CATCHMENT BOARD

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6242, 14 June 1946, Page 5

CATCHMENT BOARD

PROPOSAL FOR WAIKATO COMPREHENSIVE REPORT Recently there was held in Hamilton a largely attended meeting of representatives of local bodies to consider the proposed Waikato Catchment Board. Messrs T. G. Beck (chairman), G. A. Monk, A. J. Davey, J. Callesen, T. Pound, A. Grant, C. V. Johnson, and D. A. Campbell, of the Soil Conserva-

tion and Rivers Control Council, were L present to explain the proposals. * At Monday’s meeting of the Waipa County Council, Mr T. Grant, the ./•y' clerk, presented a very comprehensive report. In view of the importance of the subject and the comparative lack of knowledge that exists in regard to the subject the report is published in extenso. Mr Beck, after apologising for the unavoidable absence of the chairman of the Council, went on to say that the subject matter was by no means new in the world or even in New Zealand. Every other person would know something about the problem. He asked his audience to bear with him as he unfolded his story about problems concerning a wide phenomenon. He referred to deserts and dust bowls created in different parts of the world as the result of interference by and improvidence of man whose actions he termed as conservative and ill planned. He instanced lessons that had been learned from other countries where forests had been either conserved or renewed. The loss of the top soil over a period of years was i also discussed, Australia being men- \ tioned as an example where a good deal of the top black soil, had been lost. While not supporting any danger of a dust bowl in New Zealand, considerable damage from erosion in various parts of the Dominion. The New Zealand legislation had been r taken from the -English and Austral- ' ian Acts. Dealing with the adminis- ' tration of the Act, Mr Beck said the council was composed of representatives of local bodies and the Government, and was charged with the responsibility of administering the important Act. The Act confers upon the council power to recommend catchment districts. The Catchment Boards which will have the powers of the council itself were very wide. Of of the 14 catchment districts authorised 11 had already been legally constituted and nine were actually functioning. The districts were as follows: North Island: Hauraki, Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu, Poverty Bay, Rangitikei and Wairarapa. South Island: Nelson, North Canterbury, South Canterbury, Westland and Southland. Mr Beck described the proposed Waikato district as a very large wealthy region which comprised the whole of the watershed of the Waikato River and its tributaries together with an area representing the watershed of streams flowing into the Tasman Sea at various points between Port Waikato and Marakopa. The letter sent out to all local bodies including drainage boards, counties and boroughs was read. The question of representation on the Catchment Board would no doubt concern you actively, said Mr Beck, who also read from the circular the proposed representation of the combined district: (1) Portions of Franklin, Waikato and Piako Counties, 2 members; (2) Whole of Waipa County, 1; (3) Whole of Otorohanga and Kawhia and portions of Waitomo Counties jointly, 1; (4) whole of Raglan County, 1; (5) Portions of Matamata, Rotorua, _Taupo and Taumaranui Counties jointly, 1; (6) City of Hamilton, 2; (7) Boroughs of Cam- • bridge, Huntly, Ngaruawahia and Leamington and Tuakau T.D’s. jointly, 1; (8) Boroughs of Te Awamutu, Otorohanga and Te Kuiti jointly, 1; non-elective Government nominees, 5; total, 15. This personnel, Mr Beck continued, would bring to the board table the benefit of experience. The rateable capital valuation of the proposed district was in round figures £33,000,000. Rating Powers: The speaker thought the rating powers of the board would also be a matter for concern. For administrative purposes the Act made provision for a maximum uniform rate of Jd in the £1 on the basis of capital t values. In this connection he pointed out that a staff and field organisation would be required to carry out the scheme. Provision was made for a general rate not exceeding lßd in the pound on a graduated scale accord- '< ing to classification. A separate rate may also be imposed on a graduated scale, provided both separate and general rate 'shall not exceed the maximum of lid in the £1 above mentioned. There was also provision for the levying of a special works rate to provide interest and sinking fund on loans raised. “I see a smile on my right,” continued the speaker, who stated that the impact of any work which may be carried cut on those who were contributing to existing works was a matter of great concern. The Act did set out power in respect of existing drainage boards, and it had been suggested that the boards may even go out of existence. It did not follow, however, that any board would go out of existence. Some had gone out but not all of them. If a drainage board did go out of existence and had to amortize a debt the responsibility would rest with the people who created the debt. If there wac a credit balance in the account of the abolished board the money would be expended in the district where it was raised. Mr G. A. Monk pointed out that he u actually represented counties on the Central Council and realised that he had a very great responsibility. So far he had not experienced any great difficulty. His first job as th? counties’ representative was to look into the question of soil conservation in New Zealand and to protect county interests as far as lav in his power. It was fundamental in the setting up of k a Catchment Board to build a good strong body. Very careful consideration to this aspect had been given by the council. So here in the Waikato the proposal was to establish one of the strongest catchment districts in New Zealand. In setting up of a catchment district the first thing was to see that the district was strong financially The flat rate of Jd in the £1 on the rateable capital value of the whole district was purely for administrative purposes. He emphasised that a good strong financial body would attract the type of officers who would do the job. It was necessary too to

have an organisation that would be able to provide the machinery and plant to carry out the work efficiently and economically. With regard to the question of erosion the speaker pointed out that though the signs were not very great in the north there was evidence of it in this district on the hill country. He warned his listeners, however, that it was the erosion that could not be seen that was the worst feature. Thia applied to those on the hill country, even if it did not apply to those on the flats.

Mr A. J. Davey said there were some catchment boards that would envy the opportunity of establishing a catchment district like the Waikato. He warned his audience that erosion which was not noticeable was the most dangerous. Mr Davey contended that in a large part of the Dominion soil fertility had been allowed to fail; that it was our responsibility to maintain the fertility of this Dominion, otherwise the whole economic structure would collapse. He repeated that it was for us therefore to maintain the land in a condition to bear the heavy load placed upon it. Mr Davy intimated that if New Zealand was to play her part in world affairs there must be a substantial increase in population. There would necessarily follow more intensive farming following which the danger of impoverishing the soil would become more acute. He warned his listeners of the danger of expending the whole of the surplus from the soil and enlisted the co-operation of technicians, local bodies, town and city residents, as well as the farming community in their efforts to conserve the soil. Continuing he said that in every district where a board had been established the views of local body representatives had been obtained. Speaking on the question of rating, Mr Davey emphasised that if there was ever a rate justified it was a rate levied by a Catchment Board for conservation of the soil. The ratepayers would be represented on the board levying the rate. Soil conservation, concluded the speaker, was pioneering work and no doubt the whole district both town and country would be prepared to put their hands to it. Mr Calleson, who hails from the Manawatu, and is the representative of Drainage and River Boards, said he made his first acquaintance with the Waikato in 19110. He had visited the district many times since and every time he had gone away feeling envious of those living in such a prosperous district. This time in Northland he had expected to see something in the nature of a semi-tropical district which he did not find. An inquirer at Russell, on being informed that the party belonged to the Soil Conservation Council, remarked, “Well, that concerns us all.” Mr Callesen said that the thought struck him at the time what better commendation could there be; what better than the Treaty of Waitangi and Soil Conservation. The party was thrilled when going through Trounson Park and Waipoua forest, but when they left there and saw the devastation the removal of the forest had made there it occurred to them how much better it would have been had the bush been allowed to remain.

“Should we not look at things in the samejight,” commented the speaker. It would be far better if some •f the hills were allowed to regenerate. He felt sure that lands which are returning nothing and only a drag on the individual should be allowed to revert to forest. During his remarks Mr Callesen made reference to “Soil survey work undertaken by the Government, which work was now nearing completion.” The speaker mentioned that judging by the condition of the cows the Waikato had not suffered the ill effects from the drought anything like in the far north. He added that by conserving the forest meant conserving the supply of water, and if it applied to the cities it applied to the country as well. Mr Calle sen ex plained that his colleagues had covered such a wide field in their addresses that he found it difficult to say a great deal himself. He complimented the Waikato farmers on the wonderful work accomplished by bringing the land into its present highly productive state and doubted whether there was a finer district in New Zealand. He concluded with the remark, “Throw in your weight in the conservation of soil in New Zealand.”

The Mayor then invited questions and comments.

Mr Massey said that the representatives of the rural local bodies had listened to the speakers with interest, but as ordinary farmers they would require further information about the Catchment Board when put into action; they would want to know something more about subsidies to be made available by the Government and what protection it was proposed to be given by the Government in respect of the silting up of the lower reaches of the Waikato River. He referred to the attempt made during last session to introduce an amendment to the principal Act which would have authorised the striking of an additional uniform rate of id in the £1 without classification. This, said Mr Massey, was likely to make the average farmer suspicious. He understood there would be a further attempt to introduce the same legislation, but the rate this time would be Id in the £l. Mr Massey said he was in agreement and supported the principles contained in the Act but was not in favour of the striking of a rate without classification. The speaker desired to know if the Government officers had any plan of the proposed work to be carried out to place before the meeting. Emphasis was made of the heavy rates already placed on the land. Many drainage boards were collecting the maxtmum rate now and had not sufficient to carry out all the drainage works required. Other local bodies levied rates as well. We are after practical information that will give practical results rather than the presentation of a beautiful picture, said the speaker. Mr Beck replied stating that Mr Massey had touched on a matter of vital concern, namely the complicated drainage problems of the Waikato., This the board would help to solve. There would be no difficulty in conceiving plans, the biggest one was ot control. All these were problems for the future board. The council had given some ideas and the information would be passed on to the board. With regard to the lower reaches of the Waikato this was a practical engineering problem, but nothing much could be done until the necessary machinery was put into operation. That was bound up with rating. The administrate rate would amount to a very small sum, and would be put into operation to provide the machinery to deal with these problems. It was mentioned that where boards had

been in operation quite liberal subsidies had been forthcoming from the Government. It was quite obvious that the responsibility of carrying out these large works must to a large extent fall upon the public exchequer. There would be no practical difficulty in working out a scheme for the Waikato, but it was impossible to give a plan until a complete survery had been made of the problems. The means of grappling with the problems required technical advice and assistance as well as the funds to carry out the work. With regard to the remarks made with reference to the proposed additional flat rate, Mr Beck said there was and still is a desire to have these additional powers, for. it was not always practicable to work on the basis of classification even in respect of small workers and over the whole area classification would be impossible. The difficulty of working out an equitable classification was one of the first things that had struck the boards already constituted.

Mr Beck went on to say that the intention of the amendment was discussed and approved; that the additional flat rate was required for afforestation, purchase of land, flood protection, plant and rivers protection. .The provision of plant would be a district matter, but it was expected that the hire of the plant would repay the capital outlay. Mr Massey: Has that been considered by the executive of the Counties Association.

Mr Beck: The proposed additional flat rate has been approved by the Municipal Association. Speaker (Cambridge): &d in the £1 does not seem much, but the Cambridge Borough will require to find £BOO. If power were given to levy a rate up to id in the £1 that would cost us £l6OO plus the administrative rate to produce £BOO. He contended that local bodies would require to know more about the proposed amendment before agreeing to it. Mr Beck said only a small rate would be made for administrative purposes. Rates struck in districts already constituted had been l/24d, l/22d, l/40d, l/25d. The rates mentioned in the Statutes were the legal maximums, Mr Beck concluded. Mr H. Johnston said that what alarmed him was the power that was being taken to put additional rates on the community. As far as the rural community was concerned the maximum had been reached, and they were looking for relief from existing rates. Mr Beck had stated that the Catchment Boards would be give the same powers as the Central Authority. Mr Davey had stated that the levying of the administrative rate .would be in the hands of the Catchment Board, but the point which I take exception to is that another authority is being set up to levy a rate on the community, concluded the speaker. Mr Beck said that although the council was largely regulated by the Government the board had legislative powers. If things were qllowed to continue as they are at the present the position would become worse so hv submitted that something would have to be done, and so long as the costs were fairly apportioned as between the ratepayers and national interests there should be no objection. Mr Beck pointed out that the board would be a fully constituted corporate body having power to make and levy rates in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Mr Lee said the policy of the board was to seek legislation authorising the imposition of a flat rate without classification. He thought the whole position should be clarified and suggested to the meeting ■ that as the necessity arose the policy might be to seek a further increase in the uniform rate. There was a definite danger of a very serious position arising. Many ratepayers were rated very heavily for past work with very slender chances of getting relief. He suggested that the provision in the proposed legislation was there to direct the amount of rate that may be levied by the board. Mr Braithwaite read a section of the Act which gave the council the power to levy rates. This meant that if the Catchment Board was not doing its job the council could do all the work that the Catchment Board could do. Mr Beck quoted from the Act the general powers and functions of the council and the board. Mr Wallis: “Mr Beck made a statement that the board and the council had the same powers. The Minister may have the deciding say? Whose advice would he act upon ” Mr G. Spinley: “In the first place we are all particularly concerned of the danger of erosion and the need for afforestation. We have had very little assistance from the Government in this direction. It seems to be that the board is going to have the power to strike a rate. We are going to have a rate that will have to be paid. There is no statement in the Act. The board will have to go cap in hand to the Government. Some provision should be made in the Act for payment of subsidies and we should insist on something more definite with regard to subsidies Catchment Boards are to receive.”

Mr Davey: “The subsidy paid by the Government thus far had been on the basis of £2 for £1 and £4 for £l. In some cases free money had been granted, but generally the fixing of the amount of the subsidy had been left to the council to determine.”

Mr S. C. Macky expressed the opinion that the proposed farthing rate in the pound should be a national matter and queried the justice of levying such a rate on the land at all. As everyone would get the benefit the whole community should pay, said the speaker. Mr Beck replied stating that the greater portion would be found by the Government. It should be realised, however, that there must be some contribution from the local bodies.

Mr Fitzgerald in asking for information concerning the proposed representation on the Waikato Board, said it was recognised that businessmen in the city would benefit from the ing out of works in proximity thereto, but the rural community would have to bear the burden of the rates. He thought that in the apportionment of representation account should be taken of the section of the community that had to find the money. He pointed out that the personnel of the board would consist of six from the counties and four from the towns, but as the officers appointed as the Government nominees would also live in the towns, it virtually gave the towns nine representatives as against six for the rural community. Mr Caro in reply said he would like to remind the counties of the amount of rates which the towns and the city would have to bear. The

towns and the city would pay the same rate but would get no direct benefit.

Mr Beck quoting from the Act said that the local body representation was based on rateable capital values, amount of rates and all other relevant considerations. The non-elective representatives were appointed by the Government and these men gave their services as unbiassed individuals.

Mr Fitzgerald pointed out that at a preliminary meeting there was a definite feeling that under the graduated system of rating according to classification the burden might fall on the rural areas whose representatives on the board would be in a minority. Mr Beck said that the works carried out on the outside would carry a subsidy and that would help to balance matters.

Another speaker said he failed to see why the Government representatives on the board should have the right to fix the rate. He contended that the very fact that the Catchment Council determined the amount

of subsidy was evidence that the rate was not fixed by the farmer representative. It was also contended that the voting powers and the franchise were wrong when non-elective members were such wide powers. Mr Onion enquired if rural ratepayers would not be assessed for more than the city ratepayers, and such being the case should he not have greater representation on this board. Attention was called to the respective total rateable capital value of city and borough property which was ten million pounds compared with the total county valuation of twenty-three millions.

Mr Beck: It is a fair and just thing and certainly democratic in principle. Mr Young said there had been a lot of discussion and great fears had been expressed as to what would happen. The speaker pointed out that the Taupari Board had applied for and had been granted good subsidies for public works in the drainage district under the control of his board. He considered that the Waikato River was becoming a very serious menace to the drainage of farm lands. He supported the formation of a Catchment Board feeling sure that liberal subsidies would be made available for any public works undertaken by the Catchment Board.

Mr Ford (Rotorua) agreed with previous speakers that the proposed farthing flat rate should come from some source of national foundation. Ratepayers were very nervous about the whole matter. In his county (Rotorua) it was felt that the question of erosion was of no serious effect. He desired to know if Crown lands would be excluded from the administrative rate of id in the £l. The speaker voiced strong opposition to the imposition of a flat rate of £d, and concluded by saying that “we have been led up the garden path.”

Mr Beck contended that there was a great deal in the arguments for and against the proposed Id flat rate, but the Minister had promised to bring the purport of the proposed legislation under the notice of the Counties Association before introducing the bill. With regard to Crown and Native land the Government recognised the disability and this would be adjusted by means of subsidies in accordance with the policy of the concil. Replying to Mr Ford’s remark to the effect that his part of the world would not be affected by erosion, Mr Beck said that every part of the area must be affected.

Mr Beatson (Kawhia) desired to know if the Kawhia County could be excluded from the scheme at the present juncture. There was a range on one side and the sea on the other and he therefore could not see: any advantage for the inclusion of this county in the Waikato district. He mentioned that 41£% of the land in Kawhia County was non-rateable. He asked if it was a fair thing to include the county area.

Mr Beck did not agree that Kawhia should be excluded. Mr White (Malamata) desired to know if the whole of the flat rates would be levied before other rates were struck.

Mr Beck said it would be only necessary to strike a rate sufficient for the board’s requirements. Replying to a further question, Mr Beck said rates struck by the board would be collected by the local bodies and only the actual sum. collected would be handed over.

Mr Sampson (Waikato): “Will local authorities be required to sue ratepayers who do not pay their rates?” Mr Beck: “Exactly the same basis as for county rates.” Mr Sampson: “Will the responsibility be on the county to sue for rates or will it be on the board?” Mr Beck replied by quoting the provisions of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act relative to the collection of rates by local authorities. Mr Sewart (Piako): “With reference to the amendment before the House last session that amendment was asked for by the Catchment Council.” Mr Monk: “The council was not unanimous.” Mr Davey: “This is one rate you should not oppose. If you think your land is too heavily rated there are other rates which you should oppose.”

Mr Caro: “I think it is due to the representatives of the council from Wellington that there should be an expression of opinion from the meeting without committing local bodies.” Mr Massey: “If we get an assurance to-day that the council will not apply to the Government for legislation which will enable Catchment Boards to strike the proposed additional rate on a uniform scale without classification, then this meeting would affirm the principle regarding better drainage and the conservation of the assets we have.”

Mr Beck: “We realise fully the point raised by Mr Massey but the movement came from the Catchment Boards themselves.” After stating that the proposed rate had now been reduced from id in the £1 to Id he said it was a doleful fact that only three had affirmed the principle for which they were working. Mr Lee (Waitomo): “I am surprised to hear that this recommendation had come from a board already established. What we wish to make quite plain is that we are not onposed to the principles of the Act but condemn the proposed legislation to alter the rating powers. This we consider is a breach of faith.”

Speaking as a county representative Mr Lee went on to say that he was not ’opposed to the principles but opposed the method of formulation of personnel of proposed board. He considered that some recognition—a great deal more recognition should be given to the people who are going to pay. The money will have to be found by the land owner. County councils have insufficient representation. This is a very serious matter and does not call for levity. He concluded by saying he

would oppose any resolution in the direction indicated. He supported the principles of the Act but not the methods of giving effect to it. Mr Caro: “I was at the Conference of the Municipal Association when the Minister made it quite clear that nothing that would be done would be against the councils’ wishes. < Mr Caro then moved that this meeting is in favour of objects of formation of a Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Board for this district. (Seconded by Mr Verity.) Mr Fitzgerald (Matamata) said he ■ did not think Mr Beck should have that dismal feeling. Local bodies had had in the past great assistance from the Public Works Department and he believed that would continue as would the co-operation of local bodies. Mr Wallis (Otorohanga): “If this resolution is carried it does not just mean that the board will be formed. The representatives should be able to go back and discuss the matter with their respective councils.” Mr Stewart (Piako) said he agreed with the principles of the Act, but thought they were not quite sufficiently represented on the board set up in Hauraki district. They did not get very far with their representations as the board had already been gazetted. Mr Massey (Franklin) said he would not like anyone to think that he was opposed to the principles contained in the Act. He thought, however, that there was too much control at the head judging from what had been taking place. Attempts were being made to impose additional burdens on the land. This was why the rural representatives felt that they should have additional representation. There was a growing feeling, too, that there were too many State departments. If it was desired to get the best out of a community, place the responsibility on them, and they will live up to it, said Mr Massey. He moved as an amendment that it be recommended that the council give further consideration to the question of representation and that they be informed that this meeting is opposed to further rating powers being given to Catchment Boards. Mr Braithwaite (Hamilton City) said he wished to move a further amendment: That this meeting is in favour of a Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Board for this district, but before proceeding with the formation of the board a further meeting be called to consider the matter.

Before the motion was put, Mr Caro said he wished to be non-paroch-ial, and his motion was so framed that it did not commit local bodies. This proposal was either right or wrong. We should leave to posterity land that is as good as it is to-day. If we close th edoor we are doing something that is wrong from a national point of view. Mr Onion (Waipa) was in agreement with the amendment to defer consideration until local bodies had had an opportunity of discussing the proposals. In reply to Mr Caro who asked if anyone else wished to speak to the amendment, Mr Massey said a good many of those present were in accord with the principal one. He suggested that the representatives of the board be thanked for the advice given the assembly and decision deferred. Mr Braithwaite’s amendment met with general support and was finally put as the substantive motion as carried.

It was decided to hold the next meeting in June on a date to be fixed. Mr Beck _thanked the Mayor of Hamilton and his council for the use of the Council Chambers. He also thanked members of councils who came to listen to the discussion and felt some good must come out of the preliminary talk.