RIVER COMMISSION

Southland Times, Issue 20613, 11 October 1928, Page 9

RIVER COMMISSION

THE BAYSWATER DISTRICT. I. MR F. S. DYSON’S REPORT. (From Our Correspondent.) The following report on the recent commission which was set up to take evidence regarding the petition of several ratepayers of the Wallace County for the Bayswater district to be included in the area governed by the Otautau River Board, has been presented to the Governor-General by Mr. F. S. Dyson. The petition asked that an area of approximately 4604 acres along the left bank of the Aparima or Jacobs river and about one to seven miles to the north-east of the town of Otautau be included within the area controlled the Otautau River Board. The area in question was particularly defined by Gazette No. 78, of November 10, 1927, page 3478. The Otautau River Board already controls lands as shown by lithograph. It would be seen that the lands proposed to be included lie opposite lands already controlled, but also extend further upstream. Considerable evidence was available to show that practically all the lands in question have been in the past subject to heavy and frequent flooding. Counsel for the Otautau River Board raised no objection to the area coming under the control of his board as long as the same was constituted a separate subdivision. Counsel for the board also brought up the important question of whether, in the event of the area being included, a further area on the right bank of the Aparima north-eastwards from the present area should not also be included. This point was most carefully considered and special levels taken. It was his opinion that stop banks _>n this side of the river should be extended for about one mile. There was no doubt that floods overtop the river bank along this length. The sections of the objectors to the petition were examined in detail, and it was his opinion that the objections of the owners of sections 5,7, 15, and 20 were not well grounded, as these sections received maximum benefit by both protection from floods and stopping of erosion. The cases of section 9. owned by Mr. W. Kennedy, and section 1, owned by Mr. James Thomas Ryan, have caused most careful consideration. Mr. Kennedy owned a block of 1000 acres, and the weight of evidence and observation went to show that considerably over one-third of this area was affected by flood water, but that this water, owing to carrying little eilt, and also owing to the nature of rhe farming activities at present being carried out by Mr. Kennedy, did comparatively little damage. There was no doubt in his mind that the works already carried out had benefited Mr. Kennedy’s land, but not to the same extent as to those lands bordering on the river. The area of one-third of his holding seemed to the commissioner to be a proper amount to include within the proposed area. Neither Mr. James Thomas Ryan, owner of section 1, nor Mr. Charles Ryan, owner of section 2, signed either petition, but their lands were in the same position as Mr. Kennedy’s section 9, and should Ke included. He considered that it was necessary that the lands mentioned in the schedule be included within the area of the Otautau River Board. Doth sides of the river should be controlled by the same authority, and this board was already in existence and prepared to carry out the necessary works. The maintenance of the existing works, which at present are giving good service, should be put on a proper footing, and the present unsatisfactory manner of maintenance done away with. The proper control of the river and maintenance of *he works could only be carried out by the present Otautau Board. He would, therefore, recommend that the request of the petitioners be granted, and that the lands mentioned be added to the area of the Otautau Board.