Manawatu-Oroua River Board

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 126, 31 May 1944, Page 4

Manawatu-Oroua River Board

(To the Editor). Sir, —The memoers of the ManawatuOroua River Board will be asked to conlirrii a system of rating at their first meeting to bo held to-morrow, June 1. This, only a tew days after their eloction. A method of rating was adopted last year and it is proposed to confirm the current year’s rates on a similar basis. The method used requires altering as it gives results manifestly unfair, in the case of Kairanga and possibly elsewhere. An experienced member of the board has expressed tho opinion that property owners, whose lands flood severely, should not have both floods and rates. Which means, in other words—that, those on the high land must pay unduly to keep the floods off those on the low land. How unfair that reasoning is, will be seen from the following actual example taken from Kairanga Sub-division.

We will take 100 acres out of each of two blocks of land, not quite a mile apart, which will be referred to as A and B. Both pieces of land are equal in quality and productive value and equal to the best in Kairanga, except that A being between the 25 feet and 35 feet contour levels is subject to severe periodic flooding; by floods about 14 feet and over, thus suffering inconvenience through stock having to be removed to high land, belonging to same owner, until flood waters subside. Bis above the 35 feet contour level and it has only been temporarily inconvenienced through flood waters and only twice during the last 30 years. Although A is good grazing land and enjoys many advantages from drainage board works and limited flood protection, its unimproved value lias been placed at only £lO per acre. B on the other hand has an unimproved value of £39 per acre. A was purchased during quito recent times for approximately £25 per acre whilst there is a ready sale for B at £75 per acre, and its original cost was even greater than that. With rates as proposed to be confirmed by the River Board at its meeting to-morrow (June 1) and County Council and Drainage Board rates as for last year, and counting interest on capital outlay at 5 per cent., tho position, per 100 acres, is as follows:

A: River Board Rates, £ls 16s 3d; County Council Rates, £6 16s 8d; Drainage Board Rates, £7 18s 6d; Interest on capital outlay, £125; Total, £155 11s sd.

B: River Board Rates, £l2 10s 8d; County Council Rates, £25 ISs; Drainage Board Rates, £l7 ss; Interest on capital outlay, £375; Total, £430 13s Bd. A stands to gain considerably in market and cropping value as flood control measures become more efficient, while the gain to B would be so small that it could scarcely be measured. Therefore, in the writer’s opinion, A and those with slightly higher unimproved values in the same locality, could reasonably be expected to contribute much more generously to insurance schemes carried out mostly for thefr benefit.

The question of ratios and graduations was exhaustively gone into by Mr. F. C. Hay, an expert on these matters, and until the Board can have the whole position reviewed by an equally competent persoD, it could not do better than adopt Mr. Hay’s formula almost entirely—instead of confirming the proposed rates as advertised. His ratios were approximately as follows: Class C 9, Class D 7, Class E 5, Class F 4, Class G 3, Class H 2. The proposed rates graduations are of 15, 14, 13, 12. 11 and 10.

It appears that it would *be good policy on the part of ratepayers to be on the alert, to guard against bad precedents becoming established in the method of rating. Tho establishment of the Catchment Board gives prospect of more remote control of affairs. The magnitude of a really efficient flood control scheme promises a great expenditure and a consequent largely increased rating liability. Ratepayers may do well to set up an organisation to watch their interests. I am, etc., A. R. BUCHANAN. Kairanga.