HASTINGS SAFE from Flooding Rivers

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 144, 3 June 1936, Page 7

HASTINGS SAFE from Flooding Rivers

IMPORTANT POINT Objection to Engineer's Statement BOROUGH CONTRIBUTION Objections to a statement that there was evidence to show that flood waters had actually entered the Hastln/t Ith ough in past years was voiced by representatives of th? Hastings Borough Council present this morning at the Government committee of inquiry into various matters affecting the Hawke's Bay rivers district. The statement was made by the Hawke's Bay Rivers Board engineer, Mr. Guy E. Rochfort, who, when questioned by the Mayor of Hastings, Mr. G. A. Maddison, admitted that he could not produce the evidence. While giving evidence in support of submissions made by the Hawke's Bay Rivera Board, Mr Rochfort said: “Without protection it would be impossible for close settlement at the Ahuriri and Heretaunga Plains. It would be well to realise that without the flood protection the prosperity of Hastings, which is wrapped Up with the prosperity of the surrounding districts, might fade. A flood passing through Hastings might not cause any damage, but it would cause tremendous damage to the interior of buildings.’* Mr G. A. Maddison: History shows that no flood water* have ever passed through Hastings. Mr J. Morling (counsel for the Rivers Board): He did not mean Hastings in particular. Mr Maddison: That is important. Mr Rochfort: There is evidence that in 1807 flood water did actually get into a portion of the Hastings borough. Mr Maddison: Can you produce that evidence ? Mr Rochfort: No, 1 am afraid 1 can ■ot do that.

Counsel for the Hastings Borough Council questioned Mr Rochfort in regard to an inquiry held in 1919 regarding the rivers district. Mr Rochfort told him that he was present at that inquiry. Mr Holderness: 1 think you hud to •dmit then that you had no evidence flood waters passing through the Hastings borough. Mr Rochfort: Yes. And there was a considerable volume ot evidence called to show that no flood water had ever got into the Hastings borough as it was then constituted. —“Ye*.” The chairman, Mr A. J. Baker: Did you withdraw that point, Mr Rochiortf—"l said 1 had no knowledge of the matter.” Mr Baker: All tho facts presented to the 1919 commission and before this eommitteo can be taken into account. “My impression was that Mr Rochfort’* statement was meant merely as an illustration,” said Mr W. Stewart, who is one of tho members of the coromitee of inquiry. Mr Holderness: A very solemn warning was issued by Mr Rochfort to the Hastings borough thtt it should contribute to the river work. Tho borough ia contributing to this, is it not? Mr Rochfort: Yes.

Did you mean that tho borough of Hastings bad not been doing its duty ? —"The submissions of the board, to which I contribute, arc that it is satisfied with the contributions of the Hastings borough.” And you personally agreed with this! I Y' ej. Mr Maddison: You agree that it Hastings is bound up in the prosperity oi the district then other centres ot activity, such as railways and transport for example, are bound up m it too. —-‘Yes.” Mr T. Muirhead-Crawford: Is it a fair thing to assume that the Ngaruroro is an insecure river and that it is liable to change its course again, with the possibility of a threat to Hastings! —“I should say that it is a threat to Hastings above .Fernhill. It is very difficult to say what would happen. There is u definite channel that runs from Fernhill right into the borough of Hastings and water could be lead very elose if not right into the borough of Hastings. It is more possible, however, that it would run down to I’ukahu.” The clerk of the Hawke’j Bay Rivers Board, Mr W. J. Ballot, also gave evidence and was eross-exanined. Mr J. M. Rur.eiman (counsel for the Napier Borough Council): Are the rates eight per eent. for Hastings for protection or for indirect benefit? Mr PaHot; Apparently the 1919 conimission decided that they were for both.