ONCE AGAIN NO!

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6887, 17 April 1929, Page 8

ONCE AGAIN NO!

KAIRANGA C.C. WILL NOT SUPPORT MANAWATU-OROUA FLOOD PROTECTION SCHEME. The Kairanga County Council yesterday re-opened the question of supporting the Manawatu-Oroua River Board's modified scheme by appointing representatives to the Board’s deputation which will wait upon the Government with a request for a subsidy. The Council, at a previous meeting, decided not to be represented on the deputation, but was approached by the board reconsider its decision. 'A deputation from the Board waited upon the Council with this request, but on that occasion, Crs. Collis and Mercer were absent. In view of the fact that there had not been a full Council, Cr. Mildon gave notice of motion as follows: ‘‘ That tho previous decision of the Council not to be represented on the Manawatu-Oroua River Board’s deputation to the Government be rescinded.”

In speaking to his notice of mstion, Cr. Mildon stated that after hearing the deputation from the ManawatuOroua River Board, he had thought that the whole matter should be reconsidered. The Council was affected insofar as Hamilton’s line wa3 concerned, while the probabilities were that they would be affected to a greater degree in the future. Also, the Council would not be asked to find any money and there was unquestionably a menace with which it appeared the River Board alone could deal. At tho time when the deputation had waited on the Council, two councillors had been absent and he had therefore thought that they should be given an opportunity to state their views. Cr. Collis opposed the Council’s supporting the scheme, on the grounds that a very small portion of its area was affected. If a poll were taken, he felt that the ratepayers would oppose this modified scheme.

The chairman expressed the opinion that : the Council had enough to do to look after its own bridges and roads. He thought, that the matter was purely one for the river and drainage boards. Crs. Anderson, Moody, Hoperoft and Merger also opposed the Council’s being represented on the River Board’s deputation. ' Cr. Mildon’s motion was then put to the meeting and lost by a substantial majority. Cr. Small stated that he wished it made clear that the motion bad only been brought forward because there had not b'cen a full Council when the deputation from the River Board had been heard.