FIVER EROSION

Southland Times, Issue 20665, 22 April 1929, Page 4

FIVER EROSION

MATAURA SETTLERS’ REQUEST.

MINISTER’S UNSATISFACTORY

REPLY.

Some time ago settlers whose properties fronted on the banks of the Mataura river made a request through the Southland executive of the Farmers’s Union to the Government that the Public Works Department should appoint an engineer to visit the locality and advise settlers regarding the protection of their properties from river erosion. What was considered to be a most unsatisfactory reply was received from the Minister of Public Works (the Hon. E. A. Ransom) at Saturday’s meeting of the executive. The letter received was a reply to one from the executive asking for further consideration to the matter and was as follow's:—

“With reference to your letter of January 25 concerning erosion along the Mataura river, I find that the matter was fairly fully dealt with by my predecessor in September of last year. You state that the Minister gave the deputation which waited on him a sympathetic hearing and that you expected an engineer to arrive, but the last paragraph of his letter advises you that the proper course is to set up a river board and employ the necessary expert advice to bring forward a proper scheme. I see no suggestion in the memorandum that an engineer of the Department should suggest practical ways and means. You will, no doubt, be aware that the Government is frequently accused of interfering with private enterprise, and the carrying out of works such as you would need, and which arc very largely to be constructed in the interests of private individuals, would seem to come within the field of the engineer earning his living in practice. Of course, if a scheme of works were propounded by such a board as I indicate, the Government would be only too happj’ to examine the plans and to assist, the board’s engineer with any advice that, we could render, and wc would gladly place all the machinery of the Government at. the disposal of the district for the constitution of the necessary body and the administration of its affairs.” .Mr A. R. Johnston said the letter was a most disappointing reply to the union’s representations. He was satisfied that the letter had not emanated from the Minister, but really from the head of the Department. The previous Minister had been sympathetic and had practically promised to grant the request, but a reply expressing similar sentiments to those contained in the present letter had been received. It was decided to make further representations to the Minister.