‘Some Building Is Form Of Erosion’

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30811, 24 July 1965, Page 1

‘Some Building Is Form Of Erosion’

Burying soil under houses, roads and other buildings was a form of soil erosion, where the soil was withdrawn from use permanently, the district soil conservator of the Agriculture Department in Christchurch (Mr D. R. Wilkie) said in his report on a tour to study soil conservation in the United States.

He cited an instance in California where watershed control, originally costing 300,000 dollars, had risen to two million dollars because of the pressure of increased population and the resultant runoff. Although the population was growing at the rate of 1000 a month, the hills surrounding the area were devoid of buildings and were grazing cattle. “This is a crazy situation to which we subscribe in almost every city in New Zealand. Particularly, it is noticeable in Christchurch and near Dunedin,” Mr Wilkie said.

Because good flat land returned a better profit to the sub-divider and builder, representatives of these interests dictated to each community where houses should be sited. Because it lived there, a community created a demand for food which it negated by covering up the source of supply with buildings and bitumen. In addition, there came the inevitable cry for greater flood protection and preservation of property, said Mr Wilkie. To overcome this problem in the United States, Mr Wilkie said, it was was suggested that sites free from flood dangers be selected and developed so that it became

more profitable to build on these areas than to continue to swallow up good productive soil. In Washington, it was thought that such a suggestion was well worth a trial. Mr Wilkie said it could well be acted on in New Zealand before the problem became too great.