RIVERS CONTROL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 220, 3 September 1929, Page 5

RIVERS CONTROL

THE BOARD’S BILL RATING CLAUSES DELETED. DISCUSSION ON NO. 3 WARD REPRESENTATION. At to-day’s meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board, the chairman (Mr. W- G. Jarvis) expressed his satisfaction at the reception accorded him by the Napier Borough Council, the Hastings Borough Council, the Napier Chamber of Commerce, and the Hawke’s Bay County Council when meeting those bodies in conference to seek their active support -to the Hawke's Rivers Board Bill. He stated that a little opposition was received towards certain clauses in the bill, more particularly to those relating to the graduated scale for rating and the raising of the loan without a poll. Subject to the board’s approval * he had agreed to waive those clauses and with that assurance the Napier Borough Council, the Hastings Borough Council and the Napier Chamber of Commerce had agreed to support the bill. While not actually supporting the bill, the Hawke’s Bay County Council had intimated that it would be advising that they offered no objection to the bill. Mr. G. Purves thought that ly deleting the clauses referred to there would be a great deal more satisfaction. Mr. Jarvis further stated that in framing the bill the board expected opposition to some of the clauses. That relating to the raising of the loan without a poll wgs put in because of the recommendation of the Stout Commission. The board was not sanguine about it going through, and would not in any way push it. Mr. Purves said that unless an understanding was given that the board would not push these clauses members would have to go to Wellington to oppose them. THE MAIN QUESTION. Mr. Jarvis stated that the main thing to settle was the question of the scheme so that the board would know definitely where it was. From what he could see members of the board were not in favour of the two clauses relating to the alteration in the rating, and considered that they should be deleted. He would be m favour of a recommendation going forward to that effect. The board then unanimously agreed te delete from the bill the two clauses relating to the alteration in the rating, but to allow that dealing with the raising of a loan without a poll, to remain, although the board would not push for its final inclusion in the bill. The Napier Borough Council is to be advised to that effect A CLAUSE OPPOSED. I Mr. 0 W. Hellyer stated that he had been requested to oppose the clause in the bill which proposed to divide Number 3 Ward. It was considered that the interests of Clive and Raupare were identical, and should not be separated. A committee was now controlling the interests of Clive and Raupare, and at the next election it was the committee intention to nominate a candidate for each end of the district Mr. C. Lassen, in stating that he was going to support the clause going forward, said that the interests of the two districts were not identical, because Raupare got all the water, while Clive got none. Raupare should always have direct representation on the board. Mr G. Purves agreed that Raupare should have direct representation on the board. Members were forgetting the Tuki Tuki area, he said, and it was his opinion that there should be three representatives foy Number 3 Ward—Tuki Tuki, Clive, and Raupare. Mr. Hellyer considered that Clive was in the worst position of any with the three rivers coming on to them. A clause should be included giving Clive two members. Mr .Lassen: Mr- Hellyer then is giving th,, impression that Clive wants two members and Raupare none. Mr. Hellyer: I must object to that. I gave no such impression. It was then left to Mr. Hellyer to make his objections tq'dlb'Bills' Committee of the House. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT. REPLY TO OPPOSITION STATEMENTS. The chairman reported as follows: Since last meeting of the Board a number of statements have appeared in the press from the pen of the opposition. As they are contrary to fact I feel it is my duty to place the true position before you so that the district will not be under any misapprehension concerning them. (1) Mr. Miller denies having told the Investigating Committee and the Minister of Public Works that the district and the Board would not support Mr. Hay’s scheme. (2) Mr. Miller further denies being chairman when the resolution was passed to submit the board's scheme to the Public Works Department for its approval (3) Mr. Miller makes innuendoes concerning the charges for engineering fees. In reply to No. 1: The evidence in the Board’s possession proves beyond any question of doubt that Mr. Miller did advise the Investigating Committee and the Minister as stated. I will go further and say that without the knowledge of the Board Mr. Miller brought a scheme before the Investigating Committee, viz., Mr. Climie’s scheme for the diversioh of the Ngaruroro at the “Pines,” which had never previouslv been submitted to the Board for its consideration, and I firmly believe it was because of evidence Mr. Miller gave to the committee that they recommended a new scheme instead of confining their investigations strictlv to the order ot reference (see the Board’s letter to the Hon. the Minister of Public Works dated 21 st November, 1928. which was nnblished in the press about that time.) In reply to No 2: Mr. Miller is again wrong. The resolution autho" rising the submission to tho Minister of the scheme for approval was passed on the 4th September. 19 9 8. when he was still chairman of- the Board. In reply to No. 3; It was a direct result of Mr. Miller's policy which

made the engineering fees to the Board higher w*an usual. A signed b y A J ax criticises the Xinewing,. aspects of the scheme. Until “Ajax discloses his identity so that his qualifications as an engineering critic can be made known his criticism is valueless. He certainly cannot have formed his criticism of the Board s scheme on anything th»t reputable engineers have had to say against it, and it would seem that Ajax s. criticism is that of a layman with little experience in river matters. LETTER TO HASTINGS MAYOR. With regard to the letter of the opposition to His M orslnp the Mayor of Hastings complaining that they were not invited to the meeting between the Council and the Board to discuss the Bill? I note their assertion that they could have disproved the statements made by the Board to tho Council. They hare been trying to disprove the statements for the last several months but so far they have lamentably failed to weaken any of the claims of the Board's scheme. The scheme is designed to immuno the whole of the district from floodeven such a flood as the 1897 one, and as a guarantee to the Board and the district that in every way the scheme is sound, it has been passed by the expert critics of the Public Works Department. It would be very interesting indeed to the district, and more particularly the borough of Hastings, if the opposition could disprove that the carrying out of their scheme would entail on the borough of Hastings £2OOO a year more in rates than the carrying out of the Board’s scheme. The opposition is endeavouring to set the southern end of the district in conflict; with the northern erid These tactics are to say the least contemptible and reveal the weakness of their cause. The Board is represented by members from the whole of the district. The southern end has five members against the four members of the northern end, and in recommending to the district the Board’s scheme the interest of every part of the district has been jealously safeguarded.

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. The Government owns very valuable property in the rivers district comprising railways, bridges, schools, Crown lands and many other public buildings and works. It also has the interest of the towns and country to consider with regard to drainage, electric supply and safe communications. Considering all these factors it would be impossible for the Public Works Department to approve of a scheme that did not provide the maximum benefit to their property and undoubtedly this has been done. I am glad to say that the tide of opposition is waning now that the district is better understanding the Board’s proposals. This is proved by the support and sympathy the Board is receiving from the various local bodies in the district, and from large numbers of the settlers. I am confident that it will not be long before the whole district is unanimous and will be working with one accord to rid the district for ever from the nightmare of floods and flood menace.