Catchment Board Member Objects to Engineer’s Reports and Suggestions

Grey River Argus, 24 February 1949, Page 7

Catchment Board Member Objects to Engineer’s Reports and Suggestions

Strong words, which the chairman, Mr R. J. Bradley, described as not being quite fair, were used by Mr T. P. O’Neill, a member of the Westland Catchment Board at the monthly meeting yesterday when criticising a report given by the engineer, Mr J. H. McElhinney/on the work necessary above the main highway bridge at Little Man River, Tetaho, South Westland. The threat from the river had grown considerably in recent months, said the engineer, referring to a contribution of £BO made by the Public Trust (O’Neill Estate). He recommended that a small outflow further up the liver be retarded by the construction of a bank 40 feet long, four feet high, and four feet wide, at a cost of £27 10s.

Mr O’Neill said that the proposed work was quite inadequate to meet the position. If nothing were done, the highway might be taken , away. He suggested that the Board inspect the property. There were two breaches, and a stopbank was useless unless constructed on the water cushion principle. This was the original work proposed, and it should be gone on with. He moved that the work as originally planned be done, and that three stopbanks be erected. Mr A. B. Bremner said that the river was not likely to change its course.

Disagreeing with this, Mr O’Neill said that the position was more serious than at Mr Wallace’s place. The chairman: We have got the engineers’ reports and must abide by them.

Mr O'Neill: Anyone who has had differences with the engineer won’t get his property improved. The chairman: That statement is not quite fair. Mr O’Neill agreed that his own. property was affected. ( Mr Bremner said that to cope with all that South Westland required would need every machine available in New Zealand. Mr O’Neill could not say that there had been any serious erosion at his place for some years. The chairman again remarked that the engineers’ reports should be the Board’s guide. Mr O’Neill said his advice had saved engineers hundreds of thousands of pounds. He could prove it. A man living on a riverbed all his life, as he had done, should know more about it than any engineer. “If the engineers think they know more about it, I’ll put up some money and debate it over the radio,” said Mr O’Neill, who suggested that £3OO be alloted for the work and that tenders should be called.

Mr G. F. Lowes said that the board had 16 jobs running from £3OO to £3OOO before it that day, and it obviously could not do the lot. Mr O’Neill said the job had been advocated for years. Promises were made from time to time, but nothing was done. “No Government in New Zealand' could survive an election if the people knew how I have been treated about erosion, . and what I have done for the British Empire,” claimed Mr O’Neill.

NO CONTRIBUTIONS When the chairman asked what contribution the. settlers would be prepared to make, Mr O’Neill said he did not know if they would make any until he had consulted them. He would contribute his proportion but felt that the works would be washed away by the first flood. Mr O’Neill found no seconder for his motion that £3OO be set aside, and added afterwards that he would not commit himself to a contribution because he felt it a waste of money.

The engineer’s report was adopted, and it was decided to ask the settlers to make a contribution, Mr O’Neill dissenting. Mr O’Neill then moved that the engineer inspect below the bridge with him and that the money voted be spent to the best advantage. The engineer said he had inspected the area, but did not consider that an extension was justified. Mr O’Neill: “You are like all engineers.” He then repeated his offer to debate the subject with the engineer. WAITANGI RIVER Later in the meeting, however, Mr O’Neill found himself in agreement with the engineer when the latter reported that he did not favour any further extension of the stop-bank at the Waitangi River, five chains of which were washed away on February 12. The engineer said that the traffic bridge had been raised three feet, and the bed level in four years had increased by 1.3 feet under the bridge. Since 1932 there had been a rise of 3.2 feet, over-all, with a maximum of 6 to 7 feet in parts. He would send a full report on the whole river to the Soil Council, and asked the Board to support his contention that further stop-banks should be erected. The breached section would cost £1940 to repair, and the engineer said the work would have to be done as soon as possible, but only £53 was available. Mr A. Topp: We don’t have a board meeting without dealing with this river.

Mr O’Neill agreeing with the engineer said that he had never seen a stop-bank which would take the full force of a river. The Board could not do the repair work right away because of lack of plant, as the ‘Works Department were fully engaged on highway repairs after the last flood, said the engineer. The report was approved, and the Soils Council is to be asked to provide a subsidy on the same scale as for the original work, while the settlers are to be asked what contribution they will make. HOKITIKA STOP-BANK

Mr H. M. Lawry raised the question of the completion of the Hokitika'River stop-bank, saying that the Board was a contributor, and that the flood gates had not been provided. There was one gate at the railway and he asked why it was not closed for the last flood. Mr Bremner said that the Borough foreman was responsible. He understood that the slip in floodgates were locked up in a shed available for floods.

The position was not satisfactory, said Mr Lawry. The whole work should have been completed. Mr Bremner said that the steel required for the flood gates could not be procured. The attention of the Hokitika Borough Council is to be drawn to the necessity of closing the gates already erected at flood times.

KOKATAHI RIVER A lengthy discussion on the work of erecting a protection wall at O’Reilly’s, on the Kokatahi River, followed receipt of a letter from the Westland County Council stating it was prepared _to vote £2OO for the work. A list of farmers who were willing to give £l2O towards the cost was received from the County engineer, and Mr H. G. Diedrichs wrote stating that a large area of river bank had been lost by him on February 12, while 30 or 40 acres of his land had been silted. , The engineer reported that the flood had been a record one, obliterating the stop-bank at O’Reilly’s. The old river channels had scoured, and the river had shifted. It was not practical to throw up more protective banks. A survey had been com-

pleted for the erection of a new bank. , ... The chairman said it was a fairly big job now that the old bank had gone. HOSTILE SETTLERS

Mf A. Shannon said some of the, settlers who had previously contributed were not at all satisfied, and complained that the quarry should have been opened long ago. Some were outspoken and suggested, that the Board members should resign. “I think they are right,” said Mr Shannon. “We promised to do the job and we haven’t done it. They are not too pleased with the job at Jones’s. I have no doubt that many contributions were made under protest.” When the Board undertook work it had to make more permanent jobs than in the past. The engineer said that he could not say what the cost would be now, but it would run into thousands. Action would be required before the next Board meeting, and lie asked approval to place the whole matter before the Soils Council. It was no good putting up a £330 job and leaving it unprotected, as it would be lost again. The settlers had contributed very heavily, said Mr Shannan. One had put in several hundred pounds, and they could not be asked for more. Mr O’Neill considered that the river should be led rather than fought. There was always a cause of erosion, and that cause was generally upstream, but had to be removed. Mr Shannon said there was £620 in hand, and the Board should ask for a greater subsidy from the Council. They might even apply for a £lO to £1 grant. Striking a rate over the area would get all settlers in as contributors, said the chairman. The engineer was instructed to prepare estimates, and after consulting the town members, to make application for a subsidy. Regarding Diedrichs’ property, Mr Shannon said the matter had been held up for 15 months because of the labour shortage, but it would have to he treated urgently as it was good land. 1 ' A very heavy expense had been revealed by the survey, said Mr Bremner, and there was no method of carrying out the work in the meantime. The engineer is to report to the next meeting.

HAUPIRI RIVER To repair the bank, fence it and plant with willows, at Mr S'. M. Wallace’s property at Haupiri would cost £54 15s, and Mr Wallace would contribute one third, said the Engineer. Further work would cost £43 2s, and Mr Wallace would find £22. The Engineer was instructed to proceed with the work, after Mr W. Fisher had stated that the position was deteriorating. Between the bridge on the old road at Ngahere and the new concrete bridge on the road to Ahaura, there was considerable erosion of the properties of Messrs G. Shaw, W. Balderstone, R. J. Drennan and A. V. Hill, said the Engineer when the residents requested protection. There was a prospect of damage to the main highway, and the area had to be inspected with the Highways Engineer. Considerable erosion had taken place on the Te Kinga Land and Timber Co.’s farm at Crooked River, stated the company in forwarding its contribution of £279 for work to be done, with a request that it be put in hand as soon as possible. The Board instructed the engineer to call tenders for the work. A request from Federated Farmers, Barrytown, for a report on the Barrytown flats is to be attended to when the Engineer has time. The Board decided to offer no objection to Mr J. Dennehy’s request to be allowed to cut drains on a property with a view to starting a flax-growmg project. The Engineer said that the scheme seemed to be a sound one. No further action is to be taken following the Engineer’s report of an interview with settlers along the Grey River at Ngahere, when they did not approve of proposals put to them. The Railways Department is to be communicated with regarding the bridge.