AFFORESTATION

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 122, 25 May 1928, Page 8

AFFORESTATION

HUTT CATCHMENT AKEA RIVER BOARD PROPOSAL' Many opinions have been expressed on the question of "to mill or not to mill" on. tlio land recently vested in the City and Suburban Water Board, but the much more important question of jhow the board is to reafforest the many thousands of acres of denuded lands within its jurisdiction has,not yet received the public attention it deserves, and.it has been left for a much smaller ioeal body not directly connected /with the Water Board to express the first concrete proposal as to how a portion at least of this work can be carried out. The Hutt Eiver Board, although it is not represented on the Water Board, is vitally interested in all that concerns the Hutt Eiver, over the last few miles of which it has absolute jurisdiction. At last evening's meeting of the Eiver Board Mr. W. H. Smith moved: "That this board considers the question of tree-planting on a more extensive scale, and that with this object in view the City and Suburban Water Board be approached with regard to leasing to the Eiver Board that portion of the Hutt watershed in Section ,XV., of aa area of approximately 5000 acres." Such a scheme would/, said Mr. Smith,' bo a commercial and economic proposal which would in the future bring in a. handsome revenue to the Eiver Board. ■ PREVENTION OF FLOODS. The reafforestation of' these barren, lands must be taken in hand:by some' local body, and the fact that the land lay outside the Eiver Board's area did not weigh very largely with him, as the afforestation of the land in question was vitally related to tne question of river control. It was well known that the best method of preventing sudden river floodings was to see that the Watershed was properly clothed with forest. The scheme would be ijevenueproducing,' though perhaps-hot for thirty or forty years. If the board took up the work it would be not only doing useful work. but rendering a national service. It would also render service in relieving, unemployment, and in so doing men would not only be employed on reproductive work, .but on work which would call : for more labour for a given sum than any other work that .could. be' organised. .r He would suggest that the board should spend, from £300 to £400 annually on the work, and the board, because of the careful management of its affairs, was in the fortunate position of being able to do this. '■ ' '■/':'■'■■■ It was suggested that the land should not be purchased, but leased at a nominal rental, with the understanding that the revenue from the trees would belong to the board. The land was not.suitable for fanning, but was most suitable for tree-growing, and lay well to the sun. If the Eiver Board took the initiative other local bodies might1 follow its lead and thus enable the whole of the barren lands to be reelothed. The Water Board with its -meagre finance could not undertake the task. ;>Tho work could be done for about £1 an acre. ■. ... .■.■, ■■ . •'■•s Mr. ; Gostelow saidythat while he quito agreed that the land should be reafCprested, he doubted whether,the work ■was the function of the boards ;. ■■■ The land was a long way -away, and the cost of supervision would be great. It was a question whether the board was justified in pledging its ratepayers to a scheme in which there would be no return for at least 25 years; The board, too, had at present no power to undertake the work. In reply Mr. Smith* said that while he believed the work would help ■to assist the unemployed he did not suggest that the board should directly -employ the men, but get the work done by' means of some kind of contract. ";most important proposal." Mr. W. T. Strand said that the scheme would-need to becarefully weighed and considered, but he was in full sympathy with the proposal, and the district and the board should be grateful to Mr. Smith for one of the most/important proposals made in th*e interests of the valley. Tie board's late engineer, ■ Mr. Laing-Meason, had laid it. down very emphatically that ttoeo things were necessary to the proper control of the river: (1) straightening the channel; (2) planting willows along the banks; (3) the reafforestation of the whole watershed. ,If the , board could plant even only 100 acres each year, it would be one of the best possible'safeguards against flood, and would, in fact, be an excellenct insurance policy. As a member of the Water Board he was unaware if that body had'power to lease, but if not it could acquire that power, and the Eiver Board could also acquire the power to i carry out the proposal. The revenue point of view would be a most important consideration in. years to come. As for not being justified in spending that future- generations should reap, the present generation was certainly reaping the benefit of works carried out by the pioneers of the River Board, and the present board should do likewise for futuro generations. The valley would, in the near future, carry a very large population, and it was vital that that population should be made safe from floods. The work was undoubtedly a function of, the board. In regard to. the trees to plant and other technical questions, the Eiver Board ,would, he was sure, have the ready' assistance of the Water Board's forestry ofiicer and also of officials of the Forestry Department. Anything done at present would be merely preliminary work, as it would be impossible to be ready to* carry out any ■work this winter. . • . ■ Mr. Hewer, whilo agreeing that reafforestation was necessary, sa,id he was in doubt whether such should be the policy of the board. It wub not only the cost pf planting, but there1 was the liability of looking after the growing trees. Where was the necessary money to, come from ? ■ . ' Mr. Gostelow considered that before the board went into such a scheme the board's area should be extended throntrh the Hutt County. „ ? Mr. Smith said the policy of extending the Board's area and the work of reafforestation should go hand'in hand Mr. Strand said he would certainly* oppose a loan of, say, £10,000 for the purpose, but there was nothing to hinder the board spending, say £300 a. year. It could well afford this amount Mr. Hewer said that so lone as it was understood thaf; he was not pledeed to support the, proposal he had no ob jection to the procuring of theinform-i tion. Tho motion was passed unanimously.