be done, the problem of confining the river would be relatively easy; but it was not possible on present finance. Use In Upper Area Mr A. T. Bell suggested that ratepayers in the lower reaches might allow their money to be used in the upper catchment if they could be convinced that this would make the river easier to control lower down. Mr A. J. Stalker pointed out that any long-term soil-con-servation scheme in the upper catchment would require the whole-hearted co-operation of all landowners, which would be difficult to secure because of the large number of small holdings. The chairman (Mr R. M. D. Johnson) said it was important to keep existing physical works in order to try to stop the bottom end of the river valley from being “turned into a shingle patch.”