THE TAIERI PLAIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 3614, 19 June 1923, Page 24

THE TAIERI PLAIN.

PROTECTION FROM FLOODS. MEETING OF TRUST RATEPAYERS. There was an attendance of about 40 in the Momona public hall on Saturday night, when a meeting of Taieri River Trust ratepayers was hold to consider the question of making the plain safe from flooding, and, in particular, to decide as to the stand to be adopted in connection with the Prime Minister’s suggestion that tho area within the trust’s boundaries be taken over by the Government. Mr A. W. Amos, chairman of the Vigilance Committee, which had met earlier in the evening, was in the chair. The Chairman explained that there had been a meeting of ratepayers a fortnight ago, and certain proposals had been adopted, a deputation to interview Mr Massey being appointed. He then called upon Mr A. P. Fleming to narrate what had taken place. Mr Fleming said that since its election at the previous meeting the Vigilance Committee had been fairly active in the interests of the ratepayers and a deputation had met Mr Massey, Mr Nosworthy, and several members of Parliament. He then outlined the results of interviews with the Prune Minister. It seemed to him that the Government was quite willing to help them, and it behoved the settlers to give the Government all assistance to do so. Mr Massey had been wired asking when he could receive a deputation in Wellington, and he had replied that Thursday, June 26, would suit. The Chairman then read the following motion, which had been prepared by the committee: “That this meeting of ratepayers in the Taieri River Trust area wishes to express its thanks to the Right Lion. Mr Massey for his sympathetic reply to the deputation of Taieri settlers asking for assistance by way of carrying out protection works, and is prepared to agree to the proposal that the Government take over the whole of the drainage area, provided that in so doing the financial liabilities of the settlers to the mortgagees is ensured, and that in the case of settlers who have no financial liabilities, a fair valuation be arrived at, if necessary by a valuator on either side; and, in the event of the two valuators disagreeing, a third valuator to be called in, whose decision would be final ; the Government to take over the present liability of the ratepayers in respect to the drainage loans until such time as the proposed new works are completed.” The motion was seconded by Mr A. Moynihan. Mr W. Bryant asked what Mr Massey had meant by his question, “What is the land worth now?” Mr Fleming said that Mr Massey was quite fair and open in the matter, and he had not intended that the valuation of the land should be based on its present flooded state. Mr W. G. Reid said that Mr Massey had been quite willing that the settlers should remain on the land, and that they should have it back at the same rate, plus a porportion of the cost it took to put it in good order and to afford it protection. Mr E. Smith raised the point that, through the drainage soheme, some of the settlers whose land would be included in the river bed would lose value. Should, he asked, there not be something to cover those people in the motion? Mr Bryant remarked that, the report of the Rivers Commission, if carried out. would mean that the land his house was situated on would be cut off. That was about the highest land he had. and it would he lost. There were other people in the same position, and how would they be situated ? Mr A. Moore: The trouble always is that it takes more money to pay compensation than to carry out the work in. cases like this. Mr Moynihan declared that he would not agree to handing over his land until he knew that the Government had a workable scheme. His idea was that the Government. should formulate a scheme and put it before the people. But in the meantime they had to show that they were unanimous in desiring something more than had been done in the past. Those settlers, he added, who would be entitled to compensation under a scheme would not have to ask for too much or nothing would be done. The Chairman said that that was practically the position. They wanted the Government to put something before them of a definite nature before agreeing to anything but the broad principle. Mr Moynihan informed a questioner that the area that would be affected was 18,0C0 acres. Mr J. Fraser stated that he had much pleasure in supporting the motion with the exception of the last clause. He suggested that the Government should be asked to take over all the present drainage liabilities and to add a proportion to the cost of the land later on. The Chairman said that there was a difference of opinion on the point. Some people thought that if the Government bought the whole plain the settlers would he freed from their liabilities. Mr Fleming informed Mr W. Baird that he understood the position of the leaseholder would be that, on the completion of the drainage work he would have an opportunity of buying the land at present held under lease.—(“Hear, hear.”) When a question relating to the basis of valuation wag asked, Mr Moynihan referred to some “funny things about the present valuation.” Tie knew of land on one side of a fence that was valued at £8 per acre, and land exactly the same on the other side was valued at £6. Mr Bryant moved, as an amendment—- “ That this meeting ask the Government to carry out the work on the lines requested by the deputation, and that the Government be asked to give a subsidy in the proportion of £3 for £2.” ITe supposed that £30,000 would shift the banks, and there would be a fair amount for compensation. He understood that the City Corporation was prepared to supply the power for dredging. If Mr Massey were prepared to find £ for £ he might consider providing two-thirds of tho cost. After a lapse of some time Mr Moynihan seconded the amendment, nro forma. Mr Moore said that Mr Massey had made it very clear that it was of no use going to tho Government with any proposal on those lines. They should have done with patchwork schemes, which had proved expensive. Some of them hod already spent

equal to £3 and £4 per acre to no purpose. That would have been sufficient to carry out the whole soheme.—(Applause.) Mr J. Shannon pointed out that Mr Massey had made it very clear that he was unlikely to get the House behind him unless the Government were going to take over the control of the land.

Mr H. W. Wilson stated that if Mr Bryant’s suggestion was carried out and another flood came the, settlers would be where they were before except that they wou.d be carrying more rates. —(Applause.) Mr Moynihan said that the Government and the business men at Dunedin realised that the question was a national one. He was quite sure that £20,000 would not cover the loss in money spent in Dunedin for corc ,io,U^S ' would take something like £.200 000 to protect the plain, and, unless the Government carried out the work, there was little hope of its being done. The speaker criticised the Government’s carrying out problematical irrigation schemes in the back country. If they put the money into improving land that was at hand it would have paid them better. Jtre thought that the settlers should be unanimous, otherwf§B they would get nothing done.—(Applause.) Mr Fraser was of the opinion (hat settlers should get the best business man possible to look after their interests apart from the drainage, which would be in the hands ox the Government. Mr Moore, speaking in regard to .hose settlers whose lands would be left within tiie banks, said that doubtlos the Government would be willing to give them what they had paid for tho land, but it would not be reasonable to ask, as had happened when the contour channel was constructed, double the price. Mr Bryant declared that it would not be a fair thing to pay those settlers on the r' IS i w k f it they had paid for the whole if J aTl because the best of the land would be in the river bed. He added that nothing the Government could do would prevent the plain from being flooded. If there were drains leading from the centre of the plum to between Bull Creek and the Maori Kaik they would be dry to-day instead of having between 15 and 18 inches of water between Otokia and Maungatua.—(Applause.) As he had said, the Government could not prevent flooding, and he did not think that flooding did a great deal of harm. The scheme of the Rivers Commission would mean that, if more floods came the settlers would be in a worse plight than ever because they would have lost their high land, Mr Fleming said that Mr Bryant had hold that Hoods did not do a great deal of damage. It depended when they came. What if there was a Hood in harvest time? The sum of £500,000 would not then cover tho damage. Mr Fleming reiterated that the Prime Minister had to go to Parliament with a scheme that would appeal to it. If they did not stand together now' nothing would ever be done. —(Applause.) It was remarked by Mr Bryant that a flood had come in harvest time, something like 30 years ago. It was indicative of the drainage available then that tho water got off quickly and that it was possible to harvest the crops. Mr Reid said that the flood on that occasion had occurred in 1892. The water had certainly got away quickly, but he attributed that not to the drainage but to the fact it rile Waipori Lake and the river were not then silted up as they now were. He thought that Mr Massey and the Government realised that the settlers had a right ful claim owing to the lakes and rivers having been silted up. In connection with the cutting of the crops he remarked that there was nothing like as much cropping in 1892 as in ±923. The mover was the only one to support his amendment W'hen it was put to the vote. The motion was carried, the chairman announced, by 26 votes to three. Mr Moynihan expressed the desire that the trust should take a more active interest in the matter than it had so far shown. The members of the trust were the duly appointed representatives of the ratepayers, and they should be forward in the leading place. Mr Moore said that the trust should be represented on the deputation to the Governmen t. Mr Reid stated that the chairman of the trust had headed the deputation to the Prime Minister and had given every assistance. It was imperative that the trust and the ratepayers should take every measure to attain the desired end. At this stage Mr Baird and Mr Moore had a short argument as to whether the matter was one concerning the trust, the former holding that it was a private question. “What proportion of the ratepayers voted on the motion?” asked Mr Bryant. “It would not be a very large one, taking the plain all over,” replied the chairman. Mr Moynihan : Is it not a representative meeting ? The Chairman : I should say so from my knowledge of the district. Mr Fleming said that if it were impossible to get the proposed scheme carried out, the Government might be asked to do the work, providing 75 per cent, of the cost. Mr Reid suggested that the people would not be able to stand that. He thought that, as an alternative, the Government should be asked to provide the whole of the money, charging, when the work was completed’ interest and sinking fund on 25 per cent, (the ratepayers’ share) of the whole. The interest would amount to, say, 4j per cent., and there would be another 1 per cent, sinking fund. Mr Smith thought it might be as well to circulate the proposals among the ratepayers for their approval or disapproval. It would be unfortunate if (he ratepayers did not agree to the arrangement after it was made. Mr Bryant considered that Mr Reid’s suggestion was a good one. In the event of the terms of the resolution not being agreed upon it was desirable, said Mr Fraser, that, the committee should get the next best offer from Mr Massey and place it before the ratepayers.—(Applause.) The Chairman then asked if the meeting were agreeable to accept Mr Reid’s proposal as an alternative, and there were several “Ayes ” On" the motoin of Mr J. J. Walker, it was decided that the chairman and clerk of the River Trust, Messrs Reid, Fleming, and D. Ford bo appointed a deputation to wait, on the Prime Minister, tho trust to be asked to pay expenses. Votes of thanks were passed to the committee, the chairman, and to Messrs Flem-

ing and Reid for (he part they had played in bringing the matter fully before the Prime Minister.