FLOOD PROTECTION.

Mataura Ensign, 22 July 1914, Page 3

FLOOD PROTECTION.

THE PUBLIC T(J lIECIDL'.-

i!ti;u( c;.ji roiwcn, i>isci>'sm>v m.- ringlm-ei-in-fbi, j ~. .'",;'/..' "|';..i.|!-; Work.- '• i.-i.:ii-t.itn'flL- as I'olinw, ■",! iv, !v :., ~ In !<■,'• .m-.m,, !!:.- u-.n, -!, H- .i.ii..:r ,\...i! :::» i.vi.i-.1i."- a „(■!>.•.„. ~! I'or.d ~-iomo i, ..iM.iv.n.,.! „! i,. s ;, „,,,,,;, ~„. :.:;';■;.,!•:,•; ihe tin;,';;,;,: due ■-,, <\, U ;h, ' ■'■■>' ">•'' il'" |"ii'|»i..,. „■: ~„i.,iv!> :.!•,.-■ v; ming :! w;h i!n> exc-pt.,,,,. ~;; ]•..,„ A, Canal ;i0 feeu wide at bead or rivnr, I £4SO.' I am of opinion that if thii; canal wore constructed, it would In' silt-i t'd no by the lirst Hood, and therefore, the expenditure would bo waited. I do not roioikineud anv work in lion ; thereof, as little of a useful character can he done lor the .small amount or ■ the item. (2) The Railway, Department will have no objection to the ; lengthening and raising of the railwnv bridge. The question to he decided, is how the cost is to .he apportioned. (.'!) '■ It is usual to meet all claims for com- 5 pcnsation out of the cost of the works,! the amount of compensation* being determined either by private treaty or liv | | a Compensation Court. J't must, hoiv-i [over, be home in mind that no'claims] for compensation can he made until the! claimant has suffered damage. The' construction of a .stop-huiilT throujyh 1 many of the sections in the town coiild j not possibly be looked, upon a« caur.um-j damage, as in 'many instances the kmtions would be materially improved." The petition p!a:-ed before the hist meeting of the Borough Council and published in the 'Ensign' 0 n the following day from J. Graham and 29 others of East Core, protesting against portions of the scheme for protective works that would affect that part of the town and intimating that t'hev would claim compensation for anv damage that might he done- to the'r properties was considered in omijuneion with, the letter from the Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department. 'Councillor Burrows moved, ''That the amended sdieme and the original scheme he placed before the public at the earliest date possible." The'Vspeaker said- it was for the public, to say if it wanted protection or not. The Kngirieer-in-Chief had .stated that the canal would have to be eliminated and he (the speaker) did not think the amended scheme would be anv good without the canal.

u ftmt«JJ«-r4i;liotles sa'd he i -jy liko! lo know what poSiferr-rfio" Oouneifwas; in if the original scheme or the aiiiciulod, scheme for protection wore carried and claims tlieji arose for compensat'on (rom .residents j-esid.'ng i.n the. unportected part of the town. The £1 for £1 suhsiily promised by the Government only covered the cost of the work and did not include claims for compensation.

Councillor Gray said lie was of opinion that tiie Council had made a mistake in the first place in not turning the whole scheme for flood protection down, but'as it had committed itwelif to have a vote of the ratepayers taken it could not buck down.

Councillor Christie said lie hoped both tbe schemes would lie turned down, .'■'::• the matter must be decided by tbe ratepayers.

The Mayor, in reply to a question, explained that the amended . scheme recommended to the ratepayers smsthat the rocks lie blasted out of the river, the bridges lengthened at the west end and the willows cut away and a ■canal cut. The amended scheme that the ratepayers would now be asked to vote on would not include the canal. Councillor Kerr stated that the resolution w.liich had been carried at a public meetimr relative to the original and amended schemes being, voted on by the ratepayers must be given effect to. He

.did not think the residents <:f .East Gore w'hp hnd petitioned the Council on. the matter had any objection to the jimmied scitsme, l>i)t only to the original oive.

Councillor, Baker said that he considered the ratepayers should be given some indication from, the .Council what it thought of the schemes. The motion was then put and carried.

Councillors Brownlie and Burrows favored a vote being taken by the Connoil to show which Councillors were in favor of the protective works and which' were against it. Councillor Burrows then, moved, "SecJng that heavy compensation will bo asked if either the. original or amended scheme, fp carried it be a, recommendation from the Council to the ratepayers not to adopt either .scheme." Councillor Christie in seconding the motion said that the only work he would agree to would lie a bigger outlet at the ra'lway bridge. Councillor Baker moved as an amendment and Counc'dlor Kerr seconded, ; That the Coumc.il support the. adoption of the modified scheme." The amendment was lost and the motion parried, Councillors, leaker and. Kerr voting for t'Jip amendment.