QUESTION OF POLICY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 21900, 19 December 1945, Page 7

QUESTION OF POLICY

TAKING _OF LAND CO-OPERATION URGED SOIL CONSERVATION The policy of taking over land for the purpose of controlling soil erosion was discussed at length by the Poverty Bay Catchment Board yesterday arising out of a letter from Mr. E. H. Joblin, Te Karaka. “In reference to the proposal of the Works Department to take 195 acres of my property on the Ihungia road, I would like to point out the following,” he stated. “That taking this area of land will render the remainder of the farm extremely difficult to work, and reduce the carrying capacity by 225 ewes and 35 cattle and bring the number of stock carried below what is generally considered an economic unit, especially considering the locality and the fact that a manager has to be employed. “As an alternative, I suggest that the original proposal of the Waiapu County Council would safeguard the public road and by enclosing the worst portion of the remaining slip with an electric fence and trials could be made with silver poplar or other trees which may be considered suitable. Willing To Co-operate “If some satisfactory arrangement that does not mean ruining the property can be arranged, I am prepared to co-opcr-ate in any scheme that may be agreed upon,” Mr. Joblin concluded. “We should meet Mr. Joblin in this matter, as it will certainly spoil _ihe whole farm if we continue to do what is intended,” stated Mr. D. W. W. Williams. Mr. J. S. Strawbridge agreed that they should work in with Mr. Joblin and in that way have a better chance of controlling further erosion than if they operated without his co-operation. The matter was taken up by the High ways Board after the Waiapu Count; Council had failed to get anywhere, Mi E. W. McEnnis stated. It had been estimated that it woulc be cheaper to take in the extra 40 acres than fence off 150. These 40 acres would not make much difference to the farm. This matter should have gone to the Highways Board and not to the Catchment Board, which had not been directly interested in it, he continued. Mr. Joblin had legal redress through the Highways Board. "If we cannot keep the country stable we are throwing money down the drain trying to prevent slips,” stated Mr. McEnnis, who showed photographs of the type of work the Highways Board was doing in this direction. “It will have some bearing on the Catchment Board, if not directly, then indirectly in its implications," stated the chairman, Mr. J. R. Hair. Under Misapprenhension

"Mr. Joblin is evidently under the misapprenhension that the matter has been brought up by the Soil Conservation Council, while actually the Highway Board is responsible as it wants to save the Ihungia highway from further slips. “As the board has been preaching co-operation since its inception, we should make it clear that we have nothing to do with it,” he continued. Mr. G. M. Newman said the board would have to encourage farmers to plant trees to prevent soil erosion and they should take the long-range view and write to the Soil Conservation Council and ask them to take the matter up. Co-operation was preferable, considered Mr. E. A. Madden, who endorsed Mr. Hair’s suggestion that an experimental area should be set up there, and he approved that they should take the matter up. The position was not so bad as Mr. Joblin thought, stated Mr. Strawbridge. He considered that the idea of taking up to the fences and having the whole paddock was so that the board could have control of stocking. It was obvious that property would have to be stocked, and most likely Mr, Joblin’s stock would have the run of the land. When the country was made stable it would be handed back, so he was on a good wicket. Long-standing Problem

This matter had first been raised several years ago by the Waiapu County Council, which applied to the Highways Board for assistance. What influenced the Highways Board to take over entirely instead of subsidising the council was that a considerable number of trees would be planted, and they had no authority to subsidise for the .tree-planting, Mr. McEnnis stated. “Is it good policy to exclude 40 acres and do fencing or to take in the extra land and avoid fencing?” asked Mr. F. R. Pinham, who pointed out that it would be only a temporary loss to Mr. Joblin.

The loss to the country would be about £2OO per year if the extra land was taken over, said Mr. Newman, who moved .that the board communicate with the Soil Conservation Council and point out that such action would not help the board in co-opera-tive planting in future years. The Highways Board should have the co-operation of the Catchment Board as it wa s endeavouring to halt erosion, considered Mr. H. M. White.

“If the taking of land is to depend upon 40 days being allowed for the owner to lodge objection and when the time was up to get the matter brought up again through another body, there’s no telling where we will get,” observed Mr. McEnnis. Free Nursery Mr. Williams considered that the taking-over of the extra 40 acres just to save fencing was not an attractive feature of the proposal. It had been hoped to utilise the 40 acres as a tree nursery. The Highways Board would not be interested in this, but some other department would be responsible, stated Mr. McEnnis. It had been suggested that tree nurseries be established throughout the country for the distribution of trees to farmers to prevent erosion, he pointed out, and it was quite possible that this area would be utilised in this manner. Mr. Joblin is to be advised that it is understood it is not the Soil Conservation Council but the Highways Board who is taking the land over for the purpose of protecting the highways, but in view of his offer of cooperation the board would communicate with the council with a recommendation that it take the matter up with th el-lighways Board. A copy of the letter is to be sent to the Soil Conservation Council with the recommendation that it confer with the Highways Board.