SIXTY ACRES OR TWENTY THOUSAND?

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 238, 8 October 1936, Page 9

SIXTY ACRES OR TWENTY THOUSAND?

Returned Soldier Opposes Drainage Board Scheme COLEY’S BEND PROJECT BEFORE COMMISSION The intent of this scheme is to sacrifice 60 acres to protect 20,000,” declared Mr A. M. Ongley yesterday to a Magisterial Commission of three assessors •which heard a dispute to determine whether or not the Makerua Drainage Board should he permitted to erect a new stophank at Coley’s hend, some distance further hack than the present one. The action was heard before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Mr P. E. Baldwin (nominated by the board), and Mr W. Smith, of Moutoa (nominated by David Augustus Coley). Under the Land Drainage Act, 1908, the board gave notice of its intention to carry out the work, and, Coley having lodged objection, the parties failed to agree. The matter was therefore referred to the Magistrate and assessors. ,

Mr J. P. Innos appeared for the board and Mr. A. M. Ongley for Coley. The banks closer to the river had been constructed no less than four times, said Mr Innes, but each time with the same result that they disappeared. Engineers declared that it was a waste of time to erect banks that would fall into the river. Therefore to avoid this waste, it was proposed to build a new bank some distance further back.

The dangerous nature of the river was proved by the fact that, a few years ago, Coley’s house stood so near the bank as a result of erosion, that the board removed it and reconstructed it at its own expense. Bor the bank proposed, a loan would be necessary, but it was proposed to rate tho whole of the board’s area and not a special area. rioodwaters Across Country Mr. A. B. Achoson, Public Works engineer, said he had known the Coley s bend area for seven or eight years. At tho outset he explained tho relation of the bend to the Taupunga cut. Duller development of the cut would not in itself remove need for the new bank. Sending more water through tho cut would increase the pressure against the bank on the opposite sido of the river, where damage , had in fact already occurred on Barber’s property. By erecting a new bank and lowering the existing one, it would be possiblo to send flood-waters across country affording much better getaway. It was proposed to put the new bank where it would last a lifetime, whereas the existing bank must give away at any time. Asked if he could give any statement as to tho intentions of tho Public Works Department regarding Taupung- cut, Mr Acheson said plans and specifications had been prepared for widening the cut, but the Department was not willing to go ahead until it had an rssuranee that the new bank would be put up. Auswering Mr Stoutj witness agreed that the effect of the proposed work would be to render portion of Coley’s property, about 60 acres, moro liable to flooding when the river reached extremely high levels. The area of land had-not been flooded for many years.

Tho only object of widening the cut would 1 be to lead more water through it, making it more effective than at present. Eventually tho whole river might go through, but that could happen only giaduaily after many years. If more water went through Taupunga, Coley would be the only person interested in maintaining the existing bank, suggested Mr Ongley. Mr Baldwin: But it is a duty.

If the existing bank was either left alone or lowered, rt would not require an ‘‘old man” flood in future to damage Coley’s property, said Mr Stout. “Perhaps not with your department, but as far as the board is concerned, this is tho first step towards abandoning tho bank and leaving Coley in tho river bed,” declared Mr Ongley. He thought this sacrifice most unnecessary if the present bank could be maintained. Mr Ongley: Whose idea is it to erect this bank, the department’s or the board’s? —The board is in agreement with it. Mr Ongley: The board is in agreement because the Minister promised them a subsidy of £3 for £l. Mr Acheson: I don’t know about that. Provision for Purchase? Mr Ongley: What would the proposed new bank cost? —About £I4OO. Mr Ongley: And yet the estimate was about £SOOO. I suggest that estimate was making provision for taking this land. Would not the fairer thing be for the board to buy the land and compensate Coley? Witness did not regard this as a fair question. He was interested in the project purely from an engineering point of view. Answering Mr Baldwin, witness said that, if unprotected, Coley’s bend presented a serious menace to the whole of the lower Makerua. The existing temporary bank was insufficient protection. If the Taupunga cut could be made to function properly, land would accrue to Coley’s bend as it had to Fitzroy bend, near the city. If the temporary bank was left at the existing level, the land at Coley’s would continue to tumble into the river, said witness. Devil and Deep Sea. “Coley is between the devil and the deep blue sea,” said Mr Stout. “He loses land either way. That should be an argument for either the department or the board to take over his land.” ■ Mr O. J. Dolan, surveyor to the board, supported Mr Acheson’s evidence. From records, he personally knew the present temporary bank to be the fifth at Coley’s bend. Ono after tho other, the former ones had been eroded and dropped into the river. Coley's house, had it not been moved, would have been in the water long ago. Mr Ongley contended that if the present bank was maintained, a new one would be unnecessary* And yet tho

board proposed to reduce the level oi' the temporary bank.

Witness claimed that construction of the new bank would lessen the river’s erosive force against the present one. It was at present impossible to maintain the bank properly. Tho improvement of the Taupunga cut -would ease the pressure against the bank at Coley’s, suggested Mr Ongley. “But,” said Mr Dolan, “that would greatly increase the damage on the opposite side.’’ Mr Ongley again inquired as to why the board had submitted to Mr Semple an estimate of £SOOO for tho work. Was it not intended that the land should be purchased? Witness said he was unable to say. The detailed estimate would bo in Air Aeheson’s report. Mr Ongley: Is it not a fact that the board had intended purchasing the 00 acres, but has docidcd against this as it was disinclined to tax the 20,000 acres to meet this cost?—l cannot say. Mr Ongley further inquired whether tho proposal for the new bank had not come from tho department rather than from the board. Witness said he had no knowledge of this. The intended sacrilice was obvious, declared Mr Ongley. Tho present bank had ceased to bo of any use except to protect Coley’s CO acres. Bor* that purpose its maintenance was uneconomic, and so the board proposed to lowor its level by two feet.. Thus, while the water remained, two feet below tho top of the bank on the other side of the river, it would il.ood over on to Coley's. “If the board can lower this bank by two feet, when its statutory duty is to maintain existing banks, then it can lower it by 10 feet,” said Air Ongley. “Members Would. Do the Same.” “If any member of tho board had been threatened as Coley now is, he would have taken the same attitude. It is well-known that tho proposed new bank will be useless unless tho present one is lowered. The board knows there will be a loss, but says it must be Coley’s loss. They have been offered the land at valuation, but refuse to buy it. Air Innes: At Coley’s valuation. There was a big difference. Air Ongley said the board u r as unprepared to raise £2OOO off 20,000 acres to buy the land at £4O an acre. When 16 acres were required, the board bought, but refused to pay for 60 acres. “It was a different board then,” said Mr Baldwin. Not Minister’s Intention. “A more fair-minded board, I think,” was Air Ongley’s rejoinder. The Minister, in promising a subsidy, had never intended that the soldier settler on tho river-bank should be penalised. If it were drawn to the Alinister’s intention, ho would net sanction it. “And, if tho Court authorises the work, wo will certainly go to the Minister,” declared Air Ongley. “The whole trouble arises through having too many tinpot boards instead of one authority controlling the river,” remarked Air Stout. “It seems to me wo cannot consider the'Aloutoa in deciding this matter,” said Mr Baldwin. “Apparently the board is frightened of a claim for damages by the other drainage boards,” said Air Stout during a further discussion of the position. He thought there could be no objection to the new bank so long as the present one was maintained to protect Coley. Alternatively, the board had the option of buying the land. .“This suggestion of sacrificing Coley is all balderdash,” said Air Innes. The board could not let itself in for buying land at a fancy price. After a short retirement, the Commission announced a unanimous decision that erection of the new bank was approved provided the existing protection to Coley’s bend was not interfered with.