FLOOD CONTROL.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 30 April 1931, Page 6

FLOOD CONTROL.

MANAWATU-OROUA SCHEME

CLASSIFICATION.

KOPUTAROA OBJECTORS WANT SAME TREATMENT AS MAKERUA.

The Classification Court has been sitting in Palmerston for some weeks hearing objections to the scheme of classification of land proposed as the rating area for the Manawatu-Oroua River Board’s operations. On Tuesday the Koputaroa objectors were heard. Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., presided, the assessors being Messrs H. E. Leighton and D. 0. Williams. Mr Baldwin appeared for the Board. Mr Bergin appeared for th e Koputaroa objectors and voiced a general objection to the classification of the land into Class C. It was felt that land in Class C in other subdivisions could not be compared with the land Class C in Koputaroa. The subdivision was self-contained and what work was don e there could only affect Moutoa across the river. The subdivision was already banked against the Manawatu, although it was realised relief would come when the main cut was operating. It was not proposed by the River Board to add one shovelful of earth to the Koputaroa banks. Whatever advantage was given Koputaroa by the main cut would also be given portion of Makerua —the six or seven miles below Poplar corner. On the other hand, whatever works were done in the Kairanga, Makerua and Oroua would be to the detriment of Koputaroa and yet, while KoputaToa was ?n C and D,, Makerua was in G. Koputaroa was not contending that it got no benefit but it did hold that it got no more benefit than 7 miles of Makerua and the upper portion for that matter when the cut functioned. That portion of the subdivision which was in the Buckley Drainage Board was rated for drainage to the extent of 6s per acre and the River Board’s average was 4s 7d for the same area. Private banking worked out at Bs per acre. Further, Koputaroa had to carry the cost of Job No. 9, which worked out at Is per acre. Mr Baldwin: They will carry job 9 only temporarily. When the scheme is approved the Board will take it over.

Mr Bergin: And the poll will not be taken until the sun shines again. Mr Baldwin agreed that the Board had no intention of asking for a loan while times were as they were. If the scheme did not go through then Koputaroa would have to stand the cost of job 9. Mr Bergin pointed out that all these works brought the total rate up to 14s 7d per acre for land within the Buckley Drainage Board. * There was another special rating area where the rate was Is 2d. The average drainage rate in Makerua was 14s per acre and Biver Board rate 2s 3d per acre —a total of 16s 3d. That included provision for internal drainage whereas the figures he had quoted for Koputaroa were for flood protection only. In Moutoa the drainage and flood protection average rate was 9s 4sd without making allowance for banking already done. Mr Baldwin: If the scheme goes through there is provision that the Board must take over the Koputaroa bank and pay for it. Mr Bergin: There is no provision in the estimates of *she works for paying for the banks. Suppose it was demanded in cash? Mr Baldwin: The Board can make allowances for it.

Mr Bergin: That ia what we ask for as the simpler method.

Counsel compared Koputaroa with its protection work in C and D' with the land in the Taonui basin in C, D, and E,

Eonald J. Law, with his wife, the owners of 303 acres, said their land was classed D and Z. The banking had been done by individual farmers, by farmers collectively and by the Eiver Board. Generally Koputaroa favoured the scheme, but considered they were being charged doubly for it. The Eiver Board did not intend to do further banking. The average Buckley Drainage Board rate was 6s per acre for flood protection onljf. The average Eiver Board rate would be 4s 7d. An average rate .to cover the cost of the private banks would work out at 3s Id. The Horowhenua County had also spent two loans of £1255 and £1250 on work in the subdivision. To Mr Baldwin, witness said he had estimated the value of the banks at £lO per chain. The cleaning and bank ; ing of the Koputaroa had cost about £3OOO. Mr Baldwin: Do you know you can get credit for that amount as it is part of the Eiver Board scheme? Mr Law: X didn't know that. Mr Baldwin: And you can get payment for your banking wherever it fits in with the Board's scheme. All the subdivision has to do is to make application. Counsel intimated that so far the only people who had taken advantage of the relief that could b e secured for work done, had been Makerua ratepayers. They had had an award made by the 1920 Commission. Mr Baldwin asked witness what the effect in Koputaroa would be if all water was concentrated on that subdivision. Witness said that it would probably go over the banks. Mr Baldwin: What would be your position if Moutoa banked, as close to the river and the same height as you? Would it be that either you or ;Moutoa would be drowned out? Witness agreed that, there was always the danger of Moutoa banking against them. Edward Herbert Kidd objected to the classification in regard to his section of 143 acres, 50 acres of which were in D, 50 in E and 43 in Z. He said his property was on th e top edge of the flood area and a mil 0 and a-half from the river. About 40 acres of his land was under water during the 1926 flood. He considered classification of his and Mr Guy's properties unfair and contended that he should have had 20 acres in F, 20 in G and the remainder Z, William Ernest Kilsby, in respect of his 27 acres classed G, said he had been on the property for eight years, but had known it .for over 30 years.

Approximately 17 acres . comprise terrace land anything up to 30 feet above the remainder.

Mr Baldwin: That is one of the areas which will be adjusted. It is just a question of the acreage of the high country. Continuing, witness said that there had been no water on his place during the 1926 flood.

Mr Bergin: How much higher than during the 1926 flood would the -water need to rise to reach your place? Witness; Probably another 10 feet. Mr Leighton: What stock are you carrying on the place? Witness: About a cow to two acres and some dry stock as well. William Arthur Speirs objected to the classification in regard to his three sections totaling 556 acres. Two sections classed F totalled 202 acres and the-other, 354 acres, was classed D. In regard to the 202 acres, Mr Speirs said that there were four terraces of a total area of 30 acres and that he had never had occasion to move The other area (.354 acres) had been subject to floods when he purchased it some 10 years ago, but he had banked it along the whole frontage (80 chains) and was not now subject to floods. The bank had been erected at his own expense, in addition he had protected 56 chains of river front against erosion. He estimated it had cost him £lO a chain to do this work, the bank having been cut into before planting willows, the willows, being wired. Mr Baldwin: What is your protection on the 202 acres? Witness: All the banks along the river would assist in an abnormal flood.

Witness stated that the banks on the other property were still his, but were maintained by the Buckley Drainage Board.

Mr Williams: How did the banks stand in the 1926. flood?

Witness: Very well, though the water broke through on one occasion since.

D. B. Ogilvy, a director of the company, objected to the classification in respect of 681 acres, 652 being river properties adjoining Mr W. A. Spews’ river section. Mr Ogilvy explained that the whole of the river front (93 chains) was banked to a height of about five feet. Boss Bough and Co. maintained the bank until the Mana-watu-Ordua Biver Bank took it over. Witness stated that the 29 acres had never been flooded. The Chairman: The rest of the area was flooded in 1926? Witness: Yes. The Chairman: Are your banks any protection? Witness: Yes.

B. A. Speirs objected to the classification of three sections, one being of 129 acres (86 C and 438), another of 94 acres classes C, and the third of 121 acres (15 acres classed D), and the balance Z. He estimated the cost of the 7ft.' bank on his property at £1422 for 79 chains. He estimated it had cost him £6 per chain for 56 chains of river protection works. As far as he knew, the 121 acre section had never flooded.

!Mr Baldwin: The area classed D is that contained in swampy gullies. Mr Bergin: We contend that these gullies should be graded. Mr Baldwin: Your bank was broken during the last six or seven years? Witness: Yes.

Mr Baldwin: It was not repaired until the No. 1 scheme was brought into being. It was agreed to alter the classification of the 121 acre section to 13 acres D and 108 in Z.

Hugh Easton lodged objections in regard to properties of his. One section of 94 acres (77 acres D and 17 Z), he explained, included 46 acres of native 'land. Another block of 253 acres had 241 acres classed D and the remainder (terraces) Z. A third section of 132 acres contained 102 acres Z and 30 acres If,

E. Waring-Taylor, owner of 101 acres (31 D ; 45 E, and 25 Z), stated that he had owned ( the (property for 24 years. He said that the 76 acres classified D and E was too high, as compared with some of his neighbours' classifications.

The chairman asked witness to suggest the classes he thought his lower •areas should be in, but Mr Taylor preferred to leave that to the Court. He could not see that the Eiver Board scheme was going to benefit him in any way because two-thirds of his land was on a terrace and that even if the whole of the lower portion was under water, he would not be affected to the same extent as in the case of some of the other settlers.

Messrs L. Eyrie and L. W. Jenkins gave evidence in support of Mr War-ing-Taylor 's objections. C. H. Arcus objected to the classification of his 124-acre section, 40 acres of which were in B, 21 in C, 24 in D and 39 in Z. He said his property was close to the western extremity of the area and was banked all along the frontage. He contended that only 23 acres should be classed B and that he was not going to benefit from the scheme unless his neighbour's property as well as the Koputaroa side of the Moutoa was banked.

Samuel Sloan, owner of 153 acres, contended that he was not going to reap any benefit from the N scheme because his river frontage was banked for 56 chains to a height of five feet, the contract price for which was £3OO, and the western extremity also was adequately protected. He contended that the land he had protected should be classed Z.

Mr Bergin: Is there any fear of erosion' on your banks?

Witness: No fear whatever. It is the only straight piece of the Manawatu and ia all protected with willows.