THE TUTAEKURI

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 147, 7 June 1932, Page 7

THE TUTAEKURI

DIVERSION PROPOSAL CARRIED BY FIVE VOTES TO FOUR RIVERS BOARD DISCUSSION The question of flood control of the Tutaekuri river and of giving relief to settlers in Papakura who recently have suffered so severely from flooding, occupied the attention of the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board to-day. A few days ago certain notices of motion dealing with the rivers question were published, including one to divert the river at Powdrell’s bend and to obtain the approval of tho Minister of Public Works in accordance with the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board Act, 1930. At the suggestion of Mr. J. Macdonald certain amendments were agreed to, and tho motion, as moved by the chairman, Sit. W. G. Jarvis, to-day read as follows:—

“That the Tutaekuri river be totally diverted at Powdrell’s bend to the present overflow channel with provision for a separate mouth at the Waitangi washout, and that immediate steps be taken to obtain the approval of the Hon. the Minister of Public Works to the diversion in accordance with section 3 of the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board Act, 1930, the work not to be commenced until the cost is opportioned among the local bodies concerned.” NOT A NEW QUESTION.

“This is not a new question,” said Mr. Jarvis. “It has been well discussed by both engineers and laymen and ratepayers generally over several years. Tho reports of engineers is what weighs with me, and not that of the laymen, although good ideas frequently arise from them. We have bad many reports as to tho best means of preventing flooding in the Tutaekuri, and whether it be for the diversion or an overflow they all agree that the point should be from Powdrell’s Bend. I am satisfied that, although there is a difference of opinion as to what steps should be taken to give relief, every member of the board is out to assist the settlers In Lower Papakura and save them from further disaster.” Mr. L, E. Harris; Hear: Hear!

Mr. Jarvis: I am glad to hear Mr. Harris say that. Mr. Harris said that the new scheme provided for the using of a portion of the existing overflow besides taking in a new urea. I have always opposed it, and I am backed up by engineers when I say that it would not be the solution of the trouble. The question is so urgent that it should be tackled immediately. Much good work has been done In the overflow, and banks Lave already been erected some distance below Brookflelds Bridge. The scheme for an overflow has been approved by the Minister of Public Works and the legislative authority secured to do fEe work. DIVERSION ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Only a few weeks ago, continued Mr Jarvis, Mr A. J. Baker, inspecting engineer of Public Works, said it was impossible to use words too strong for the diversion of the Tutaekuri. I am of the opinion that the diversion is absolutely necessary. After hearing ->lr Baker, I was more convinced than ever, and 1 made up my mind to do something to bring it about without delay. It is being recognised that it is the only means that will give absolute relief to the district. The siltation in the harbour can only be overcome by a total diversion, and not by tinkering with the line of the overflow. THE ONLY SOLUTION. Mr J. H. Sheath, in seconding the motion, said he could not over-empha-sise the deplorable condition that the settlers in Papakura were now in, and in his opinion the total diversion of the Tutaekuri was the only, solution of the trouble.

Mr J. Macdonald suggested that the motion be altered to include a total diversion and that the apportionment of cost be first determined. Mr Jarvis: What we want to fix first is the principle, then the ways and means can be considered afterwards. If the assistance is not forthcoming it will not be the board’s funeral if nothing is done. Mr Macdonald: If the board had to go to the people it would have no chance. If the costs are apportioned the ratepayers will have to pay only a fair share.

Mr Jarvis agreed with Mr Macdonald that the ratepayers should have to pay only a fair share.

Mr W. H. Campbell stated that the board had a scheme providing for two overflows for the rivers and, to embark upon the proposal to divert the river was only wasting time. He was of the opinion that it was ridiculous for the board to consider it. The board was not justified in spending money on any thing that was not needed, and he was satisfied that it was not justified at Lower Papakura. The board was being asked to support a scheme for which they did not know the cost or where the money was to come from. “I could make a good guess as to where the bulk of the money will come from to pay for this,” said Mr. Campbell. “It will be out of the pockets of the ratepayers. It is quite possible that if we went to the Harbour Board for assistance, they would only laugh at us. I would like to know the meaning of this sudden change. Recently a new member was elected for Hastings and it looks as if three or four members have put their heads together for their own ends. A little bit of voting power seems to have gone to their heads. It is not the duty of the board to go to tho Harbour Board. They should come to us. It seems that if we are not careful we will be carrying Harbour Board as passengers.” In reply to a question by Mr. L. E. Harris, the chairman said that he had every faith in Mr Baker, as he was satisfied that he was on the right lines. He (Mr. Baker) also said that he desired to put the rivers out at the same mouth for the present, but that they would have separate mouths ultimately. MR. HARRIS’S VIEWS. Mr. Hi'iiis said that ho did not want, i: . ’ i J.y did nut sympathise

with the settlers of Papakura, Taradale and Meeanee. They had all his sympathy. However, had the chairman given any thought as to how Farndon and Pakowhai would get their drainage? He was of the opinion that the overflow should take as much of the floodwater as it was possible. Mr. Harris also referred to the fact that Mr. Jarvis had said that there would be delay in securing approval to a small alteration to the scheme, but there would be a great deal more difficulty in getting approval of a totally new scheme. THE FIRST STEP. In supporting the motion, Mr. C. Lassen stated that the Government and the settlers approved of the proposal. He was not elected to the board on an Inner Harbour ticket, as Mr. Campbell had suggested, but he had supported the Tutaekuri diversion without mentioning the Inner Harbour. In his opinion the diversion was the first step in the solution of the river problem in Hawke’s Bay. The overflow had been satisfactory for 20 years, but the earthquake had altered everything. The Tutaekuri river had to go twice as far from Powdrell’s Bend to Westshore as it had if it went out at the Waitangi.

Mr. Lassen then dealt with the levels of the Ngaruroro, stating that during the last flood, at Anderson’s bend there had been a fall of 6ft., showing that there had been no ponding up of the waters. He also considered that the diversion of the Tutaekuri would have the effect of keeping open the mouth of the Ngaruroro. If the river was not diverted it would break on the Meeanee side and the damage there would amount to thousands of pounds. He was definitely not in favour of altering the overflow channel, and he was quite prepared, as a ratepayer, to fight against his land being rated to provide a temporary overflow for the Tutaekuri.

SILTATION OF HARBOUR. Speaking in connection with the siltation of the Inner Harbour, Mr Lassen said that some members of the board might say they were not concerned with that, but he himself and those both in and outside the Rivers Board’s district, were all concerned in having their produce taken away. The cost of the diversion, concluded Mr Lassen, could be gone into after, and if necessary the Harbour Board, Napier South and the County Council could Le cited if they would not come in. ALTERATION TO MOTION. At this stage a discussion took place between Mr J. Macdonald and Mr Jarvis regarding the suggested alteration to the notice of motion. Mr Jarvis stated that his motion meant the total diversion, although tffe word “total” was not actually included in the text. The work would be done progressively until the river was totally diverted. It was stated by Mr Campbell that as the motion stood a loophole was left to scrap the proposal if necessary. Mr Jarvis: If you like I have no objection to making it tho “total diversion.” > Mr Macdonald said that he had been asked to support the total diversion and would do so provided the interests of the ratepayers were safeguarded. Regarding the question of cost, Mr Jarvis said that the diversion would mean that other local bodies and the Government would benefit; and they would have to stand their share. All he wanted at the present time was that the principle of the diversion be affirmed and ways and means of carrying. it into effect would be gone into Pater.. It was recognised that other local bodies would have to give their assistance as this had been fixed by tho 1919 commission Further discussion then took place upon an amendment to the chairman’s motion, Mr Clark suggesting that it read “That tho Tutaekuri river be diverted nt Powdrell’s Bond to the sea on the lino of the present overflow.” The million was carried by live votes to four