THE TUTAEKURI

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 148, 8 June 1932, Page 9

THE TUTAEKURI

DIVERSION PROPOSAL CARRIED BY FIVE VOTES TO FOUR A LENGTHY DISCUSSION. The discussion on flood control of the Tutaekuri river and of giving relief to settlers in Papakura who recently have suffered so severely from flooding was continued at the meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board yesterday. “I regard this as a national question and am looking to the Government to pay a substantial portion of the cost,” said Mr Jarvis. , Mr Harris: In what way is it a national affair i Mr Jarvis: There are roads, bridges, power lines and other Government works at stake which require protection. The Waimakariri River Trust received a substantial contribution from the Government, which would recognise that in this case a local body could not be saddled with the whole cost of the scheme.

“I make'no apology in opposing the motion,” said Mr Talbot. ‘‘The great question is the cost, and I am not exaggerating when I say that about 80 per cent of the rural ratepayers are in a state of insolvency. In spite of this members want to go bald-headed for a scheme of great magnitude. I cannot understand such an action on their part. It has been said that the overflow has not functioned as it should have done. I would like to know who stopped it from doing so.” Mr Jarvis: The opposition from the Clive River Board. If it had been allowed to function properly, we would not be having this trouble to-day about diversion. A forest of trees was planted, while the river side was strongly fascined so that there wasn’t even the trace of an overflow.

Mr Lassen: They even tried to get the Minister up from Wellington to try and stop it.

Mr Talbot: Nature was responsible for the blocking up of the overflow. Mr Lassen: And nature will open it. Mr Talbot: Nothing of the kind. The day may come when the diversion may be. possible after the land has been raised. I am satisfied that it can’t be done now.

Mr Clark: Yet the water goes that way now.

Mr Talbot: Yes, when the sea goes down. lam afraid sanction will never be legally obtained from the Government for this work. You are trying to switch to a scheme that the electors turned down.

Mr Jarvis: The electors never had a chance to do that.

Mr Lassen: Didn’t the deputation go to Wellington before the earthquake? Mr Talbot: Yes. RIVER’S SUMMER FLOW. Mr Lassen: Did it not alter the whole outlook? Mr Talbot: No. The summer flow of the river is no detriment to the Inner Harbour. Mr Lassen: But the silt passing under the Meeanee bridge is. Mr Harris: The Harbour Board will see to that. Mr Talbot: The summer flow of the river will be a menace as it will interfere with drainage of the low lying land making pumping necessary. If the new alignment in the overflow was agreed to, a new bridge would not be required. The new overflow would not require a channel and when a flood

got to the state that it could not pass under the Meeanee bridge the road to Brookfields bridge would be blocked. As soon as the flood went down the road would be dry. Referring to the change in the levels of the Ngaruroro river Mr Talbot said that the flattening of the river between the Pakowhai bridge and the mouth had reduced the getaway for the water. There was a danger in that river which he feared was not realised. For twenty years the board had attended to the Tutaekuri river only. In fact, he considered that it should be called the Tutaekuri .River Board. From Bowdroll’s Bend to the mouth in the Aliuriri lagoon the river had been allowed to choke up, no maintenance work having been done to attempt to keep the channel in good order. POSITION PUT BACK. “Nobody has got more sympathy for tho flooded settlers than I have,” said Mr Talbot, “and 1 fear that to-day the position has been put back for years. There was some hope of having something done for them, but now it all seems to be gone. Whatever is done we will all suffer in time of a big flood, but it is these small floods causing much annoyance that we had hoped to overcome. Mr Clark said that as the present river could not take the water to sea the board had got to look for a new way out. Supporting the principle of river diversion did not imply that the work would be carried out immediately, but it would give the board a policy to work on. Ho saw no reason why the

river should not go down over the loi country and fill it up, but it still hai to go to sea at the Waitangi and tha being so, the board could work to : scheme of progressive improvement. WATER FROM TUTAEKURI. Mr H. H. Burns pointed out that i had been reported recently that afte. an inch and a half of rain the ol< Ngaruroro at Havelock North was al most up to previous high flood level It had been said that this water ha< not come from the Tutaekuri, but hi maintained he had a right to say tha" it did. He was satisfied that the tw< rivers should not he put together. On< settler’s troubles, he said, should noi be relieved at the expense of another’s He considered that the Harbour Board if it wanted to overcome siltation should take the attitude to the River: Board of: “Will you allow us to de the work at our expense.” The siltinc of the harbour had gone on for age: and the Harbour Board had no right to ask the Rivers Board to move the river just for its benefit. MR JARVIS REPLIES. Mr Jarvis in reply said the first question was to affirm the principle of river diversion, after which came the matter of finance. If that was not proceeded with the board could not be blamed if nothing was done. lie coul 1 say emphatically that there had not been any change of front ns lie had always advocated the diversion of the Tutaekuri. A suggestion had been made that the Harbour Board could divert tho river through the Westshore beach at a sum exceeding the 'River Board’s annual income, which after all could be regarded as being only of a tempor-

ary work. He would like to see that expenditure on a permanent scheme which would not only prevent silting in the harbour, but would prevent the wasting away of already reclaimed land. It was in the interest of the Harbour Board to assist the Rivers Board in diverting the river from Powdrell’s Bend rather than to undertake some questionable scheme. Mr Jarvis added that he was disappointed with Mr Burns in the attitude he had taken up after having previously supported diversion. Mr Burns explained that he had not gone back on his former opinions, as he had supported a diversion having a separate mouth. ‘ ‘I agree with Mr Burns that a separate mouth is necessary,” sail Mr Jarvis.

‘‘lf you use the right bait you wil get all the fish, ’ ’ said Mr Talbot. The motion on being put was carried the voting being:— For: Messrs Jarvis Macdonald, Sheath, Clark and Lassen Against: Messrs Talbot-, Harris, Camp bell, Burns.