Sectional Banking at Makerua

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 265, 7 November 1941, Page 6

Sectional Banking at Makerua

Outspoken Comment by River Board Chairman OBJECTION BY BOARD MEMBER “The May flood clearly demonstrated the tremendous menace the Makerua banking scheme has become to tlie rest of the board's district. Under 1902 flood dimensions I estimate that 2000 acres of the Kairanga will be inundated unless the Makerua banks break.’’ This comment, made by the chairman (Mr. J. Callesen) in his report to the monthly meeting of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board yesterday, provoked a strong protest by another member, Mr. H. Seifert, who is chairman of the Makerua Drainage Board. “I take serious objection to the remark about the Makerua banking," said Mr. Seifert. 4 ‘Banking is taking place in every area of the board ’s district, yet you practically suggest that the Makerua banking is responsible for the whole of the trouble."

Mr. Callesen pointed out that in his report ho had said that banking was going on in all subdivisions and that, because of this, flooding must become worse. When a big flood occurred, the banks other than Makerua were inundated.

Mr. Seifert: You are putting the whole of the blame on to the Makerua banking. You know that the Makerua board has not stood in the way of banking going on in any other area. Before Makerua put in their banks they made an effort to get other areas to come in and make a comprehensive scheme, but the other areas turned it down and it was left to Makerua to take it on themselves. This board has allowed other boards to build big banks on the river and form an obstruction to the water getting away.

“Where is that?'' asked the chair-

Mr. Seifert: At Moutoa. The chairman; They were there before.

Mr. W. S. Carter pointed out that the Makerua banks were nearer the river than those at Moutoa.

“‘This banking is going on in every subdivision, but in a big flood, it is the cutting off of 20,000 acres which is going to wreck the rest," said the chairman.

Mr. Seifert: I have always advocated a comprehensive scheme.

The chairman said the board was trying to get the district into a frame of mind which would allow that.

Mr. H. J. Lancaster: The cost has been the bugbear. We have looked upon it as a State enterprise; we must get assistance, because we can’t do it without.

Mr. Carter said he did not think Makerua could take exception to the chairman’s comment. The speaker personally blamed Makerua for putting their banks so close to the river and restricting the waterway. “I don't think I was unfair," said Mr. Callesen.

Mr. Seifert: It is not right to single Makerua out as you have done and put it.out to the public that they are responsible for the whole of the trouble. The chairman: They would bo in the event of a big flood. Mr. Seifert: I think that is most unjust. I am surprised at your speaking like you have. It seems over the odds.

“I do not think it is unjust," replied the chairman. “The position is there. Sectional banking is going to wreck the district some day." The engineer (Mr. H. R. Farquhar): If it is without comprehensive provision for waterways.

After further brief comment, the chairman said he was prepared to alter the wording of his statement, which he did, making it read: “The May flood clearly demonstrated the tremendous menace sectional banking schemes have become to the rest of the board’s district without provision for adequate waterways."

The balance of the chairman's report was as follows: “Banking and requests for banking are going on in all subdivisions, and while all have equal fights, flooding must through this become worse. Summed up, we have arranged for relief by the Whirokino cut and by three or four spilways. This is towards right lines of work. River works are essentially expensive, and one of the great difficulties is finance during construction and development." Mr. Callesen added that, at a recent meeting of settlers at Moutoa, he had given an outline of Mr. Grant's initial scheme of flood control and had made the suggestion that this should be undertaken by the Government, but that the district should not pay anything until the scheme was completed and a year or two allowed for development. This method would enable the farmers to get into a better position before making a contribution to the cost. 4 ‘l wish again to stress that, until flood relief is accomplished, heavy rating for repair work will continue, and I again must stress that, during the last three years (including the present), repairs are calculated to cost about £9OOO. This money should be spent not on banking, bat on channel improvement," Mr. Callesen concluded. In his report the engineer stated; ‘‘lt has been found that it generally requires a specially disastrous flood to arouse the public and make it realise the need of comprehensive flood protection and to unite the various interests affected to organise and construct works to control such floods. While the damage from the May, 1941, flood was comparatively not great, it showed clearly that disastrous results will follow from a flood 25 per cent, greater in gross discharge with existing channel conditions. I strongly urge the board to sink sectional interests and differences and remove the existing restrictions to flood discharge at Neville's Point opposite Alve’s, at 42£ miles, and at Jackson’s, 2 mile below the Oroua mouth, and actively to pursue a policy of improving the flood discharge capacity of the river channel throughout. The areas in the flood plain developed to the highest point of production will naturally suffer most under the present conditions, hence the necessity to safeguard the Makerua area. “The incidence of flood discharge of New Zealand rivers," Mr. Farquhar concluded, “shows that the 1902 discharge of the Manawatu River is not high comparatively, although twice as large as that of May, 1941, and that greater floods than that of 1902 are to be expected."