CAPACITY OF RANGIOTU FLOODGATE INADEQUATE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6851, 5 March 1929, Page 2

CAPACITY OF RANGIOTU FLOODGATE INADEQUATE

Drainage Board Discussion SETTLERS TO BE ASKED TO CARRY HALF COST OF INCREASED OUTLET The vexed question of the efficiency or otherwise of the Manaw&tu Drainage board's main floodgate at Eangiotu, received further attention at yesterday’s meeting of the board. As a result, steps are to be taken to ascertain whether the ratepayers of tho district affected will bo prepared to bcaT half the cost of enlarging tho gate to cope with flood emergency. In the event of the ratepayers being prepared to bear this half cost, the board is prepared to make up the remainder of tho amount required to put in two extra outlets, and to put the work of constructing one extra outlet in hand immediately tho ratepayers’ assent is received. According to the engineer’s recommendations, two additional outlets will be constructed but it was decided by the board to carry out the work on only one of these this season and to completo tho second the following year. The ratepayers are to be asked this year, to bear half the cost of constructing the first outlet, the expenditure upon which, is estimated at £SOO. The floodgate question came up for discussion when Trustee M. A. Eliott reported upon a meeting of settlers held on February To in connection with the matter. Discussed by Settlers. Trustoe Eliott stated that a large number-, of settlers had attended tho meeting and the concensus of opinion had been that while the floodgate was large enough to prevent the waters of the Manawatu river backing up tho drain, it was not large enough to let the water quickly away at-times of flood. Put in a nutshell, the position was, that the settlers considered that the benefits conferred by the present floodgate were far outweighed by its disadvantages. Tho board must take into consideration the fact that with the floodgate functioning as at present, any settler in the affected area could bring an action for damage against the board, with the result that the ratepayers of the whole area would suffer. Trustee E. Wood: You have no right to demolish the floodgate before it has been tried out. Trustee Eliott: It was tried, cut by the last flood and you know what happened. Also we are not asking that ic should be demolished. Trustee A. Guy expressed the opinion that as the whole of the board's area had contributed to the erection of the gate in the first place, tho whole of the area should bear tho cost of any extensions. Personally, he had been s,way at the time of the last flood, but if as was stated, the water had been several feet higher on tho inside of the gate than on tho outside, then it was plain that it was not functioning. He did not think that the present gate should be demolished but merely that two additional outlets should be provided further down. Settlers Should Help. The chairman (Trustee P. J- Small) pointed out that during the last 18 months, the board had spent £7OOO on the lower area where tho_ Eangiotu floodgate was situated. This year attention would have to be given to drains over the wholo of tho board’s district and as far as ho could see, every sixpence of the board’s revenue would be„.required for that purpose. Last year~tirov'hard-spent practically the whole-of their borrowed capital and rate moneys on the lower area round Eangiotu, but this year he suggested the whole expenditure should be made on drain cleaning. At the same time, he realised that, something would havo to be done to extend the capacity , of tho floodgate and to that end ho suggested that it the ratepayers in the area affected would bear, half the cost of the construction of ono additional outlet, the board would meet tho other half of the liability. The engineer proposed to put in two extra outlets but be Rugnested that only one should be undertaken. this year until they were able to form an estimate of its efficiency. Perhaps the settlers could put m one door this year, and the board could put in the second next year. Taking into consideration the fact that the board had spent so much money on tho lower area already, he thought it was a fair thing to ask the settlers to bear some share of the cost. The probabilitics were that it would be necessary to constitute a special Tating area in the neighbourhood affected. Trustee Eliott: I think I can assure you that you will get-all the signatures required- for the settlers to find half the cost. , , ~ , , The clerk pointed out that the board would not be able to constitute a special rating area in much less than two months. . . Other trustees expressed the opinion that something should be done, to relievo the position as soon as possible. In concurring with this view, Trustoe XX Collins stated that a mistake- had been made by the engineer who had erected the gate in its present form, but at tho same time the board would have to do the best'possible under the. circumstances.

Trustee Tanner thought that if the settlers put in one side of the projjosed

extension of tho gate they would soon realise the benefits resulting. Special Eating Area.

After some further discussion. Trustee Eliott, moved the following motion:—

*‘This board offers', that provided (ho settlers.in the district affected agree to form a special rating area to provide half tho cost of increasing the outlets of the floodgate at Eangiotu, as recommended by the engineer, the board will find the other half of the cost.”

In speaking to the motion, Trustee Eliott suggested that providing the settlers agreed to pay half the cost, the board should proceed immediately to put in one of the extra gates, the cost of which, on the engineer’s estimate would be £250 to tho board and £250 to tho ratepayers. The chairman stated that as £l7O of the original loan money would bo available, tho cost to the hoard would actually bo only about £7O. He then put Trustee Eliott’s motion , which was carried unanimously. It was decided to take steps to raise a loan of £SOO and to canvass tho district immediately in an endeavour to obtaiu tho consent of the ratepayers concerned for the raising of such a loan.