FURTHER CRITICISM OF FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6890, 22 April 1929, Page 8

FURTHER CRITICISM OF FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME

Payment to Makerua DEPUTATION WILL TAKE PETITION TO GOVERNMENT There were 31 settlers present at the adjourned meeting of the Manawatu Ratepayers' association on (Saturday, called to consider the Manawatu-Oroua River board’s scheme. Mr. A. Guy, was in the chair. The chairman, in opening the meeting, said that every ratepayer had a rigut to express his opinions on the matter. Personally, he thought a petition should be circulated for the signatures of those opposed to the scheme, which a deputation could later present to the government. Mr. Guy pointed out that the association could not attack the scheme in detail, as the board had all the- figures. Their attack could only be a general one. However, he was pleased to see the Kairanga County council and Manawatu River board opposed to the scheme. Local bodies had no right to send delegates to the government in support of the board’s scheme. Their duty was to look after drains and so forth. The people running the scheme were both, clever and smart. The Makerua Drainage board had the controlling vote, he considered, in the scheme. The Makerua people had put up good banks and to the credit of the settlers on the other side of the river, not one voice had been raised in protest. If tho Makerua banks were right and safe, there were very few other people interested, except some at the bottom end. The chairman urged that the petition be gone on with. The RiveT board had already spent £12,000 pf tho ratepayers’ money, with nothing to show for it. That sum could easily have been spent on river cuts and banking. Instead, they had dope nothing. ■ “Greater Menace Than Floods.’’ Mr. J. Chrystal, chairman of the Moutoa Drainage board considered the River board’s scheme a greater menace than floods. It was going to take all the farmers’ equity from their lands. That had happened in the Whakatane. If the River board took the scheme up with the limited resources at its disposal, he forsaw bankruptcy staring the farmers in the face. ■; Many important economic facts hail been overlooked by tho River board in its estimate of the scheme. Tho speaker quoted the railway deviation and Mangahao hydro-electric works as examples of works which had cost far above what had been estimated. The same thing would happen, he feared, if the River board’s scheme was gone on with. In addition, he thought the farmers were already rated heavily enough. Mr. Chrystall declared that the area in the board’s district was far too limited to go ahead with such a big scheme. There would be no finality to it; it would be like the Palmerston North. deviatioH“~st3,rted &n*l stopped halfway through. The speaker supported the idea of a deputation to the government but thought that the opinion of the ratepayers should be secured first. He was prepared to help financially • with the petition, which would carry great weight with the government. He considered the losses by floods were not sufficiently serious to warrant the River board’s scheme. A meeting of Moutoa ratepayers had been held to consider the question and he did not know six Moutoa people in favour of the scheme. ' Which Scheme? Mr. D. Buchanan said he recalled the board’s engineer stating before tho Commission that there was no other scheme but the comprehensive cne and now he urged a modified one. The question was, if the modified scheme was started, would the board end up with the comprehensive one? Mr. D. B. McEwen: That is what wo tvill be up against. „ . Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chrystall has given a very good statement of the true position. ' Mr. Zureher: Can’t we pass e resolution to exclude tho Kairanga and let the board carry on? (Laughter). _ The chairman moved that a petition be circulated. r • Mr. D. Buchanan seconded and the motion was carried, Messrs Chrystall, M. Voss and the chairman undertaking to draw it up. An appeal for funds amongst those present resulted in £l6 10s being collected to pay a canvasser. On being asked to speak, Mr. R. Tanner, who is a member of tho Rivei board, expressed the opinion that the scheme was a fine one if it could only be carried out at a reasonable cost. There was no question that if the river could be straightened, it would be a great thing for the whole area affected but he was afraid that by the time tho work was finished, the farmers would be carrying their swags. The schemo was altogether too large for the number of ratepayers that would have to contribute. Mr. D. Buchanan feared that the board’s stop-banks would soon be full of rabbit burrows, through which tho water would soon find a way, causing slips until no bank existed. Mr. Chrvstal moved that a deputation take the petition to the government and this was agreed to . Payment to Makerua.

Mr. Chrystall also moved that th« meeting protest against the suggestion to pay the Makerua Drainage board £36,000 for protective works along th 3 river, unless similar protective works were compensated for. He thought it unfair that Makerua should be so favoured. In any case,, the board’s engineer had estimated the Makerua banks as worth only £IB,OOO to the River board’s scheme. If that was so, why should the board pay twice as much as the banks were worth? If the scheme was to go on, it should at least be carried out on a just basis. Mr. M. Voss seconded the motion, which was carried. Those who contributed to the funds were Messrs A. Guy, J. Chrystal and Voss Bros., £2 each; J. Caileson, D. Buchanan, G. Davidson, M. Richardson, J. Ryman, W. Rowlands, D. B. McEwen, B. B. Zureher, M. Burmeis-

ter, E. A. Bennett, £1 each; J. Kearns

10s. Messrs J. Chrystall, A. Guy, M. Richardson, M. Voss, D. Rowlands and J. Caileson, signified willingness to form the deputation to the government. Subsequent to the meeting, the following petition was drawn up:— “To tho Premier and Ministers of the Government of New Zealand.— The petition of the undersigned ratepayers of the Manawatu-Orona River district humbly sheweth: — “(1) Your petitioners are all ratepayers in the Manawatu-Oroua River District. “ (2) That the said River Board contemplates an expenditure of about £300,000, on flood protection works on the Manawatu River. “(3) Your petitioners are opposed to such modified scheme ,and a grant in aid from the Government, on tho following grounds:—(a) The scheme is incomplete, making no provision for the large overhead bridges over two main highways and other necessary works, (b) That your petitioners fear the probability of financial disaster to a district with limited resources owing to finished costs vastly exceeding esti--mates. ’ ’