Control of Rivers

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 121, 23 May 1941, Page 10

Control of Rivers

PROPOSALS BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE OF INTERESTED LOCAL BODIES To consider proposals contained in what lias come to bo known, as the River Control Bill and to arrange for representations to be made on beualf ot this district to the committee which is to take evidence on the matter, a conference of interested local bodies, convened by the lvairanga County Council, was held.in. Palmerston North yesterday. There was an attendance of 45, comprising representatives of the following bodies: Palmerston North City Council, f'eilding and Foxton Borougn Councils, Orouu, Moutoa, Manawatu, Makerua and Sluggish River Drainage Boards, Manuwaiu-Oroua River Board, Manawatu, fvairauga and Oroua County Councils and the f armers } Union. Mr. J. Calleseu, chairman of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board, who was elected to the chair, said it seemed to hint the proposed Bill was not only a catchment Bill, but also might have a catch in it. The Bill would permit of the Government declaring any pa it or parts of New Zealand a caccnment area. That might be very well, but supposing that the Manawatu-Oroua district was extended so as to include xtawne s Bay and Wairarapa and the board wished to taice a poll, what chance would it nave of carrying it against opposition that mignt come from the extended area? Then again the Minister was given power to amalgamate districts or boards. Members of any particular board, he pointed out, knew tneir own problems oest and amalgamation might lead to loss of efficiency. Another provision was that, in the event of amalgamation, the combined obligations could be apportioned over the whole district, and this might give rise to injustices. lu tnis district, said Mr. M. B. Bergin, who was invited by the chairman to speak on the implications of the Bill, there were live drainage boards operating between Lougourn and the mouth of the Manawatu River, lu addition, there were the Palmerston ..North River Board, w r hich dealt with the Manawatu insofar as tne city was concerned, and the jManawutu-Orouu Rivci Board. The function of tuo river boards was lo prevent or minimise damage to land by flooding, while the function ot the drainage boards was to deal with the drainage of their own areas and get the water into the river. Dealing with some of the provisions in the suggested new legislation, Mr. »Bergin said that control of rivers and watercourses would be vested in the Minister of Public Works, and that the catchment boards which would be set up might be composed of non-elective members appointed by the Government for terms of three years. “it is departmental control, pure and undefiied,” Mr. Bergin added. “Unless you can modify the proposals it seems to me that you might just as well go out of existence. The Public Works Department will control the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel. They can go anead with work and charge you lot it. If you refuse to pay, they can call on the valuer-Gencrai to levy a rate on your land, subject, I presume, to clasSi- ,, , . Concluding, Mr. Bergin suggested that the Government should be asked to adopt as the basis for a generaL Act the Manawatu-Oroua River Board Act. Catchment boards then set up w-ould have the same powers and obligations as the Manawatu-Oroua Board. Mr. H. Seifert: Has the ManawatuOroua Kiver Board, power to go outside its district ? Mr.-Bergin: No. Mr. Beiferl: There are cases wheie ve should be able to go outside our district. • ‘ Under the Kiver Board Act, you can apply to have an- area added to your district,” replied Mr. Bergin. At this stage there was read to the meeting a letter from the clerk to the itiver control Committee (Mr. ii. Organ) correcting an impression that the committee was considering .. j-jiii. i > The problem of a scheme, longdistance and national, for coping witu river control, flooding, river erosion and soil erosion, he said, had been under consideration by various departments of State for some years. These proposals were finally evolved and were put, it happened, in the form ot a Bill, out, as the Minister had made clear, Cabinet had come to no decision on them, They had been referred to the itiver Control Committee, which had taken them as a starting-off place for a general review of the wnole problem and had sought the opinions and assistance of interested local bodies, but the committee was not restricted to consideration of these proposals only. The proposals seemed to have a lot to recommend them, commented Mr. A. E Mansford. As fat as the Manawatu Itiver was concerned, there should be somo control right through, the Minister was endeavouring to meet certain problems, particularly erosion, but whether the proposals that hnu been pu't forward were the best way ox tackling the matter he did not know. Mr. o. Hodgens, M. 8., said there was no intention of foisting anything the ratepayers of New Zealand. Bill did nothing more than rcprescu The views of the i'ublie Works Mepa.itment’on the matter, and only after the Kiver Control Committee had take ov-idence, would the Government 1 art, and Cabinet decide on anything. It ha to be conceded' that there was as erosion problem in New Zealand, that steps should be taken 1 . bss of land, leading to a diminution ot Pl ltwas V moved by Mr. Mansford that the chairmen of the various local bodies represented should eonstituet a committee to go into the t»Hnir what legal advice was ncttssai), andoecide ou what should be made to the Riv Committee. io •„.! This was seconded and aJ The chairmen of tne va . “ , „ , bodies then met. It was decided to ash the Kiver Control Committee to extend the time for the taking ot evidence to June 27, because of thoro not havm o been sufficient too to go into the proposals owing to the recent elections. Mr. Bergin was asked to report, ou the Bill to another meeting in a fortnight s time, and in the meantime the proposals m the Bill are to be considered by the various chairiuea.