Manawatu-Oroua River Board's Amended Classification Under Fire

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7409, 17 December 1930, Page 6

Manawatu-Oroua River Board's Amended Classification Under Fire

: PROTECTIVE WORKS IN MOUTOA ytRHA SHOULD BE TAKEN \ INTO ACCOUNT. A public meeting of the ratepayers | of t'ho Moutoa sub-division, convened ? by Mr J. Chrystall, was held at Foxjflton on Monday night for the purposo of considering the amended classification of the district as recently adopted by 1 the Manawatu-Oroua River Board. / In spite of the inclement weather pj : the attendance: though not large, was ; representative of the whole district. An apology of unavoidable absence was '»'• received from Mr W. S. Carter (chairman of the Manawatu-Oroua River §1 Boad). - Mr Chrystall was voted to the chair and explained in detail the effect of the amended classification in respect of the Moutoa area.

“The position is now so acute in regard to the matter," said Mr Chrystall, j* “that it is time to speak the truth without embellishments and facts without frills." Ho stressed tho point that ho did not want those present to think that a united protest was all that was necessary. There was urgent need for each individual ratepayer to lodgo his personal objection to tho scheme. After pointing out that the average | yato connected with the modified scheme was 6s lOd per aero over the ' Moutoa area compared with an average If ff ate of 2s 3d per aero over tho Makcfua area. Mr Chrystall said that the Moutoa settlers had already suffered considerably from the banks erected at Makerua. They had been deluged with water for 5 years and now were being • ssked to pay for the banks at Makerua Which had done them so much injury, ft{The speaker traced the operations of jtfce River Board since its inception and Ip -referred to the cost of the original Scheme, which, when tho amounts were apportioned, had raised such a storm, of opposition that the board had suddenly •wakened up to what a 4th standard Schoolboy could have told them, that &he land eould not possibly carry such it burden. The board had then brought down a modified scheme to cost £300,000. Now they had a rc-modified Scheme to cost £160,000._ He was very Suspicious of the word “modified". He likened the term to modified cheese. : .The ratepayers would get all the skim Tn.ilk and the engineer, solicitor and Secretary of the board would get all the butter fat. After dealing at length with tho questions of interest, sinking fund and maintenance charges, Mr . Chrystall moved the following resolution: “That this meeting of Moutoa ratepayers emphatically objects to tho serious injustice proposed by the Manat watu-Oroua River Board through the classification recently adopted, for the levying and collection of special rates. We wish to point out that the Makerua ratepayer will pay an average rate of 2s 3d per acre and tho Moutoa ratepayer will pay an average rate of 6s 10d per acre. This benefit in classifi- / eation has been given to Makerua as a concession for existing stop-banks in that area complying with the requirements of tho modified scheme. We re-

spectfully suggest an equitable adjustment of taxation as follows: (1) That tho cost of the completion of stopbanking the Moutoa area to comply with the requirements of the modified scheme bo charged to the Moutoa subdivision. This work is scheduled as Job No. 6 and No. 7 and the estimated cost to tho board is £3500 working out at 5d per acre on a 7 per cent basis. After paying this amount the Moutoa area would be in exactly the same position as Makerua, and both areas should pay exactly the same amount per acre towards the cost of main spillway and cuts. (2) This amount is defined by taking the proposed average Tate on all floodablc lands (as if no protective works existed) throughout the board’s district. The total area proposed to be rated for the loan is 65,228 acres. By excluding Class H land 9149 acres and revenue to bo derived therefrom at 9d per acre—£343, tho floodable area remaining is 56.059 acres on which the average Tate per acre would be 3s lOd. Moutoa would then thus pay an annual average rate of 4s 3d per acre and Makerua 3s lOd per acre. There would be sufficient funds in this adjustment to bring the Koputaroa assessment into lino with justice without making any change of taxation in the Kairanga and Oroua sub-divisions." ' Mr W. E. Barber seconded the motion and congratulated Mr Chrystall on bringing his scheme forward. Mr Barber was of the opinion that the scheme must eventually come but maintained that it should be a national undertaking. Mr B. G. Gower said that Mr Chrystall had certainly looked on the black side of things. The bright side was in evidence for everyone to see in the progress which had. been made in the Makerua area. In places there , they were already paying as much as 24s per acre iig rates and it w'as surprising to sec what a difference had been made to thc> country by making it immune from floods. The position in regard to the River Board’s scheme was not what it ought to be. They had fought hard for Government assistance and al-

though they had been promised £100,006 towards the work it was not enough and they still hoped to receive more. He considered that'if the scheme could pub their land into a state that Makcrua is to-day, then it was a good proposition. As regards the classification, that has nothing to do with the board. This work had cost tho board £250 and if the classification had not been adopted, that money would have been wasted. Their .only aim was to get something which was going to help the ratepayers. He had been settled in this district since 18S0 and could safely say that under present conditions it w>as impossible to farm the Moutoa area as it should bo farmed. He considered that tho amount of damage done by the January flood in the Moutoa area would be sufficient to pay 5 years rates to the River Board at 10s per acre, Mr Chrystall pointed out that whereas under the previous classification which was bad enough, an area of 3000 odd acres in tho Moutoa area has been shown in class A, in tho amended classification as adopted by the board this area was increased to CS9S acres. The remaining areas in the Moutoa district were as follows: —Class B 996 acres; C, 11S1 acres; D, 1392 acres; E, 195 acres; F, 960 acres. Another important point was that 1225 acios of their Moutoa properties were to go into the Spillway. The loss of this area to the Manawatu County Council and the Moutoa Drainage Board from a rateable point of view was also a serious matter and it was estimated that it would cost the ratepayers another Sd per acre in rates to compensate for this loss of revenue. On top of this no provision was made by the River Board for the erection of the two overhead bridges which would have to bo budt. The cost of these was not included in the present scheme, but w*o was going to pay for them, he asked. Tho ratepayers of the Manawatu County Council were certainly going to object to fio so. After' further discussion the motion on being put, was carried unanimously. On the motion of Mr S. Austin, it was also resolved to ask the River Board to define the amount of the maintenance rate to be levied over the respective classes. After further general discussion it was resolved that Messrs J. Chrystall and AV. E. Barber wait upon the River Board at its next meeting in support of tho foregoing resolutions. A vote of thanks to tho chair on the motion of Messrs Gower and 'A oods terminated the meeting.