RIVERS QUESTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 102, 11 April 1933, Page 3

RIVERS QUESTION

TUTAEKURI DIVERSION HARBOUR BOARD'S MOVE. CONFERENCE WITH ELVERS BOARD. The Napier Harbour Board will shortly confer with the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board upon the subject of the Tutaekuri diversion. When the Harbour Board met yesterday Mr A. E. Jull, M.P., moved to seek permission from the Rivers Board to construct a„stop bank across the river channel at Meeanee, but after a long discussion the motion was jettisoned in favour of one promoted by Mr T. M. Geddis, asking the Rivers Board to meet the Harbour Board to discuss the proposal. Mr Jull’s motion read: “In view of the danger to this board’s interests caused by the delay in diverting the Tutaekuri river, this boar! as a matter of grave urgency' requests the Rivers Board to permit the Harbour Board to construct a stop bank across the river channel at Meeanee, and if agreed to this board’s engineer be instructed to immediately proceed with the work, obtaining whatever assistance is possible front the Unemployment Board.’’ In speaking to his motion Mr Jull said it was common knowledge that this matter had been before the Rivers Board, and that there had been a good deal of discussion upon it. It had also been noted by him that one member of that board stated that if it were complete and there was no charge on the southern end of the Rivers Boar! district he would support it. INTERESTS CONNECTED. The speaker said he felt that the Harbour Board’s interests were so intimately connected with the diversion of the river that it should take action in the matter. “You will remember.’’ said Mr Jull to the chairman, “this board joined with the Rivers Board in an application for that authority to be given the right to divert the river, on the recommendation of the engineers who reported to tho board. “At the top end we have two cuts in tho bank opposite Awatoto, put in for tho purpose of giving relief to that side of the river and also Meeanee. Those two cuts are taking water over the Richmond Block. Coming further down the river we know there is a proposal for the extension of Kennedy road to make a shorter road to Taradale. Now, with tho diversion of the river there would be no brilge required over that watercourse. There arc also, from tho county viewpoint, two other bridges particularly ripe for something to be done to them—those on the main Taradale road. REPORT FROM MR ROCHFORT. “Farther down we have the report to-day from Mr Rochfort in respect of the Ahuriri Lagoon. Involved in that scheme is the erection of an embankment, certainly not running into a great deal of work, from tho Taradale road to the concrete bridge; and in addition the insertion of flood gates in that embankment for the flood water on the Meeanee—Taradale side. In addition we have the installation of such a bank, immediately reducing tho area over which the flood water of the Tutaekuri could run. It would give a great deal more trouble and a great deal more silt would go down into the Inner Harbour. “With all those factors at work, and the constantly increasing menace to tho Awatoto Block and the Richmond Block sites, if tho river is to continue its course, anyone who watches that river knows that it has since been practically an overflow for flood water, and the channel is silting up. It is going to bo a great danger to this area in the course of time. If wo are to pursue a progressive policy in the matter of cutting up the area on the north of Meeanee, then it is incumbent on us to get rid of the Tutaekuri water. I was at tho site on Saturday and was astonished to sec the comparatively slight proportion of water running this way. I got into touch with tho chairman of the Rivers Board —” Mr Harris: I thought so. SIZE OP BANK. Mr Jull: .... And asked him if they had any estimates for the construction of n bank across the river. I submitted to him it wasn’t my view to seek to put the bank right to tho top of the Meeanee bank to the top of the bank on the Papaknra side, but to bank the river up to the bank on the Meeanee side and. two feet above that. I am assured by the overseer of tho Rivers Board that the. flood of 1932, which did considerable damage down below, wouldn’t cover that. The overseer has provided me with an estimate of a bank 66 feet wide at the bottom tapering to .10 feet wide at the top. and 14 feet high in the river channel and, assuming this will get some assistance from unemployed funds for the loading of drays and 3000 yards of material, that work would involve £l5O. You have only to look at one suggestion our engineer reported upon to-day, and that was the matter of a slip for the ships. Thia would involve, unless we make provision, nn estimated amount of £7OOO, with an additional annual upkeep, which will be very considerable. “You, yourself, Mr Chairman, at trie previous meeting, said that if occasion required it, the board would put on nil the plant, with three shifts of men per day to make it available for the Inner Harbour,*’ continued Mr Jull. “If that is genuine, what in the name of good-

ness is against our inviting the Rivers Board to permit our doing this work, without any cost to them, and at a comparatively small cost to us. It’s not worth talking about. I submit this motion with every confidence in the hope that we will submit a request, to the Rivers Board for us to go on with the work.’’ MOTION SECONDED. In seconding the motion, Mr 11. Baker said that something of the nature proposed should be carried out wth a view to protecting the settlers who will settle on the Richmond Block, besides protecting some hundreds of settlers and some thousands of acres of fertile land. “I am surprised at Mr Jull bringing forward a matter like this,” said Mr L. E. Harris. “Mr Jull has seen what happened at the last meeting of the Rivers Board, and if this motion now is not first-class propaganda, there never was any. Mr Jull is accusing us of delay in the carrying out of the diversion of the river.” Mr Jull: I never accused anybody. Mr Harris: It is only for the want of a little decency that the matter is held up. Mr Jull said, that Mr Lassen had stated he would support the diversion provided there was no charge on the ratepayers in tho southern district. What Mr Lassen said was that he would support it if no extra charge was made. You and Mr Jarvis are only concerned with diverting the river for part of the way, and fortunately Mr Lassen has decided to support the diversion only on being carried out on proper lines. PROPORTION OF WATER. “Did Mr Jull s»n the proportion of water in the old channel to that in the overflow when there was a small fresh about three weeks ago?” asked Mr Harris. “If the old channel had been blocked, some thousands of acres of land would have been flooded. Mr Jull Has made a fuss about £l5O required to bank off the old channel, but he did not say that it will take £Bo,uou to take the water that is proposed to be blocked off along the legitimate channel. He is going to bank off the river at the cost of lives. This is not a matter of harbour, but of lives and property. Mr Baker talks about the settlers likely to be affected, but what about all the other settlers?” Mr Baker. Where are they? Mr Harris: There are thousands of them. Mr Baker: Y’ou are only grinding your own axe and working in your own interests. Mr Harris was about to reply when Mr Jull rose to a point of order, suggesting chat Mr Harris be asked to address the chair. Mr Harris: If I pulled in with Mr Jarvis I could have had small banks, round banks, in fact all kinds of banks. (Laughter). If T had been working in my own interests, I would have had these. The thing is absolutely preposterous. On the River Board we have forgotten more about rivers than Mr Jull ever knew. Two of the Taradale members voted against tho blocking of the old channel, and to discuss the matter any further is only a waste of time. SURPRISED AT MOTION. “I am surprised at Mr Jull bringing forward this resolution,” said Mr J. C. Bryant. “He knows that if the Rivers Board could not agree on blocking the old channel, it is not going to let us do it. It is the business of the Rivers Board and not ours. A while ago I moved a motion to put up a small bank to prevent the silt from coming into the Inner Harbour and I was t.old it was a Rivers Board matter.” Mr Baker: That was in a different place. Mr Bryant: It is not the place, but the principle, and to discuss it further is only wasting time. Mr T. L. Gordon considered it was impossible to divert the water as proposed by Mr Jull without jeopardising a number of settlers. “From the point of view of the Harbour Board, I am supporting the motion,” said Mr H. R. Peacock. “If by banking the river at a cost of £l5O we are going to protect the harbour, it will be good business. The silt is a menace, and to obviate a lot of dredging will be to the advantage of this board.’’ Mr E. J. Herrick, in opposing the motion, said it was a Rivers Board matter, and that the Harbour Board had enough troubles of its own. He did not favour the board accepting any liability in the event of damage. “We are only beating the air,” said Mr J. Barker. “This question was discussed by the Rivers Board and lost by six votes to three. I don’t think any discussion we may have would have any effect on the Rivers Board.” PURPOSE OF MOTION. “I would like to ask Mr Jull what hope he has of the Rivers Board consenting to the suggestion, and what purpose has he in mind in moving such a motion,” asked Mr P. Higgins. “I readily agree that it is only a waste of time discussing it. Knowing Mr Jull as I do, I would like to know the motive —the ulterior motive possibly—that he hopes to achieve. The “Iribune” as usual has misrepresented the board by stating that it has opposed the diversion, and that it has not taken steps to have it obtained. This board has taken every step possible to support the diversion of the river. We met the Rivers Board and offered to contribute the sum of £6OO toward the cost of a drainage plant. I say that the board has been grossly misrepresented by a section of the press. I recognise that the best thing to do is to divert the river so that it can be got rid of for ever.” Mr Baker; Why not support it now? Mr Higgins: Are you not capable of realising just what the board has done in the matter? We are not the controlling authority. I don’t think I will oppose it, but I would remind Mr .lull that there are other interests besides harbour interests to be considered. The hoard, in undertaking this work - , would be accepting a liability. PREVIOUS MEETING. The chairman: On a previous occasion when we met the Rivers Board to have the river diverted back they only agreed provided the Harbour Board undertook to strengthen the bank right up to Pom droll’s Bend, and further to guarantee that it would pay for any damage that occurred. Mr Harris: Anyone who puts a. block in that river and turns it into a different direction till a suitable provision in made is liable for any damage. It isn’t a matter of the cost of building this bank, but the cost of taking away this water. Mr Higgins: If that is the position, I am not going to support this motion unless the board is protected, because

we might be mulcted in a very serious matter. Anybody who knows anything about the question must know that what Mr Jull proposes doing is the least work which should be undertaken in the scheme estimated to cost £BO,OOO. You have to face facts. Mr Jull admits that while he had a look at the site on Saturday—l suppose it was a cursory look—he doesn’t know that the capacity of the Waitangi from the channel is only a small part of the capacity of a normal flood, perhaps one-eighth or one-tenth of the flood water which would be coming down in that direction. BLOCKED CHANNEL DANGEROUS. “Therefore,” said Mr Higgins, “if this channel, which is the old channel, «ere blocked, it would be a danger to the north of the existing channel from Powdrell’s Bend right down to the Awatoto Block and down to Meeanee. Therefore, the banks north-and south of the Tutaekuri are not of such a nature as to be capable of resisting a very heavy flood I would point out to Mr Jull that by enclosing the bypass of the old channel, ami because of the incapacity of the existing channel to take the present full flood water to the Waitangi, if the banks were tapped on the northern side the certainty is that there would be a breach on those banks, and probably the whole of the Tutaekuri flood water would go across to Meeanee, Taradale and Greenmeadows into the Inner Harbour. You are suggesting the worst possible thing that could be done “People have rung me to say they were very alarmed, and that this very work would jeopardise much more seriously the very things Mr Jull is seeking to protect in his motion. It all gets back to this: It isn’t a matter which concerns us. We haven’t the necessary authority. We wouldn’t have the Rivers Board encroach upon our affairs; then why should we encroach upon those of the Rivers Board? I think, sir, you should withdraw your motion. Nobody denies that we want the river diverted, but we should leave it in the hands of the proper authority. Listen to this: I have here a letter from the clerk of the Rivers Board to Mr Rochfort. It says: RIVERS BOARD RESOLUTION. ‘‘ ‘The following resolution was passed at the last meeting of the Rivers Board: That the board’s engineer be instructed to confer with the Public Works Department and prepare plans and estimates for the diversion of the Tutaekuri river, keeping in mind the control of the flood waters of the Ngaruroro river. Such plans aro to be submitted to the board and placed before the Munster of Public Works for his approval, and that the board set up a committee to devise ways and means to carry out the work.’. “This letter was addressed to Mr Guv Rochfort, dated June 11, 1932, and asked him turther to attend to the preparation of plans, etc.” On April 4, 1933, said Mr Higgins, Mr Rochfort wrote as follows to the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board:—“Referring to your letter of instructions dated June 11, 1932, and in answer to your inquiry re detail plans for the work of diverting the Tutaekuri river, I regret that they have not yet been finalised, as between the Public Works Department and myself.” NOT FULLY CONSIDERED. “Here,” continued Mr Higgins, “is the actual scheme: The plan and estimate for the diversion scheme have not yet been completed by the engineer engaged by the Rivers Board, for they have not yet been fully considered by the Public Works Department and the Minister-in-Charge. Mr Jull is familiar with the routine and formality of publie works, and ho does realise this is the least work which should be undertaken of the whole scheme. It is an impertinent intrusion on the part of this board into the affairs of the Rivers Board. (Hear, hear). Mr Jull, you have fought for the diversion, and I am with you, but I realise it would be very unwise to undertake the work till the whole scheme has been undertaken in a professional and business-like manner.” The chairman: The Harbour Board is very much in the hands of the Rivers Board. A previous board agreed to putting in a cut, the result of which was the serious silting in the Inner Harbour. When the Harbour Board asked the Rivers Board to reconsider the position it received a rebuff from the chairman, Mr R. E. Talbot, the man who was responsible for leading Mr Jull and other members into a position which has since cost the Harbour Board many thousands of pounds. I agree to tho diversion of the river when it can be carried out, but I cannot see how this board can lead the Rivers Board in any way. WORK OPPOSED. “At its last meeting,” he said, “it decided by six votes to three against doing the work now proposed by Mr Jull. Personally, I would have been delighted to have seen the motion carried by the Rivers Board. From the Harbour Board point of view the cutting off of the silt would make a lot of difference, but the work proposed is a matter outside the province of this board. We received a recommendation from the engineers, Messrs Furkert and Holderness, to get in behind the Rivers Board in bringing about a diversion of the river. The Harbour Board has already gives that assistance, as its support was very material in getting the bill through Parliament.” Mr Harris: It would not have gone through otherwise. The chairman: We readily offered£6oo for tho drainage plant, and our offer is still open. This, however, is essentially a Rivers Board matter, and we could not interfere any more than ask the Rivers Board to come in and build a harbour for ns. If the resolution was framed on different lines I would support it. As it is there are too many dangers, while the board could not undertake any guarantees. MR JITLL REPLIES. Mr Jull in reply said: “lam not surprised at Messrs Gordon, Harris and Barker opposing the motion, as that is what they came on the board to do (cries of No). I am surprised nt Messrs Geddis, Bryant and Higgins voicing their opposition.” Mr Higgins: I have not said I will oppose it. Mr Jull: Well, I will thank you for your support. It has been suggested that the work is no business of ours. Wo aro not seeking to do anything without consent. For "0 years we have done Rivers Board work because it has suited us to do so. We have put up banks, made cuts and diverted the river on two occasions. In fact, we took charge of it from Meeanee to the harbour. In this ease we are fortified by reports from Mr Furkert, late Engineer-in-Chief, who reiterated that in his opinion the

board should co-operate with the Rivers Board in having the river diverted to the Waitangi. Several members: We all supported that. Mr Jull: When Mr Furkert made his second report he again said that every effort should be made in concentrating upon the diversion of the river to the Waitangi in place of a diversion at Westshore, or as an alternative to providing lighterage accommodation at the Breakwater. There is a lot of talk about intruding into the Rivers Board’s affairs. NO GUARANTEE. Mr Harris: We will tell you that after our next meeting. Mr Jull: The board would not be foolish and enter into any guarantee with the Rivers Board. We are only asking permission to do something that would be of benefit to the harbour. Mr Harris speaks of Clive: Well, I am interested in the Clive people, and I am answerable to them. At lunch time Mr Harris told me that if he could be assured that once the work was started it would be completed, ho would be willing for this bank to proceed. Mr Harris: I said if the job could bo guaranteed by some responsible person I would bo in favour of the diversion proceeding. This bank being asked for is the last job to bo done. Mr Jull: I don’t think it will be. am not. so sure that members arc looking at it from the point of view of the harbour. If members are consistent in protecting the board’s interests as they were elected to do, they are in duty bound to support this resolution. It is the duty of every member to do so. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION. The chairman suggested that Mr Jull might care to withdraw his motion and substitute one asking the Rivers Board to confer with the Harbour Board on the subject. He, personally, would bo glad to support such a move. Mr Higgins concurred, and said ho thought it a very good move. Mr Jull: No. I will put this oue, and then you can put one if you like. Air Bryant: It will cost £l5O. Well, why not let them do it themselves, and give them the money? Mr Jull: I have no objection to that. The chairman (to Mr Jull): Would you agree to that? Mr Bryant: He wants to put us offside. Air Jull denied the implication, whereupon Mr Higgins said that so long aj the board would not be mulcted in any way he would support the motion. - The motion was thereupon

put to the vote and lost. For: Messrs .lull, McLean, Peacock, Lowe, Baker and Higgins. Against: Messrs Geddis, Cato, Barker, Herrick, Gordon, Bryant,' and Harris. The chairman said ho thought It unfortunate that the mover of the motion had worded it in the way he did. Mr Geddis said he would move another motion that the Rivers Board be asked to meet the Harbour Board and confer upon the matter. After all, it was a matter for the Rivers Board, but he would like to see the board early about the diversion scheme to get it out as soon as possible. It would be to tho interest of the whole district when this was done. Mr Barker seconded the motion, saying he would like to see incorporated the fact that the Harbour Board was willing to contribute £l5O. He thought the board would bo only too glad to contribute this sum, provided it did not have any further liability. Mr Geddis agreed to this addition, but Mr Harris said the Rivers Board, ' vaa getting on with the work of diversion and getting on very well. (Laughter.) Mr Jull: Yes, quite (laughter). I rather like the stylo of “You’re getting on.” (Renewed laughter.) THE STRONGEST INFLUENCE. Mr Harris: I put up the strongest influence against the diversion because I think it is a wrong thing for this district, but now it is in the state it is, I think it should be gone on with. You people poking in your noses is no joke and no help. It is our very serious} intention to try to get together and put that diversion through. There are no actual estimates out for that scheme because there are lots of things to do. I don’t think you will help matters by poking your noses in. Mr Jull (referring to the second motion): I hope you won’t have that addendum tackzd on. Why pre-judge the position? Possibly you will give £l5O and have no liability. To my way of thinking the amount involved was so trifling I didn’t think there would bo any trouble. For goodness sake let us go to the meeting with an open mind. • Air Barker agreed to the deletion of tho clause dealing with the proposed contribution of £l5O, whereupon the nesting affirmed the motion to meet the Rivers Board to discuss the question of the Tutaekuri diversion.