LOW-LYING LAND IN WASHINGTON VALLEY

Nelson Evening Mail, 29 July 1916, Page 5

LOW-LYING LAND IN WASHINGTON VALLEY

PROPOSED ' Last evening: the CSty CounciT considered a report 'by the City. Engineer on the i-eclamation of 'the land in Washing;-, -ton Valley known, as -King's acre, a,n : area which is submerged with every flood, -causing residents in the locality great, inconvenience.- t .'"■■■''■■ ."- ■' . ; '■ The land contains 2 acres 21 perches, of which, a small portion only adjoining St. Vincent street is filled up id 'the ' sti-eet levels. The rest of the land may ' be divided into three areas marked A.; ■- 8., and C on the plan. ' Area A. has been partially filled up but not sirfficieh% ly to .be clear of high, tide level.. Area B7 has been partially filled up- but requires about two feetmore fillinig- to brine it up-, to the street levels. Area C has no; . fillings done and is inundated at every - high: tide. The proposed work may b,e lapked-at from two aspects: First', to ; remedy the alleged nuisance arising-frora water lying on the land and the 'blocking baek of water in- um© "oi* iibotl; ; second:; to convert the land into occupi-.' able property. '; ' ; It is'-necessary in. both ca-ses that the owners jof low lying land adjoining should' co-operate- in any work that inay be W ;dertaken-or theirland' ■would-be"convert-;" ed-into a /hole without outlet for surface •• water. | '."■*. .. -':-■-. ::;•

Through St. Vincent street v there is' a /brick! culvert five feet -wide which prig- . inally provided iutlet for the stotmwater. - When the properties along that- street, were reclaimed this culvert was ■extended/ -by means of an 18 inch pipe : which' is" .totally inadequate to carry the, suxfaoe '■'. water in time of flood. The St. V inceh*. street ditch is usually in flood at the same time as the ditches in Washington Valley! and prevents free outlet.for the . flood water from the Council's ipropea*ty , and to some extent helps to flood the land. The minimum work required-under the first proposal would he to fill, up the ■■ "ground clear of tide ievel leaving ,'a.n. open ditch about six feet wide through it and providing a proper outlet cnlyeirt , affleast 5 feet -wide aipproximately hi. the-' position marked W-X on. the plan;. This entails I :—Filling area -A, 313 yardk at Is 6d, £23 9s- 6d ; Filling area C. 6700 yards at Is 6d, £502 10s ; .Chlvert W-X,'-351 , feet at 30s, £526 10s;. total £1162 9s 6du A _ former proposition with regard: to' this scheme provided (merely for grading the ground so as to a-educe the "swamp area after the flood water and tide 'had . recede^. 1 and did not include the ■ outlet.■ '■ culvert mentioned above.' The • cost , of. such work would probably .not.exceed ' '£150..' . -..-X .. -:■:-:''■ J ~; .:.:.«:■ ~ The ,second (proposal: is one of:,great:/ magnitude and includes the regradiiig of Hastings street and Washington road ' and the relaying'of sewers, gas and'. mains and cannot bo - the co-operation of the-whole; of the property owners on-tire-south, and -west' : of the Coxincil's property. It entails.— : Fillips: area A. 726 yards aii Is 6d ■ £46." 19s; filling area Be 4466 yard* at Is 6d; £333 9s; filling area 0. 11166 yards at Is 6d, £837- 9s; Culvert XWYX. 1156. feet at 30s, £1734; < reconstruction ; of streets, etc., say £1000; total £4151.175. .There would probably be; • difficulty with property owners and the only'feasible way to proceed with the scheme would be for the Council: to •acquire all the properties affected. I have uo doubt' . if this were done it would' prove a good' investment eventually for the Council. ■ Cr.. Moffatt thought the report .aiv - excellent one, but seeing the cost of the scheme he did not think the council could do anything-at the present tim-e'i However, the Council's ■ portion might .be filled up with some of the spoil fromi slips, and the property owners might bo asked to meet the •-•Council and:'" discuss.' matters. For £l5O provision could be - made for 'getting the water : away/and. this work might be done. He moved that the matter of filling' in the- Icwr-lying '■ areas be left to the City-Fiigiheei- to deal with as material: was '-available* and that property owners interested be -: invited to meet the Council. ; Cr. Pitt said the £l5O work had air ready been authorised to be done. Or. Mercer seconded'■the motion.''- ~": •■ Cr. Watson said that • the trouble at the present time was that the water could not get. away. The water in the recent flood was 18 v inches higher than, in any previous-flood he had known. The.present 18-inch pipe should be replaced by a culvert. .. '■'."' The City Engineer said a culvert would cost £2OO. The Mayor said if a culvert was put in the water could get away, and he be- . lieved that was the' solution of the trouble. * - ■''".'■■ The motion was carried. - .'■- ■■■-.;