LAKE HAWKINS

Southland Times, Issue 21648, 9 March 1932, Page 5

LAKE HAWKINS

PROPOSED RETENTION DISCUSSION BY CITY COUNCIL DATA AS TO COSTS WANTED The suggestion of the chairman of the Reserves Committee (Councillor C. J. Brodrick) that an area’of approximately 200 acres of reclaimed ground, including the sheet of water commonly known as Lake Hawkins, be set aside as a public park and recreation reserve has been exercising the minds of councillors for some time. At the meeting of the council on February 16 Cr. Brodrick moved in accordance with his proposal, but the matter was held over so that an inspection of the site could be made by councillors. This visit of inspection took place last Wednesday and Councillor Brodrick again moved his resolution at the meeting of the council last evening. “Everyone has seen the area now,” said Councillor Brodrick in moving the motion, “so that there are no points in my going over all the arguments in favour of the proposal. I am, however, more firmly convinced than ever that it is highly desirable that this area be set aside as a recreation reserve.” Councillor Tapley seconded the motion. Councillor Ford said that he considered the area suggested was (oo large. He also considered .that provision should be made to have the water at least nine inches deeper, while the lake should be only half its present size. He said he was not in favour of spending a large sum on the proposal at the present juncture. Councillor Macalister said that as chairman of the Finance Committee the matter had given him some concern. Visionary schemes were liable to involve a heavy expense. In view of the urgent need for economy the proposal had to be considered very carefully. Personally he did not think the area was suitable as a park. In any case the council had more land set aside as parks than it could maintain. It cost more than £2OOO a year out of the rates to maintain the parks. He submitted that there was no call for the Lake Hawkins scheme, particularly in view of the financial stringency and his Worship’s advocacy of economy. To maintain the lake at its present level would cost the council £550 with free labour or £75 under No. 5 scheme. Additional work such as spillways would bring the total up to £725 with free labour. If it were proposed to deepen the lake to 2ft 6in the cost to the council would be £3200 with free labour or £550 under No. 5 scheme. Councillor Macalister submitted that there was no call for the park and any expenditure on the scheme was unwarranted. He referred to the expense involved in the Oreti township scheme, which he described as another fantastic idea of the chairman of the Reserves Committee. This scheme cost £l5OO, though not all this money had to be found by the council. Councillor Macalister quoted the following letter (which was before the council that evening) from Mr William Brash: “I notice by newspaper reports t hat there is a desire not to drain away Lake Hawkins. If any area is left under water I am of opinion that the surrounding land will remain water-logged and it will be impossible to grow pasture or shelter trees on such water-sodden land. I consider it necessary to have your drains down to at least 3ft 6in otherwise your land will not be profitable for grazing or cultivation, especially if the water has not a clear run away. In the past this institution has planted thousands of trees and except on selected areas of high ground they have died out. I can show you, if required, chains of dead trees in spite of every care when planting and even carting of extra soil. Because of my experience in working the adjoining land I feel it is my duty to mention the above before your council makes a decision.” He also quoted the opinions of other practical men who criticized the scheme. Continuing, Councillor Macalister said that setting a,side the area as a park and retaining the lake would mean a loss of grazing revenue of £3OO a year and would have a detrimental effect on the drainage of the whole reclamation area. “For the reasons I have given you, gentlemen, I .think you should reject the motion,” concluded Councillor Macalister. Councillor Tattersfield moved an amendment that the city engineer be asked to furnish a report showing the cost of retaining the lake at nine inches above its present level and that the question of the cost of retaining the lake and draining the area be submitted to the council. Councillor Tattersfield said that no definite figures either for or against the scheme had been supplied; hence his amendment. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Reed, who said that there was need for more data as to costs.

Councillor Macalister suggested that Councillor Tattersfield should add to his amendment that the superintendent of reserves be asked to supply an estimate of planting trees on the area. Councillor Tattersfield ‘ said that the planting of trees was not the point before the council, which was concerned with the retention of the lake. He agreed to add to his amendment that as an alternative the engineer submit the cost of retaining the lake at half its present size, as suggested by Councillor Ford. Councillor Brodrick, in his reply, said he had not promoted the Orcti Sands scheme, though he would probably be proud to have been the father of the scheme. In any case the work was done with unemployed labour. “Yes, but it cost the council £400,” said Councillor Macalister. Councillor Tattcrsfield’s amendment was carried.