Rivers Control

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 178, 13 July 1927, Page 3

Rivers Control

The Board and It’s Work. LOST OPPORTUNITIES. REFLECTIONS OF AN OLD SETTLER. Your leader of July 6th takes my 1 mind back to when the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board was formed. For its initiation argument was, let us stop this fighting our neighbours, for the higher they build their banks the higher we must build ours, and so it must go on indefinitely and as these small boards cannot interfere with the course of the rivers, so let us form the (Whole of the plains into one united body so as to give it power to deal with the rivers in a proper manner, by straightening the courses, lowering the beds and shortening the routes of the three rivers to the sea as much as. possible. The whole area was to be formed into wards, and the representation from such wards was to be as a commission, to be set up, decided, including the apportioning of rates to each ward. In due course the commission gave its decisions, wards were defined, representation was given to each, rating was fixed, members were elected, and a secretary and staff were app. iu ted. Since then engineers' reports, estimates, and plans have been ob tained and paid for, and the rates have been collected each yeai. MAIN WORK NOT TOUCHED. Yet all that has been done leaves undone the principal thing the Rivers Board was set up to do—to shorten and straighten and lower the river beds, work the small local boards could not do. It seems that the old methods are so deeply engrained in the minds of most oi the members of the Board that they must continue to build up banks and make exactly the same mistakes as the old time boards made by building and strengthening the banks on one side and telling tneiu break on the other. Patch and raise, first here and then there, and so gradually raise the beds of the rivers. This was what everyone was clamouring to get away from. If perpetual motion is impossible, this is getting very close to it. MUST FIND THE REMEDY. After 24 hours rain the general alarm is ‘‘which bank is going to break?’' No settler knows who is to be the unfortunate. Surely there niubt be some remedy for this slate of affairs. 1 notice, by reports, that weak spots are always to be found, after each flood, in banks and groins in dangerous positions. Still there is no suggestions forthcoming for improving these positions. The only thing lone is to restore, in either case, the very thing that has proved abortive. Evidently one member of the oeaiu <*a.just discovered that a pilot channel is wanted at the overflow of the Tutaekuri, and others again that the Whakatu railway bridge is too short, and is throttling the Ngaruroro. There is also a suggestion to deepen the rivers by dredging.

LOSSES COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.

Are we living in an era of evolution or are we only drifting, drifting back, to pick up the threads were Mr Wm. Nelson left off some 20 years ago? If he had been allowed to carry on at that time, with the backing of the whole district, financially, that the present Board has now, he would have settled the whole question, and saved the ratepayers hundreds of pounds in engineering fees, and the farming community thousands of pounds from losses of stock and crops. How many settlers have been ruined within the last 20 years, and how many before that time? And remember that individual losses means a loss to the province. CONDITIONS WORSE THAN IN '97. In going back to the '97 flood and from then on until now, can anyone who was then sufficiently interested in land see any better conditions now in respect to flooding? It is not only the actual land that is flooded, but the land that is lying outside of tne stop banks, and below the level of the river beds, that is suffering, involving some hundreds of acres of what would be the finest land in the world. The owners are frantically trying to drain this with the help of the local bodies concerned, digging ditches on each side of the roads, in some cases up to seven feet in width. In every such instance the water has to be drained away from the rivers and 95 per cent of the drainage water comes from under the banks. FLAT COUNTRY DRAINAGE. The Rivers Board has control of what should be the main drainage, not only of water from the hills, but also from the flat country. What tint country ar e they even trying to drain except, perhaps, endeavouring to slop a back-wash at Clive?

Mr Miller suggested some years ago that the Rivers Board should take control of all the creeks. I think we should go further and compel them to drain all the land they are swamping. That would, perhaps, cause them to find out how to lower their own main drains, i.e., the river beds, to take away the storm water. GEORGE NELSON'S PROPOSALS. Some time ago Mr Geo. Nelson suggested a scheme for dealing with the rivers, the drainage of land and the reclamation of the Harbour Board's swamps. Many pooh-poohed his proposals for some reason best known to themselves, others declare’d it would be too costly, others gave his scheme no sensible thought, while others were •for taking it as a basis for improvement, as far as the country could stand financially. There was a good deal of confidence in Mr Nelson at the time on accounts of his travels in Europe and America at his own expense, to get all the data possible pertaining to flood prevention. On his return to Hawke’s Bay he set about the study of the river and reclamation problem in a scientific way. He took levels, drafted large plans and prepared a comprehensive scheme embracing tho whole of the plain with

its network of rivers, streams and roads, and presented it to the public of Hawke’s Bay.

POOR THANKS.

And what did he get for his trouble? Even the Rivers Board, at its very first meeting after public meetings had decided that the Rivers and Harbour Boards should consider his suggestions, failed to seize the opportunities he had afforded them. Was there any discussion on the work of a man who had spent years of his life in studying? Was there even a vote of thanks to him for placing before them all the data free of cost, or was it merely “received”? What did the Harbour Board do? Did it “receive” it also? THE HARBOUR BOARD’S EFFORT. But 1 will say this about the Harbour Board; it did show enough confidence in his work to place him in charge of the work of reclamation of the swamp contiguous to the Borough of Napier. But it was not long before some of the obstructionists got to work and influences were brought to bear for Mr Nelson's discharge on the excuse that the Harbour Board could not afford the payment of reclamation engineer’s fees, and that harbour board works should be under tho harbour engineer. NAPIER’S LOST OPPORTUNITY. And yet wo near now that reclamation should be handed over to another oody to set up all the necessary ma chinery and work parallel with tho Harbour Board, which has much of tho machinery at its disposal. Evidently Napier has only just awakened to find it must have more space at any cost, hook or by crook. Why did not Napier give more thought to Mr Nelson’s scheme for reclamation when all the iocal bodies were interested? Was it because he was a local man, and local prejudices were allowed to operate against the district’s best interests?