FLOOD CONTROL.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 21 January 1929, Page 2

FLOOD CONTROL.

MODIFIED MANAWATU-OROUA

SCHEME.

HOROWHENUA COUNTY SEEKS FURTHER INFORMATION.

DELEGATES APPOINTED TO CON-

FERENCE,

A lengthy discussion took place at the meeting of the Horowhcnua County Council on Saturday, when a letter was received from the ManawatuOroua River Board notifying the Council of a conference of local bodies, to be held on Thursday, with a view of sending a deputation to urge the Government to subsidise the Board's modified flood control scheme, particulars of which were appended. The result of the Council's consideration of the matter' was that delegates were appointed witli power to act. The Chairman (Mr G. A. Monk) said he was going to suggest that, :n the appointing of delegates, the Counci: might give them somewhat of a free hand, as there, was nothing definite in the Board's .communication to provide, that this Council was released from any future liabilities in regard to the scheme. Although he had no reason for saying so, the modified scheme might include such liability. He suggested that Cr. Whyte and himself Inappointed to represent the Council. Cr. Jensen asked whether, mi the event of the Horowhenua County Council being included in the scheme, a rate would be levied over the whole county. . The Chairman replied in the affirmative, but added that in a modified scheme it was more .than likely that they would not be called upon to contribute. There were certain drainage districts and the River Board district, which included a portion of the county, but not the whole county. Cr. Jensen: What position would the Manawatu county be in? It seems to me that they are after drawing the whole of the district from Waikanav into this scheme. The Chairman: The Commission's report was that we were included, and they suggested that we be levied for £SOOO to £7OOO over the whole county. Cr. Jensen: I strongly object. The Chairman; I did at the time — very strongly. . Cr. Jensen; People who would have no benefit whatever' in the draining of certain of these lands should not be charged in such a scheme. I do not know whether wo should send a representative, but rather say that wo do not recognise any liability, and leave it to the River and Drainage Boards to fight it out. An amendment was moved by Cr. Jensen, that instead of being.''represented at the conference the Council re-

ply that they do not wish to contribute to the scheme. There was no seconder for the amendment.

Cr. Gimhlett said lie thought that Cr. Jensen had taken rather a narrow view. No one had thought of drawing in Te Horo in any scheme. The Chairman: Oh, yes. Cr. Gimblett: I think the Commission said the Horowhcnua County would be liable for a certain amount. I would agree with Cr. Jensen to cut out the southern riding, but the county as a whole is responsible to a certain extent. If we can help any scheme to relieve those lands from flood, we have that responsibility. If you look right along the river bank you can see the trouble we have. There is never a Council meeting but river matters come in in one way o'r another. Cr. Jensen: I wish to protest against Cr, Gimblett drawing in Te Iloro riding.

Cr. Gimblett. I have not. Cr. Jensen: I mean that the majority of the Horowhenua county would not benefit. Cr. Gimblett: Question. Cr. Jensen: Take all the land into consideration and you will only find a small portion of the county, and there is a Board to control that and it is the proper thing to conrrol it, because the people get the benefit. The Chairman: Before we go any further, I must limit you to one speech each unless misrepresented..

Cr. Barber said he did not think that Cr. Jensen had grasped the position. The Chairman's suggestion was that the Council bo represented by delegates with power to act, prbvided that there was no’ liability to the Council.

Cr. Ryder said he took quite a different view from Cr.' Jensen. The speaker agreed with him on one point —namely, that the southern end should not be drawn into the scheme; but he did think that this was quite a serious matter, affecting a big portion of the county, and the right thing was for two members of the Council to go to the meeting. He did not think it was the right course at all to treat the matter as unimportant and turn it down.

Cr. Catley considered that the Council should be represented at a conference of this nature. This was a stupendous scheme, and if the results attained were what were hoped it would ■benefit not only.? the Horowhenua county but the whole of New Zealand, because the land would be made to produce very much more than, it was doing to-day. He asked, however, that the Council should not bo committed to anything until the Councillors had had a chance to consider the new proposals.

Cr. Kilsby supported the proposal for the appointment of the delegates. He said that, seeing that this may .be a modified scheme, they would go to the conference and find out what it was, and would come back and put it before the Council. That was the time, for the Council to take action as to whether they thought that it should be over the whole county or not. lie thought that the southern end should not be brought into it to the same extent as the northern end. On account of the Council's reading schemes, portions of the county would be brought in. There were portions subject to Hood and impassable at times. That was one reason why the county as a whole should have some say in the matter.

Cr. Whyte expressed the opinion that the Council should have representation on the conference. At the same time they should not commit themselves. The object of the conference was tr have a general discussion. He considered that whatever was done should be brought before the next meeting of the Council, when a full discussion should take place. If the Council thought that the scheme was for the benefit of the district as a whole, they would recommend it. The Chairman stated, that, about two years ago, he was required to give evidence as to why other portions of the county should not be loaded for this scheme. He put in several days preparing evidence, and gave it before the commission. The result was that the county as a whole was held liable for contributions of £SOOO or £7OOO ■Whether his evidence reduced or in creased the amount had been a matte for the Commission; he coulu not say

what effect it had. He did his best at the time with the materials he had to prepare to give evidence on. . Cr. Catley asked if the Council would have a chance to object if they were committed to a greater extent than they ..thought they should be. The Chairman: I don’t suppose there will be another Commission.

Cr. Barber said that the major scheme of the River Board had been for something between £450,000 and £500,000, but they were frightened to go to the ratepayers on that, and had made a modified scheme costing approximately £200,000. It was of benefit to a very large area in different counties. If .the Board got the-sympathy of the ratepayers in these various counties it could go to the Government and probably ask for a £1 for £1 subsidy or something of that description relieving the local bodies of the finding of the Commission. Those in the area who weie going to be affected would then vote as to whether this money should be raised. It had to go to the poll in the River Board area. Then the Board would want the sympathy of all the area, to enable it to go .to the Government and ask for a subsidy. The stronger the deputation; the better chance the Board would have of getting the subsidy.

The Chairman remarked that the Council’s delegates •would want to know whether the County was going to be released under the modified scheme; but the Council should not sit down and say that a benefit that could be got by the people interested should not be gone on with. The Council should assist them as much as possible to get the benefit they •werft, seeking. Cr. Jensen: If you support a petition to meet the Government, are you not giving some kind of support? The Chairman: I cannot help supporting the thing. Cr, Gimblett: Have the Council power to load one particular part of the county for this purpose. The Chairman: No; it must fall on the county. Cr. Jensen: I object to assist people to make their property valuable at other people’s expense.

The Chairman: I think there arc benefits attached to this scheme which would accrue and become national. Tho benefits would not wholly be on the properties concerned. Otherwise why would we be worrying about it?

The motion that the Chairman and Cr. Whyte represent the Council at the conference, was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Cr. Kilsby, and carried. Cr. Jensen called for a division ami recorded his vote to the contrary. The Chairman; Now there is the question as to whether we are to have a free hand.

Cr. Kiltfby: It is not consistent if they vote against your having a free hand. Cr. Gimblott: I am not in favour of sending delegates away and tying their hands. The Chairman: I have tried to make clear that we are opposed to the Council as a whole having to bear this burden. What we ask is a free hand to vote as we think fit. on the motion that will probably bo tabled—that a deputation wait on the Minister asking for Government support of this scheme. I may vote against that; I cannot tell till the discussion takes place. It was resolved 'that the Council's delegates be allowed a free hand at the conference. Cr. Jensen again voted in opposition. The Council also decided that the County Engineer (Mr J. T. M. Brewster) accompany the delegates.