"ON THE BOX SEAT"

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 125, 31 May 1927, Page 10

"ON THE BOX SEAT"

HUTT BASIN PLAN WIDER DEVELOPMENT IDEAS WHO SHOULD ADMINISTER? (Specially Written for "The Post") As the Government supplies most of the land, and the City Council is expected to supply most of the money, it is advisable that they should arrive at a common view of the objectives of the Hutt Basin development scheme. What may be called the scheme for conservation of the Hutt Basin has latterly assumed two expressions: (1) conservation for water, (2) commercial afforestation. Wtter conservation concerns the preservation of existing "protection forest" (that is, forest important to waterflow) and the replanting of these areas which should be carrying protection forest, but which, owing to past bad policy, have been deforested. Commercial afforestation concerns the planting of those deforested areas which, owing to their character, their accessibility, and their position in relation to the Wellington market, are likely to give a good economic return as tree-growing undertakings.

Though these two purposes are distinct, they overlap, for experts/hold that tho existing native bush can be milled over—subject to certain, logging conditions—without depriving it of its value as a protection forest or regulator of water-flow. There is, therefore, an economic return to be secured from the existing native bush as well as from tree-pl.."ting. And the native bush could yield a revenue not only from timber-cutting rights but also from opossum-trapping rights.

In a broad-based development, the several sources of revenue therefore include: On the deforested land, treeplanting return (deferred) and perhaps grazing rights prior to tree-planting; on the forest land, an immediate return from timber-cutting and opossum-trap-ping royalties. WHO PAYS? As was pointed out in "The Post" last week, the lands themselves may be considered in three divisions: (1) State forest areas, from which it is proposed to detach (for special administration under the scheme) all the land on the Hutt side of the Akatarawa-Waikanae and Hutt-Wairarapa divide, say, 50,000 acres; (2) private lands covered by Mr. W. T. Strand's options, say, 20,000 acres priced at £2 to £4 an acre; (3) other private lands which it is now proposed should be acquired, lower down,in the tributary valleys, for treeplanting, area not estimated. '

The question arises: Who shall administer? And who shall find the money? To an extent, the second question may provide the key to the first.

Recent published statements appear to rest oh tho assumption that the Wei- ' lington City Council will find the money to purchase the private land covered by ' Mr. Strand's options. That assumption, ' however, still awaits confirmation. And ii is still a question whether tho City Council will find the money not only for Mr. Strand's option lands but for those other unspecified private lands (No. 3) which some city councillors are anxious to include in the afforestation and water-power aspects of the extended scheme. CITY COUNCIL'S PAST. Even assuming that the City Council is prepared to find the money required to exercise Mr. Strand's options, and to tako up itself the financial and administrative responsibility attaching to tho option area plus tho State Forests, there are critics who question the ability and will of the council to apply tho scheme in its wider aspect. They say that tho City Council has been the owner of water conservation land for about half a century, and has been • the owner of a big area of open land ' and native bußh (Wainui-Orongorongo) for very many years, and that its record is simply to leave the oxistinp [ trees there to catch water and do no- . thing else. They complain that tho , City Council does not develop either the timber-cutting or the opossum-trap-ping possibilities of itii water consort vation bush, and has not applied to its ' conservation areas an economic policy of forestry and afforestation. They r also say that if the City Council ret gards the activities of the timber-cut-r ter and the opossum-trapper as inimical f to water conservation, then it is no use expecting economic results from 3 those activities if the City Council is made sole administrator to administer _ in its customary laissez fairo manner.

Such criticism is useful even if it drags up for discussion a possible source of in tho minds of tho various persons who are supporting the Hutt Basin conservation scheme from quite different angles of economic treatment.

TIMBER AND OPOSSUMS. The angle of view of the Forest Service, which is expected to hand over to the scheme about 50,000 acres of State forest, is fairly clear. The Forest Servico believes in, and extracts, revenue from timber-cutting and opossum-trap-ping royalties. The Forest Service has distinctly laid down the principle that timber-cutting in a protection forest is compatible with waterflow interests, and by it, or with its approval, conditions were drafted a couple of years ago to cover the operations of a sawmiller in the block of Akatarawa bush which the local bodies bought from a private owner and which may in a sense be regarded as the forerunner of Mr. Strand's present purchase scheme. Docs the City Council share the view of the Forest Service that a protection forest may be cut over without impairing its value?

It is important that the two bodies should be in agreement on principles like this, for the Forest Service seems to be on the box seat since it is the to bo contributor of about five-sevenths of the land, and the City Council (if it is to find the purchase price) would appear to be on the box seat in a money sense.

The conservation scheme cannot exist without the transfers from State Forests. The lands covered by Mr. Strand's options are merely complementary to the State Forests, and the tail cannot be expected to wag the dog. On the other hand, the City Council's money, if it is to t£\lk at all, will talk to some purpose.

To say that timber-cutting and opos-sum-trapping are compatible with the conservation of a protection forest whose purpose is to regulate waterflow is not the same thing as to say that they are compatible with the conservation of a forest that (like WainuiOrongorongo) is in actual uso as a source of public drinking water.

There would seem to be need for a comparison of notes between the Government and the City Council as to

what each of them is really after, before the State, Forests and the local body purchases are amalgamated. In any case, the State Forest lands are not likely to be handed over without covenants as to the points mentioned and as to afforestation of deforested 1 portions. These difficulties are not insuperable, and in. the interests of the

scheme it may be better to remove them in advance than to stumble up against them later.

INDEPENDENT CONTROL.

Of course, if the administrative body is to be not the City Council, but an independent body created by statute, with its own powers of finance, ■ and with a big programme of development along lines of water-supply, waterpower, timber, and opossum royalties, commercial afforestation, lease of camp sites, week-end residences, etc., then a whole series of new considerations arise. The constitution, finance, and powers of such a statutory body (whether called a Water Supply Commission or by any other name) offer an interesting subject for discussion, but there is not now space to go into it.

As to the purchase or non-purchase of the option lands, the immediate initiative is with the City Council. But when the Government comes to transfer the State Forests, some definition of objectives and methods will probably be required. The situation needs careful thought, tut careful thought does not necessarily mean undue delay.

If 'the development of the Hutt Basin lands is economic and broad-based, it should prove to be a self-supporting public investment, with possibilities of a high return ultimately on the commercial afforestation side.