CONTROL OF RIVER

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXV, Issue 228, 25 August 1945, Page 4

CONTROL OF RIVER

I NEW PLAN OPPOSED. | LOWER MANAWATU. i By five votes to three, the ManawatuOroua River Hoard yesterday expressed its disapproval of tne scheme recently adopted by the Manawatu Catchment Board which is the lirst of three sections of works for the control of tiie Manawatu River and which deals witti the Moutoa and nearby areas up as tar as the Shannon bridge. The motion was carried after a short discussion in which the mam participants were Messrs J. Chrystail (chairman) and R. J. Law. Mr Law urged that the River Board, if it condemned the Catchment Board s scheme, should at least advance an alternative, and Mr Chrystail said no alternative was necessary—the benefit to be derived was too small.

i Those who voted for the motion were Messrs J. Chrystail, J. B. Chrystail, ; S. Mitchell, T. Saunders and S. Newth. i Voting against it were Messrs It. <J • .Law, VV. H. Barrow' and W. Jackson. The motiou was as follows:—' lhat I the members of the River Board regret j that they cannot support the flood control scheme proposed by Mr D. J • iHalley (engineer) for the following I reasons: (i) Section 1 involves the ! injurious affection of 27,000 acres ot I first-class grazing land in the Moutoa area by cuts and stop-banks, submersion by high tides and a fresh crop jof noxious weeds sown with every 1 major flood over the whole area, resultiing in the greater portion of the land between the main stop-banks being i completely lost for productive purposes. '(2) i'he development of the Wmrokmo 'cut lias relieved from small and medium floods the areas most subject to flooding, about 10,000 acres in Moutoa and Koputaroa. It has lowered the crest of flood waters by an average of 2ft from the site of the cut upstream to a point beyond the Shannon bridge, thus removing all danger in the Lower Makerua area of the banks being overtopped by floods, and thus rendering the major scheme unnecessary... (3) The remainder of the area seriously flooded in the Taonui basin (about 50Q0 acres) is not sufficient to_ warrant the huge expenditure of £275,0J0 for section 1 of the scheme, and with sections 2 and 3 not yet supplied the scheme may easily result in a total completed cost of £500,000. (4) We wish to emphasise the dangerous possibilities of the proposals contained in section 3 of the report —the cut-offs in the river channel as far as Ashhurst and further banking along the river which, if carried out, may result in a disaster to the whole of the Makerua subdivision of this board's area and fill up the present channel of the riverbed with metal much further downstream. (5) In conclusion, we sug- j gest that the land proposed to be j benefited is already carrying more than its fair share of taxation antl rates 'and to carry out the proposed scheme under the present excessively high costs would result in an additional burden on the ratepayers concerned."