PROPOSED RIVER CUT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 175, 25 June 1932, Page 7

PROPOSED RIVER CUT

RATEPAYERS PROTEST. CONFERENCE AT WELLINGTON. Lasting from 1.30 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., with only a break for lunch, a conference was held in Government Buildings, Wellington, yesterday, when representatives of the Government, the Public Works Department, the Mana-watu-Oroua River Board and the Manawatu Ratepayers’ Association fully discussed the proposal to make a cut in the Manawatu River at Hartley’s Bend, near Foxton, the work to be undertaken as a measure for the relief of unemployment. Those present were Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister of Employment (who was present part of the time), Mr J. S. Jessep, vice-chairman of the Unemployment Board, Mr J. Linklater, M.P., who introduced the deputation, Messrs F. J. Boddy (Kopano), J. Collis (Kairanga), A. A. Mitchell (Kairanga), L. B. Wall (Kairanga), P. G. Mildon (Kairanga), H. Voss (Longburn), D. Buchanan (Tiakitahuna), M. Richardson (Tiakiiahuna), H. Lancaster (Glen Oroua), J. Chrystall (Foxton), A. R. Buchanan (secretary), representing the ratepayers; and Messrs W. S. Carter (Chairman), B. G. Gower, C. H. Speirs and H. F. Law (representing the River Board). Also in attendance were Messrs F. W. Furkett, Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, and W T oods, inspecting engineer of the department. OBJECTIONS RANGED. The board, in its argnment for the accomplishment of the cut, stated that the work would let the water get to the sea more quickly, and the summary of the ratepayers’ case was that they wore not averse to the cut as an unemployment measure, but they did not want to be saddled with additional expense. Superficially, the proposal did not appear to cause alarm, it was stated, but closer examination revealed several strong arguments against it. By the construction of the main channel, it was argued by the ratepayers, about 260 to 280 acres would be cut out as a water frontage for a 3000-acre property. There was also Native property to be traversed. To satisfy the Foxton people a river service access channel would be required and this would isolate 30 to 60 acres of good river flat land. The navigation cut at Rush Flat would also, it was contended, isolate land which had a value. Compensation of an immediate nature would be required in these cases.

It was pointed out by the ratepayers that the Foxton Harbour- Board were agreeable to the work being done if it did not interfere with the shipping of the port, for wharves and sheds including private buildings, had been erected at a cost of approximately £35,000. If the cut was a success it appeared obvious that the loop in the river caused by the cut would silt up and leave the Harbour Board without access for shipping, so that they and firms having buildings on the present _ waterfront would almost certainly claim damages through the port having to be closed, or claim a large sum for compensation in the event of it ever becoming practicable or advisable to move the wharves and buildings to a new location, or to keep sufficient water in the several miles of shipping channel by dredging. .. , , The Foxton borough Council depended upon the outflow of the water m the channel to work the sewerage system, added the ratepayers. If the cut succeeded and the present channel silted up, as the cut was estimated to lower the level of the river by 3ft 6ms. on the bridge side of the proposed cut, the river could not flow uphill to do its work. The sewer outflow would empty on to a silted river bed or into stagnant water. The Borough Council would obviously have a claim i9r sumcient to cover the cost of taking the sewerage outlet a further three miles to connect with the moving current of the river. This could easily amount to £3OOO. The deputation from the ratepayers stressed that the construction of the channel would so increase the speed of the river that higher up there nould be a great tendency for erosion of the land on the bends. This was especiallv risky in agricultural country such as that through which the river flowed It was pointed out to Mr Coates that the Makerua Drainage Board, at its last meeting, had recognised this danger and had passed a resolution stating that it held the Manawatu-Oroua River Board liable for any damage that might be caused. , , , , The ratepayers further stated that at the present time an “administration rate of 8d and 7d per acre m classes E. and F.—land rarely affected by floods was levied and this rate had nothing to do with the proposed work. The position would be difficult when the board levied a further rate for the work it proposes to do. OBLIGATIONS INVOLVED. Mr Jessep said that on some jobs the Government had stood the whole of the expense, but the stage had been leached when a halt had to be called. Those who would benefit would be required to contribute something towards the rebel men’s upkeep, and the River Board would have to contribute as much as * > °Mr > Coates suggested that the following amounts would have to be allowed each of the 450 men weekly : —Meat, lOIlbs.; cheese 140 z.; butter, ljib., iam 2ilb.; potatoes, 71b; milk, 2 pints; also firewood, blankets and clothing. The River Board had agreed at a meeting to arrange supplies up to • total of £IOOO the first 12 months. The ratepayers contended that the cost would be 10s to 15s weekly for each of the 450 men for 18 months and this would amount to a huge sum. They felt that owing to the immediate need for compensation and the contingent liabilities, as well as these expenses, they were against the ]ob going on at any C °Mr Carter said that as a result of extensive banking by owners and local bodies al ° n ® J e th e the rivers concerned and the very much improved drainage that had been carried out in recent yeais flood water J,"! down of settling families on the lo«er .£ 1 £ th *“ areas safer from floods. Cnrter by « in Edition to to tssrs «i was the drainage off also in the watershed aiea, whi d been better drained than which was mainly P inundated large volume of water that mu the lower reaches i ™ depression, They hit fhjt» effort, when local bodies ma j n tenance as to reduce rates an a ork of the much as possib • „ j undertaken. t Si t MS."w-0r P »un ltiver Board

there were only three representatives for 250 ratepayers in the Kairanga and Oroua sub-divisions, but there were six representatives for only 1/6 ratepayers in the Moutoa, Koputaroa and Makerua sub-divisions. It was felt that as the board was not properly representing all the ratepayers it should not proceed with work of this nature. CONSIDERATION REQUIRED. Mr Coates told the conference that consideration would have to be given to all work contemplated. He did not want to authorise the carrying o t of iobs that would leave m th-ir train a heavy cost on the ratepayers in the shape of compensation, maintenclaims for would »o into tho whole of the points raised and, when he had armed at a decision, would communicate with Mr Linklater. RATEPAYERS’ CASE. Li a.n interview to-day, a representative of the ratepayers said their case was summed up in three P™P°u]d Uke (1) That the Government shou !“ ta “1! over the whole of the risk for and do it under the Public Works Act instead of the River Board’s Act. Or (2) that it should be ' dition to the River Board that th-y should get tho opinion of the iat Pa Or rS (3) y a-s the River Board is dminto five sub-divisions, directly benefited should take the responsibility for the payment of the immediate and possible costs.