WAIHOPAI RIVER.

Southland Times, Issue 22728, 2 November 1935, Page 9

WAIHOPAI RIVER.

To the Editor.

Sir, —In reply to Councillor McNaught’s letter of October 26: Councillor McNaught states that the most serious part of my letter of October 16 is that I omit to state that Mr Guise’s offer was to cut a channel only 18ft wide, whereas the county engineer’s plan is for a channel 20ft. wide at bottom, sft deep, with sides and batter to suit. These statements of Councillor McNaught are inaccurate. Mr, Guise’s signed offer was 20ft wide bottom from Elies Road to Mill Road bridge, a distance of three miles, work to be done according to plans ana specifications as prepared by Mi- Webb, engineer; these are the plans the county have, and it is quite evident from the way Councillor McNaught writes that he is ignorant as to the contents of these plans and specifications. Then he attempts to draw a comparison with the Puni Creek, in which he fails miserably. He writes that the Puni is 18ft wide, and then he says the Waihopai empties four times as much water, and before this he says the county engineer plans, for the Waihopai 20ft wide. How about this estimate of four times as much water when the engineer only wants another 2ft to carry this four times as much? He. is only a very poor layman, as a calculator. Then he sets out to belittle Councillor Niederer’s work by referring to it as only a tributary. I would like you Mr Editor, to secure the returns of unemployed employed in the two ridings, Awarua and Waihopai, for the last 12 months, or so, and I think you will notice the difference. Only recently in the Press I noticed that a deputation from Councillor Niederer’s riding went before the Unemployment Board asking for a subsidy of £5OOO for the Mokotua stream. I feel quite satisfied that if we had been in this riding our channel would have been well on ere this. Again Councillor McNaught is wrong. He says that I wrote that Councillor McNeil was cutting below him, and then he states that Councillor McNeil is doing nothing. This will be very bad news for the residents of Collingwood, and they will be anxious to know if their councillor has asked Councillor McNaught to break this news to them before the next spring tide comes and covers their gardens and the door step too. What I stated was that Councillor McNeil was held up through the town and county engineer conferring about flood gates. I also said that Councillor McNeil was missing no opportunities (from Elies Road west). We are not interested and we are not out to interfere with what does not concern us and if the ratepayers below us don’t want their’s done, that is no reason why we should miss a golden opportunity. Councillor McNaught refers, to Mr A. Guise as a layman. Mr Guise is a successful contractor, recognized by engineers and authorities as an expert, an authority for reference, whose channel work extending over 25 years is known from North Cape to Bluff; who has proved to engineers that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. Councillor McNaught also takes exception to my advising him to awake from his slumber. Worse than this are his inaccuracies. Through the Press, all who read, must admit he has been exposed. Councillor McNaught also writes that I made bold to, state that next election he will be shifted. I have not mentioned, nor hinted this in my letters. The ratepayers will decide this and the sorry part about it is that the election is two years off. There is still time for him to rouse himself and show some ability, or all his influence will not return him in. The public will agree, without my exerting any influence, that he has been found very much wanting. I would sign my name but seeing he asserts it is well known, I will state that there are 34 others of the same opinion as myself who would be very pleased, if, through the Press he could advance any reason which would be to our advantage why the work should not be pushed on now. He should know that the altered conditions of cost are the deciding factors in the ratepayers’ minds as to whether the work should go on or not and whether an offer such as we had should be grasped as with the tentacles of an octopus. I don’t bear him any animosity but in the face of his inaccurate statements I had to defend myself, and he will find there is no one more ready than I am in making allowances for deficiency. I am, etc., RATEPAYER.