FLOOD PROTECTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19136, 2 April 1924, Page 5

FLOOD PROTECTION.

'■DEEDGING THE MOLYNEUX PROPOSAL CONSIDERED IMPRACTICABLE. There was an attendance of less than 20 at a meeting held in the Borough Council Chambers, Balclutha. on Monday night to hear Mr Thomas Bopst speak in support of his proposal to dredge the Molnyeux, ‘ ror T Barnego to the sea,” as a means of flood prevention. Among those present were Mr John Edie. M.P., the Hon. D. T. Fleming, and a deputation from Ka-itangata consisting of Messrs W. Carson, F. Carson, and A. S. (inlanders (mine manager). In i the absence of the Mayor (Mr b. >• White), Mr G, W. Wood presided, and explained that the meeting had been called to hear a report from the two remaining members of the Clutha I 4 loods Prevention Committee, Messrs Thos. Bogg, of Dunedin, and H. Simson, of Balclutha. This com-

mittee had been formed in 1920, and since then Mr Bogg had been putting a good deal of energy into this business, without, however, securing any practical result so far. Mr Begg, who carried a bulky correspondence file, filled with the accumulated correspondence of over three years on the subject, and who had also a lengthv typewritten report, spoke at great length, his speech occupying fully two hours. His copious extracts from the correspondence ho had had with Ministers of the Crown and others rather taxed the patience of the audience at times, but Mr Begg persevered. Ho began by explaining what had led up to the formation of the .Floods Prevention Committee in 1920, after the report of the Rivers Commission had been presented to Parliament. A meeting of the settlers of the flooded area had been held in Balclutha, when it woe decided that the system of extensive embankments recommended by the Commission in its report would not properly protect the lower valley and that the report did not contain any provision for the drainage of farms, or for opening the river for navigation. These latter, said the speaker, were two very important points that had apparently been missed bv the Commission. The meeting had decided to go in for a dredging scheme in preference to attempting to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The delegates appointed held several meetings, and eventually a deputation went to interview the Prime Minister in Wellington. First of all the deputation interviewed Mr A. S. Malcolm, then member for Clutha, who introduced them to Mr Furkert, chief engineer to the Public Works Department. The latter took up a hostile attitude to the scheme propounded bv him (Mr Begg), and that attitude Mr Furkert had maintainedall through the piece. The deputation next met Mr Massey, and asked for a vote of £BOO to get a preliminary report, £4OO to be provided by the settlors and £4OO by the Government. Mr Massey took up a very favourable attitude, and made the remark, “£4OO will not stick us.” Before leaving Wellington the deputation saw Mr Malcolm, who wias to endeavour to speed matters up. On August 31. 1920, Mr Malcolm wrote to the speaker that in conjunction with Mr Belie (then member for Bruce) he had waited upon Mr Furkert, and found him opposed to the dredging proposals. In fact, the three engineers who composed

the Rivers Commission were agreed that the scheme was impracticable. Mr Furkert advocated making the existing banks broader and higher and building others. Mr Begg ridiculed the idea, and said jthat his dredging scheme' would give far better and more permanent results. It was, he explained, at this stage, not his scheme really, but it was one that had been endorsed by all the engineers and contractors he had ever met. The cost would be £5p0,000, but the results would be very far-reaching, and would restore the Molyiieux to its old-time place as a navigable river. Ho could recall the days when yes- ' gels drawing 17ft could enter the river mouth, and vessels of 14ft had unloaded at the wharf at Balclutha. Continuing, Mr Begg stated that Mr Malcolm’s letter had led to a deadlock, but Mr Edie came on the scene, and towards the close of the session of 1920 wrote stating that the £4OO required would be in the Washing-up Bill. It did not appear there, and the speaker next had a reply from Mr Massey saying that he was bringing the matter under the notice of the Minister of Marine. Up to date, however, there had been no sign from the Minister of Marine. The speaker considered that Mr Malcolm had made a great mistake in not getting Mr Furkort to prepare plans for a dredging scheme. The matter of finance was one for Parliament, and not for the Chief Engineer. If the commission had considered

dredging as well as embankments as a means of flood prevention why was it that ’ there was no mention of dredging in its report? Mr Bogg then proceeded to criticise the Rivers Commission’s report, and took particular exception to the statement that spoil could not be dredged from the river at less than Is 6d per cubic yard. He (the speaker) was prepared to do it for 3d a yard, and he had met a contractor who would do it for 2£d. He read statistics relating to dredging over a number of years in the Brisbane River, Queensland, and there the cost in ;15 years had averaged 3>Jd per cubic yard.' The spoil that He proposed to take from the bed, of the Molyneux would not be wasted,' but would be used in building terraces six chains wide at the bottom and three chains at the top, which could be used as highways. These terraces would be placed a quarter of a mile back from the banks of the river on each side, and would provide for an enormous flow of water without any danger of flooding the surrounding country. After these terraces had been constructed the spoil could be used for buildings and for road-making purposes. Being for the most part fine sand and gravel, it would be very suitable for concrete work. The scheme would also provide for the effective drainage of all the surrounding farms. The speaker next dealt with “boils” in the ground—that is. water bubbling pp from underground during floods in soft

alluvial soil, and he ridiculed . the method of dealing with these proposed by the Rivers Commission. He was satisfied that if they put the Remarkablos on top of the 1 embankments it would not prevent these “boils. ‘' —(Laughter.) Resuming his narrative in regard to the Floods Prevention Committee, and (he correspondence he had conducted with Ministers on its behalf, Mr Begg went on to say that on December 14, 1920, at a meeting held in Balclutha, the committee decided to disband, and it was left to (he speaker and Mr Simson to call another meeting if necessary, as it was recognised by the comurittee that, it was useless to attempt to do more unless (here came another flood to rouse the people from their apathy. Air Simson had objected to the Kawarau scheme, and he (Mr Begg) had communicated with the Prime Minister. When the hitter left for England he notified Mr Begg that ho would have to gel into touch with the Hon. J. G. Coates, the Minister of Public Works. On September 10. 1923, Mr Coates wrote stating that the Government bad given the scheme careful consideration, but could not dream of contributing to a scheme run by a private syndicate. That showed that Mr Coates was confusing his (Mr Begg’s) scheme with the scheme to dam the Kawarau in order to

get gold from (he. river. In further correspondence he made the matter clear to Mr Coates, and received a reply purporting to he from the Minister, but really written by Mr Furkert, stating that the Government would bear one-third cos! of the remedial works proposed by the Rivers Commission, and adding that if the people were interested it was surprising that the" had not found the money long ago to investigate, the dredging scheme. The writer had added that the Government accepted no liability in the matter. The sneaker read a long reply he had sent to Mr Coates, and detailed ho\v he had interviewed the Hon. W. Downie Steward on the subject in Dunedin. The Minister of Public Works in a subsequent letter expressed willingness to subsidise any sehemn proposed by the people to the extent of £1 for £2. It was, however, purely a matter for experts, ami it was not reasonable that the local authority should decide how the money would be spent. Mr Begg was quite in error in stating that the commission had not investigated the subject of dredging. Mr Coates had promised personally to investigate (he matter when he came to Balclutha. hut he had not done so, and this, the speaker contended, nreved that the Minister was merely camouflaging all through. Mr Begg was proceeding to read another lengthy letter he had written, when Mr R. R. Stewart (a member of (he Borough Council) asked (hat the speaker condense

his explanations. “We have been here for an hour,’’ said Mr Stewart, “and we are no ■ further ahead.” A Voice: Is there much more of it? — (Laughter.) Mr Begg: Well, gentlemen, I welcome tho interruption, for my throat is netting ve- f dry with so much reading.—(Laugh- ) Continuing, Mr Begg stated that when the Prime Minister was in Dunedin last ho interviewed him and found that the had changed somewhat from the attitude ho had taken up in Wellington. Air Massey said any request for help frona the Governwouid hflr 1 ™ COBIO from & local

authority. To that Mr Begg replied that there was not one local authority, but a dozen of them. Later ho lold the Hon. W. Downie Stewart that he expected him to see justice done. He had then got Mr Edio to wore the Prime Minister, and the hitter replied that there had been no promise of £4OO in Wellington, and he would consider the request only when it came from a local body and through the member for the district. To that ! Mr Begg replied on March 22. deploring the attitude Mr Massey had taken up, and again reminding him of his promise of £4OO in 1920. Ho had also invited the Prime Minister to visit the district, but Mr Massey had replied (hat that was not possible, at persent. In his concluding remarks, Mr Bogg stated that while the cost of the Kivcrs Commission’s scheme was set down at £165,000. he was confident that the cost would ho three times that sum. His own scheme he estimated would take very nearly 5C0.C00, but that would include all the present loans, and the groat benefits of drainage and improved navigation of the river, which the Commissioners’ scheme did not take into account at. all. The speaker, before resuming his seat, stated that he and Mr Simson intended to hand their resignations to the meeting, with which it now rested to decide whether any further efforts were to bo made in the direction of getting a comprehensive flood prevention scheme. The Chairman said he would like to hear what Mr Simson had to say. Mr Simson said he had nothing to say except that he took no credit for the report. It was Mr Begg’s report. The Chairman said it was a question whether anything further should be done. The Borough Council had spent a lot of money in banking round Balclutha. At the same time he personally favoured some scheme of dredging in order to deepen the river. _ Mr R. R. Stewart said it seemed to him that Mr B egg's perseverance was only equalled by his determination not to recognise certain obvious facts. No doubt if Mr Furkert were asked what was the best way to deal with the flooding of this and other rivers he would reply in favour of dredging, but he would point out the impracticability of the whole business. Mr Begg and Mr Simson apparently had estimated £500,000 as the sum required. They seemed to forgot that they would have to keep on dredging to make it effective, and where were they going to get the money to maintain the dredges? The silting up in the Molyneux was common to all rivers. The debris came from the upper waters and settled in the lower reaches. But if they were to spend half a million and more in dredging it out thov might as well buy all the land in the valley and let the river take its course. The difficulties in the way of a scheme such as that proposed by Mr Begg were very obvious. His complaints against the Government would not hold water. Thp latter had appointed three eminent engineers, and they had reported not only concerning the Molyneux but on other rivers in New Zealand. They recommended protective banking, which was the only practical means. They recognised, and everybody else should recognise also, that a dredging scheme was beyond the moans of the people in the district. The attitude of Mr Furkert in the matter was a perfectly reasonable one. At the same time he would like to say that he appreciated what Mr Begg had done, and if this were the proper body to accept the resignations, then he wouid move—“ That the resignation of Mr Begg and that of his colleague,, Mr bimson, be accepted.” ... Mr J. R. Copland seconded the motion, to which was added ‘‘and that the meeting tenders its thanks to Messrs Begg and SimThere was no amendment and the motion was carried unanimously. Mr Begg urged that something further might be done, but there was no motion, and the meeting qlosed with the customary compliment to the chair.