COLAC BAY DRAINAGE SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 21729, 15 June 1932, Page 3

COLAC BAY DRAINAGE SCHEME.

To the Editor. Sir, —With regard to a letter appearing in your paper of May 31, on Colac Bay drainage, I notice that the writer failed to see that the furtherance of the scheme would not increase the agricultural production of the district to the extent of one penny. Now, I advise the writer to equip herself with a pair of gummies and take a wade out over the same land mentioned by the Colac Bay Unemployment Committee to the Wallace County Council, and then change into evening shoes and go a little further up the Oraki creek and see the good results that have been achieved by the men under the Colac Bay Unemployment Committee to the same class of land. I have inspected land in the summer months and found it impossible to get within chains of the creek without gum boots, but I can now (as I have stated above) safely recommend the \vriter to walk over in evening shoes. I have often made the remark that had the old-time residents of Colac Bay gone in more for drainage (not to do it 10 years ago and then expect it to last for ever) and kept the drains in good order, rich pastures would have been the result, more cows could have been milked and it would have only been the matter of a short time when Colac Bay would be in a position to support its own cheese factory, instead of paying big cartage fees for conveyance of hundreds of gallons of milk (as we are now doing) to another factory some six or seven miles distant. The residents of Colac Bay only need to join in and put their shoulders to the wheel and the factory would come. Being an interested party and one of the landholders who would benefit by the scheme, I give great credit to the Colac Bay Unemployment Committee in doing its best to further a scheme which no doubt would increase agricultural production.— l am, etc.

PROGRESSIVE RATEPAYER.

To the Editor.

Sir,—Mr Fredric is making a big noise about my agitating to shift his so-called drain from Kauri street to private property. No removal was ever asked for as his letter would lead people to believe. All the local committee applied for was an outfall drain along the roadline, namely, Kauri street. This drain would not in any way affect or spoil Miss Fredric’s paddock and, as I am, according to Mr Fredric’s letter, taking a particularly active inte£gst in the agitation for its removal, I fail to see why all the fuss. The natural course of the water from surrounding properties is into the Burtenshaw paddock, as Mr Fredric terms it, and there it remains except, of course, what little gets away by means of his drain which, he stated, he made about 10 years ago with the aid of a saw and one hand (truly some drain!). He states there is no stagnant water on the lower part of the Burtenshaw paddock which statement is far from correct. As cows will not thrive on water I am seriously considering going in for ducks. In regard to the benefit I am reaping from Mr Fredric’s labours of 10 years ago, the only benefit I can see is water and still more water and unless I get proper outfall I may as well “throw in the sponge” and soak it up that way. I have been in Colac for the past four years sparing no effort to improve the property and increase nroduction in line with the Government’s policy. The production could be increased fourfold if drainage were adequate. When I say “drain” I mean drain, not a one-handed affair. Mr Fredric asks why the drainage scheme was kept an absolute secret from Miss Fredric until the work was being done. So far the outfall drain applied for has not been started. The drain he refers to was put in by the Public Works Department—outfall only, being brought up through her property to lower the culvert under the railway, thereby turning water from an additional 30 chains of ditching along Pollard Road on to the Burtenshaw paddock. Mr Fredric says that Miss Fredric showed in her letter there was no foundation for the statements that the local secretary of the Unemployment Committee made in support of _ the scheme. The mere fact of its draining 250 to 300 acres speaks for itself. In conclusion, what we need in the district are people of the progressive type who will not let the moss grow under their feet.—l am, etc. S. G. BURTENSHAW.