Rivers Control Problem

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 201, 8 August 1928, Page 6

Rivers Control Problem

Local Body Conference

No Resolutions Passed

Delegates representing the Hawke’s Bay County Council, Napier Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, Napier Harbour Board, and the Taradale Town Board, assembled in Napier yesterday afternoon at the invitation of the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board, to offer opinions on the report of the Investigating Committee of three engineers who enquired into the rivers problem in January last, making a recommendation which, in their opinion, would adequately deal with the flooding of both the Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro rivers.

The Rivers Board decided yesterday to have its discussion on the report at a special meeting to be held in about a fortnight. During the discussion yesterday three members of the board ventilated opinions which indicate that the unanimity hoped for by the chairman (Mr. J. A. Miller) will not be realised. The report, however, was warmly received by certain delegates of other bodies, but the conference terminated without any recommendation to the board being passed. In opening the discussion, Mr. Miller expressed, on behalf of the Rivers Board, appreciation of the willingness on the part of the local bodies to join with them in considering the schemes dealing with the flood problem. The recommendations of the engineers had not been adopted by the board as members were desirous of hearing any suggestions that members of other local bodies had to make.

HISTORY OF FLOOD QUESTION.

Mr. Miller then briefly outlined the history of the flood question, stating that for the last 30 years there had been a great difference of opinion as to how the rivers should be treated. There had been a number of schemes suggested, among the first being the damming of the Tutaekuri river at Puketapu and its diversion at Whererangi. As a result of the wide difference of opinion among engineers the board decided that an investigating committee of three engineers should be appointed to consider all the schemes submitted. Mr. Miller then outlined the various schemes which had been sub nutted to the board, dealing first with the 1912 report, which provided for the total diversion of the Tutaekuri river to the Waitangi and an overflow for the Ngaruroro river about a mile above the Pakowhai bridge. He then referred to Mr. G. Nelson’s scheme, which provided foi the joining of both rivers to empty at the Waitangi. The investigating committee had brought the estimates of the various scheme up to date, estimating that the 1912 scheme would now cost £232,000, Mr. Hay’s scheme £226,000, Mr. Climie’s Pines scheme for an overflow for the Ngaruroro £291.000, and the 1919 scheme £229,000. The total diversion of the Ngaruroro would mean shortening tlie course by 2J miles, while the level of the shingle would greatly be reduced. In the Tutaekuri river the reduction of the level of the shingle would probably be about three feet. With the aggregation of shingle continuing unchecked the drainage of the districts was likely to be affected. With the rapid silting up that was taking place the menace of floods was becoming more apparent each year. Unless something was done with the Ngaruroro, and the channel shortened the aggregation was likely to continue until a full shingle gradient, as in the case of the Tuki Tuki, was established. He believed that the scheme brought forward by the committee would stop all the controversy and enable the district to cooperate in having something done that would be lasting and beneficial to the whole district. There was no question that a total diversion of the Ngaruroro would be better than any overflow,, but the whole, contour of the district had been taken into consideration in order thaf the best route could be selected. Wherever the river went some settlers would feel n little hardship, but the board would see that they were compensated. OPPOSED TO SCHEME. Mr. W. W. Smart pointed out that the members of the board did not agree on the new mouth at the Washout, nor on the Pines schemes. In view of that the board agreed to invite the three engineers to report on the various schemes before the board, there being no question .about them involving a new scheme. The board adopted the 1919 scheme and worked on it for five years, when excellent work was carried put in relieving the flood waters Owing to a change in the chairmanship other schemes were investigated and that was what had held everything up; If the present scheme was adopted nothing could be done inside the next two years, as the sanction of Parlia, ment would have to be sought. Economically he considered th® scheme was very unsound. ine damage done to the district annually by floods was comparatively small when compared to the annual charge that would he added to the rates; The question was: should such a great amount be expended t« save quite a small amount incurred through damage? Mr. T. Donovan pointed but where the proposed scheme failed to afford the district the desired protection, and intimated his intentions of opposing it. He askod what sized bridge would be necessary to take the waters of both rivers when the FernhilJ bridge, which had a clear run, had been washed away on two occasions, He contended that if the river was kept to its present bed and a number of the bends straightened out and several corners taken off, the district would practically be safe for all time. By keeping both rivers separate and continuing the work of straightening, they would be doing a much greater good to the district than by adopting the new scheme. Mr. G. A. Maddison asked if .there would be any difficulty in keeping the wide mouth ipen. Mr. Mills - explained that the engineers investigated the locality very carefully ,:na were satisfied that the waterway would become very deep, which would give the velocity. It would provide for a flood of 225.000 cusecs, while the greatest flood ever known in the Ngaruroro was 180.000 cusecs, and it had never been known for both the rivers fo be in high

flood at once. With the force of the combined river it would keep a clear channel right out to the sea. The channel was estimated to cope with a greater flood than had been experienced in the district. Mr, Maddison: Haven’t the floods in the past been caused by the two bottle necks in the Ngaruroro at Pakowhai and at Whakatu. Mr. Miller: Yes. Most of the schemes provide for an overflow once the water is brought into the bottle neck, hut the committee propose to deal with it before it gets that far. Mr. Maddison : If the bottle necks were removed the river would be able to practically cope with all the floods? MENACE OF SHINGLE. Mr. Miller explained that it was contended that if such were done there would he a great aggregation of shingle, which would be a menace. Mr. Maddison: The committee has reported on a scheme to provide for an extraordinary flooa. Mr. G. Purves was of the opinion that the 1912 scheme was the most economical for the district. It would be carried out piecemeal and there would be little disturbance in regard to settlement. The Ngarurolo should be made to carry up to its capacity at the Clive bridge. The 1912 scheme provided for an overflow about threequarters of a mile above the Pakowhai bridge and the lengthening of the Whakatu bridge. Economically the proposed scheme was not sound as it would impose a heavy cost on the district. Mr. Miller: It is rather hard to sit here representing the Rivers Board and to be shot at by members of the board when thev have had an opportunity, and will have again of discussing it. I like fair criticism. Mr. Smart: And you are getting it. Mr. Maddison: Do you suggest that it will take five years to carry tlm scheme out? Mr. Miller: There will be certain procedure to be gone through which would take some time. RATING QUESTION. Mr. Miller then proceeded to deal with the question of rating. He pointed out that there were certain areas in the district which were heavily rated and yet received little or no benefit from the works carried out. He considered that those who receive the most benefit should pay the heaviest rate.

Mr. Maddison: From the point of view of sewage Hastings is going to suffer. It will mean the laying of a further three miles of sewerage pipes. Mr. Miller: But the time is coming when Hastings cannot continue to put its sewage into the river. Mr. Chambers congratulated the Rivers Board on having obtained the services of three engineers to coordinate all the schemes which had been before the heal’d. He was not an engineer, but as a layman it appeared to him to he the best solution for the dealing of the river question. It had been shown that the waters were becoming sluggish and slowing up and everyone who knew the Heretaunga plains must know that the river had traversed every part of it. Unless something was done the time would come when it wotild take some other course. He hoped that the Rivers Board would soon arrive at a definite conclusion in order that other local bodies could proceed with the work they were contemplating. Mr. \V. Tucker: In the event of the delegates here to-day carrying a resolution affirming the proposed scheme and recommending it to the Rivers Board, what would be the fate of it when dealt bv the Rivers Board? Mr. Donovan; It would be thrown out.

Mr. Purves: I would like to know what the Hawke’s Bay County Council is willing to contribute towards the scheme. Mr. Miller ruled the question out of order, referring Mr. Purves to the Hawke's Bay Rivers Act, which provided for the contribution to be paid by other local bodies. THE BEST YET. Mr. T. E. Crosse, in endorsing the remarks of Mr. Chambers,. believed that the scheme was the best yet brought forward for the district. He wqs anxious to get something done. He referred to the myss that the Meeapee riding had got into through the action of other local bodies. The mouth of the Tutaekuri river had been blocked Up and the water turned loose on that district. It had been contended that a first essential towards reclamation at Napier was the diversion of the Tutaekuri river and that'the primary cause of the blocking of that river was the Inner Harbour. All the work done during the last 20 years had been of little avail.

Mr. F. Rice (Napier Borough' stated that as a layman he considered the scheme a feasible one. He did not consider it a fair thing on the part of members of the Rivers Board to criticise as they had done. Mr. A. E. Jull sta-ed that the Harbour Board was in sympathy with the Rivers Board in the diversion of the Tutaekuri. He feared that it would he useless for the board to approach the district unless there was unanimity among the members. The Tutaekuri river originally ran under the third bridge on the Taradale toad. and if it hud not been for the work done by the Harbour Board the condition of the river would be considerably worse to-day. Once the river was diverted the Harbour Board should participate in the payment. The Harbour Board was engaging in some reclamation of certain areas in conjunction with the Napier Borough Council. The areas were being raised, but had the river been diverted it was proh-ible that «nt-h would not have to be dene. The board was

proceeding with the reclaiming of another area in such a manner which would not matter whether the river was diverted or not. TWO BOARDS SUGGESTED. - There was only one thing to do to satisfy this end of the district if the board could not come to an agreement, and that was to deal with the Tutaekuri independent of the Ngaruroro. There could be two boards, one for each river. Mr. Miller explained that members of the board were unanimous on tne diversion of the Tutaekuri but until the board Tiad a general scheme for the whole district they could not expect to get assistance from Parliament.

Mr. Jull: Well, if you are unanimous about the Tutaekuri let us get on with the work. The question of the river silt is not troubling the Harbour Board at all. It will not affect he Inner Harbour.

Mr. Higgins: I feel that the people of Hastings do not realise the benefits that would accrue from a general scheme. If we get an “old man” flood the people will wake up one morning and will not know the land around them. The reasons Set forth in the proposed scheme seemed to be very sound indeed and would no doubt effect a great good on the whole district. I can assure you that the Napier Borough Council wants finality and will accord you its wholehearted support. Mr. Purves expressed the opinion that the river rating area should be extended. The burden of the cost of a scheme of such magnitude was too great for the present constituted district. TIME TO GET TOGETHER. Mr. Tucker: From what has transpired at this meeting there seems to be little chance of getting anywhere. If you can’t come to an agreement I would recommend you all to hand in your resignations and go to the public again. Thev will say whether to carry out the scheme or not. Mr. Miller: It’s time we got together and did something. For 30 years we have been talking and it now rests with the Rivers Board to get busy. . No resolutions were brought forward and the meeting terminated with a vote of thanks to the chair.