Flood Control in Waiho Valley-3300 Acres Affected

Grey River Argus, 29 September 1949, Page 6

Flood Control in Waiho Valley3300 Acres Affected

Following a discussion between Messrs J. R. Shepherd and D. H. Thomas, Fields Instructor, and Inspector’ respectively of the Lands and Survey Department and the Westland Catchment Board’s engineer, Mr J. H. McElhinney, relative to flood control of the Waiho River and the closer settlement of the area south of the river to Docherty’s Creek, the following report was submitted:—

The area affected by the proposed stop-bank is approximately 3300 acres, of which 1553 acres is held under permanent title, the balance being at present held under year to year tenure. While the river has in the past changed its course, eroding and building up the plain, it is now following a fairly well defined course and owing to' the level of the present bed, it is expected to remain. The threat to the area referred to comes from an overflow channel, once the main river, and should the river again get into this channel, very considerable damage may be caused 'by erosion ,and practically the whole of the area held under miscellaneous licence, which' is now gradually becoming grassed over, would be lost. The cost of protection works to close this overflow channel and confine the flood waters—is allowing for some maintenance —considered to be a maximum of £2OOO. The soils of this plain are recent, and come in the alluvial group, being in the main, Hokitika gravelly sandy loam in conjunction with some Harihari sand and Ikamatua sandy loam. The soils are the good soils of the West Coast. The carrying capacity of the area affected is one beast to four acres which could economically, on today’s costs, be increased to one beast to two to two and at half acres. The present pasture species are low fertility types, namely brown top, Yorkshire and creeping fog, sweet vernal and lout major, in conjunction with flat weeds, and while carrying such species, could not be recommended for closer settlement. Much greater production could be obtained from the areas concerned with topdressing, pasture improvement and subdivision.

The erection of protection works and increased production are synonymous, as until protection is given, capital expenditure by way of fertilisers and fencing, must be retarded owing to risk of loss of assets. In fact the present settlers are quite frank on this point and attitude, it must be agreed, is justified. Production from this area could be greatly increased in six to eight years, a fact that would make the expenditure of £2OOO on protection work, a worthwhile undertaking.

The policy of the Land Settlement Board for this district is not known but it is reasonable to fissure that some time will elapse before attention could be directed to this area. In any case closer settlement would in all probability be in the nature of family transactions such as fathers sub-dividing and transferring to sons or daughters. The area it was stated would be suitable for closer settlement provided: —

(a) Protection works on the overflow channel are undertaken. (b) Reasonable improvement made in pastures by way of liming, fertilising and re-seeding. Production was stated could be materially stepped up to show a good return on a capital outlay of £2OOO, within a reasonable period, but it is safe to assume that little can be done on these lines while the river threat remains.