The utaekuri

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 278, 4 November 1924, Page 5

The utaekuri

Schemes For Diversion engineer against MOOIFIUArION. IUVEBB BUAHD'S DISCUSSION. Ai a special meeting of the Hawke’© ’ Bay Ri-eis Board held on September 16 io consider jat F. U. Hay s report upon the diversion oi the Tutaekuri river, n wus uecided after considera. i Uuii oi me seven miierent schemes j suumiiieu witn estimates to ask Mr. I iaay if certain mouiucatious could be > made lo G. scueme in uruer that its i cost could be greatly reduced witnout liuuerieriug vviih us flood carrying capacity, liie following rep<y has ueen received by the board irom Mr Hay:— ‘ In reply to yours of the 20th ulto.. re modified scheme for toe diversion or tue lutatekuri, it is positive that no reduction of tn© works can be recommended winch will give a scheme fulfilling the conditions set out in my report of the 23rd. July last. Any decrease in capital cost of th© scheme must be accompanied by some risk of flooding or by such increased cost of maintenance as would more than outweigh the reduction in capital charges. “Generally speaking, no comprehensive scheme oi river control is ever within the paying capacity of the lands directly affected. The capacity of the lands to pay is limited to some proportion of the betterment, or increment of value accruing to the lands as a result of the works and in the writer’s opinion the limit that the land can pay is 5-14ths of the betterment. A definite amount having been fixed at the maximum contribution that it is good business for the lands directly affected to pay and the amount ofi this being less than the cost of the comprehensive scheme it is worth while seeing whe. ther th© proopsed works besides protecting floodable lands, do not benefit other and wider interests and if so, whether a good cause can be made whereby the balance of the cost of the works can be obtained by a charge against such wider interests. Most flood control schemes remove a general liability for flood damages from the country as a whole—they promote settlement and improve means of trans, portation and thereby have a distinct national interest“On the assumptions, however, that the cost of the work is to be borne wholly by th© lands primarily affected, and that these lands cannot afford to pay for complete protection, there is nothing else to be don© except consider modified schemes giving partial immunity. “The capital cost, yearly charges, and probable liability to flooding for modified schemes, all on line G., beginning, say, with one capable of carrying 60,000 cu. secs. (60 per cent, of the miximum flood) and increasing by definite steps up to the complete scheme already submitted can be estimated. These figures when compared with tfie estimated betterment due to each proposal enable the most economic suggestion according to whether or_not they are applicable to any one of the modifications. »«f-‘My reply to your letter ft that no modification of the works can be suggested unless some degree of flood risk is accepted and the greater the reduction in cost the less the protection afforded. The economics oi any modified scheme can be studied when the figures mentioned in the proceeding paragraph ar© given, but it must be understood that then the element of jnance still exists. “I cannot make estimates on any modified schemes here as all the plans were returned to you at Napier, but 1 believe I will be free in a month or two to come and do the work at Napier, u the Board wishes.” THE CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS Speaking upon Mr Hay’s reply the chairman (Mr H. lan Simeon) said tney ail agreed tnat the diversion of une Tutaekuri would be a means to cue saving of the inner Harbour. If the Inner Harbour did not eventuate Lben consideration should be given the diversion of the river through its natural channel- If the inner Haroour was not to be a success the whole question shomd be re-opened. He had always agreed with the diversion to the Waitangi if some finality could be decided upon, but he was against it being done until the settlers of Papakura were protected, ihe way the river iiad been allowed to break tnrougn and flood suefl a large area was scandalous. iu fact he knew of uervain settlers who intended taking action against the Board tor the damage done lo their land. This diversion would affect th© whole ot th© flats and to carry out suefl a big work the Board would have to be lair to the people and me whole of Hawke’s Bay should help to pay for it. The river had now got into a deplorable condition and it was no good playing with it. Mr Purvis: We have done nothing vo bring tne river down there. The chairman, continuing, said that many places were m grave* danger and if something was not done quwaiy he Mould calf pa one meetings ana explain everything, ihe wnoie question should ue grapp*ed with and the nawxe s nay people made to recognise its importance. iXapier and Xias lings Wore not paying nearly a lair snare in rates, xney were both towns depending upon oemg kept free irom floods. Hastings couid mane use oi the port when there was a flood. Mr Donovan: They don’t want to use it more than they can help at the charges tney have to pay. Mr Miller; I don't intend to say anything about the harbour question, omy tnat the late of either harbour wni not be known until extensive borings have been madeMr. Miller continued the floods this winter had so enlarged the channel of the overflow above urookheld, that mor© than two-thirds oi the flood water that passed under the Redclitte bridge now flowed down the overflow. Ims had considerably cased the river at Meeanee and th© lowlandg towards Napier, but this was being done to the disadvantage of Pakowhai. and Papakura to Waitangi. Every little fresh in the Tutaekuri now covered this land with water, ft was unfair that one district should be helped to the detriment of another district and thus Pakowhai and Papakura settlers now wanted help, or mor© plainly speaking, justice. Every engineer had recommended the diversion oi th© Tutaekuri to the Waitangi and Washout, but they all recognised that the new country the river passed through b© protected. Mr. Hay in his report recommended the diversion to th© washout and iu his scheme provided in his (th© speaker’s) opinion th© best solqiion. 'Hie cost, £90,000, was rather more than he thought the district could stand at present. But there was no reason why they should not carry out at once some modification of th© scheme, especially between th© Railway and Brookfield bridges, by erecting banks on both sides of the proposad channel, but to include Waitangi within the bank, thus obviating any alteration in bridges, etc. At any future time a. short bank would cut out the Waitangi. The northern bank of this overflow would then be continued from the end of the bank below Brookfield adjoining Richmond’s to the northern sid© of the Washout, a distance of roughly 140 chains. A 10ft bank with sft top would cost roughly £4,200. and a flood gate put at the Waitangi stream, so as to allow surface water from th© Whataangaanga block to flow into the overflow. would cost £5OO, making a total of £4,700. The width of the overflow should be at least twenty chains. Th©

southern bank would start halfway between Brookfield’s bridge and Mrs Scott’s corner, then to two inlets on th© south side of the Waitangi bridge. Allowing for two flood gates in these inlets and a concrete spillway between ample drainage would be allowed for Pakowhai and any overflow from the Ngaruroro. Th© Pakowhai damage was caused through unrestricted Tutaekuri floods. Whatever measures were taken would be to provide against ordinary floods, not extraordinary “old man’’ floods. The southern bank would be about 150 chains ip length. This, six feet high with a three feet top and two flood gates with concrete spillways would cost about £3,000. In making this bank the spoil would be taken from the south side forming a wide drain for the purpose of draining the whole Pakowhai district and conducting water to th© flood-gates. There was no need to buy land as he understood they had the right to erect banks on private property allowing compensation for the small area the banks actually took up. The suggested course practically only went through fringes of the properties of five owners. Messrs Richmond, Gordon. Mrs Simpson, Mrs Scott and the Meeanee Mission. All of these would undoubtedly assist in every way especially atf such banks would enhance the value of their property and protect the rest of their country from floods. There would therefore be no difficulty in making some equitable arrangements with them. Dredging would be the cheaper method of excavation and would not only form banks but make a deep channel giving greater velocity of water. An up-to-date electric dredge with 1000 feet pipe lines with punts and overhead carriers would cost £36,000, and would be the cheapest investment, but to secure this they would require a loan. There were two other dredges available, the Waikaka and th© C.D.K. The former was in good order and the Harbour Board had no present use for it. The other dredge, the C.D.K., was a most useful dredge for the purpose and could be got there at little cost by taking her up the Serpentine to the Awatoto bank, let her cut her own channel through the bank, and then cut her own way to the Waitangi through the mission property, forming a good channel for the drainage of aU that district and building up land as she travelled. The C.D.K. could then form the southern bank to Brookfields. If this course was pursued there would be no need to close the Awatoto bank as the channel and the Serpentine would bo an excellent drain for all the country north of the new overflow bank. Mr. Furkert’s report was most unreasonable, and if they took any notice of it reclamation would be doomed for ever. The Harbour Board should allow them the use of the C.D.K. for nothing or at least the interest on the cost she was written down to. METHODS OF FINANCE. How was this work to be carried out without a loan? They would require to build both these banks, costing roughly £BOOO. They could easily spare this amount out of the general revenue for this year and next year. They would have available from this year’s revenue £5500 towards the work and more from the following .year’s revenue without increasing the general rate. The work could be completed in nine months by working three shifts on the C.D.K., and next winter the district would be safe from ordinary flooding. The work could be started at once as there were no engineering difficulties. The district was looking to them to make good, and if they showed they were in earnest would help and they could then secure a loan to complete the work. In, the meantime the money they were spending would reduce the amount of the loan later required. OTHER VIEWS. Mr. McDonald said the diversion of the Tutaekuri had been recommended for many years. The settlers in the district of Papakura had suffered severely from so many floods and he considered that something should be done to give them protection. He suggested that the Board should put up the bank on the lines proposed by Mr. Hay. Even if only half a mile were made on each side a year it would not be long before effective protection would tfc afforded to the settlers. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Miller that two-thirds of the Tutaekuri flood waters went through the overflow. It meant that the river as far as floods were concerned was already diverted. This was a most important work and the board would have to tackle it very soon. Mr. Donovan said the Hastings people were getting sick of the whole business. Mr. Jarvis said ho was pleased that the members were realising at last that something should be done. He had tried for a number of years to have the problem of the Tutaekuri solved but the opposition had always been too strong. They should not take the harbour controversy into consideration but aim at an effective scheme which would benefit the district. Mr. Donovan said that the Hastings people wanted to get out of the Rivers Board district and if something was not done soon meetings would b© held with a view to getting out of it. The chairman said thi s work suggested by Mr. Miller was just throwing money away. bigger should be tackled and he suggested that Mr. Hal should be invited to consider the whole question with the board. CONFERENCE WITH MR. HAY. It was finally decided to invite Mr. Hay to meet the board and that the overseer be instructed to take out the bank line of G scheme.