SOIL CONSERVATION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6242, 14 June 1946, Page 6

SOIL CONSERVATION

GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSAL OPPOSITION BY WAIPA COUNTY COUNCIL The Waipa County Council, at its meeting on Tuesday, recorded its opposition to the Government’s proposal to set up a Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Board so far as the proposal affected Waikato. The Council’s delegates to the conference on 26th June, Crs S. C. B. Macky and F. L. Onion, were instructed to state the Council's views, which were unanimously in opposition to the proposal owing to the absence of practical information as to the practical benefits. The chairman reported that- at the last meeting of the Wiaikato ward of county councils voting on a motion in favour of setting up a catchment board was equal—, four—four, the chairman giving his deciding vote in favour. Mt Macky added that two of the votes in favour were given because the members considered that a catchment board would be forced on them in any case.

Government Domination Cr Onion said he had perused the Act, and found several things to which he took objection. ( He quoted some clauses. The proposed control council would be dominated by Government appointees. It would be the supreme governing body, subject only to the Minister. Cr Garland opposed the innovation, as a catchment board was not needed in Waikato. It was quite wrong to declare that production from Waikato lands had deteriorated. In the past fifty years production had increased four-fold. His view was that the Government had done good work in afforestation, and it would continue that useful work. Cr Onion said the legislation gave wide powers. The catchment board could collect revenue by means of rates. That was too much like the present hospital levies. Replying to a question, the clerk (Mr T. Grant) said a rate of oneeighth of a farthing in the pound on unimproved values would yield about £BOOO a year. Cr Onion said the formation of a catchment board meant the extinction of drainage boards, as the former had over-riding powers. Another point of interest was that all Crown lands were specifically exempt from rating. Cr Alexander said that the powers would necessarily have to be wide, but he could see no need for an overriding control. The report of the discussion at the conference of local bodies in Hamilton on 11th April had not impressed him greatly. There was a wealth of phrases, but little actual information of a practical nature. There were many references to administration,, but little was said about soil erosion in the Waikato area. He conceded that a lot could be done in river control, which was needed through the washing down of large quantities of soil from Arapuni hydro-electric works. He asked if the setting up of a control authority was necessary for the whole, community or for the immediate district. What benefit would accrue ?

Cr Russell said the county councils could do the best work if granted State subsidies. The proposal for a catchment board was undemocratic. Cr Germann, speaking as a member of a drainage board, said he would oppose the scheme as it had been explained. Some drainage areas, on classification, were already paying Hid in the £ on unimlproved values, and these unimproved values were about £l4 or £l5 an acre, so that the rate was heavy—too heavy to bear any increase imposed by a catchment board. It seemed to be a costly way of providing benefits. . Cr Onion said the set up and objective were not in the interests of -the AMaikato district or the Dominion as a whole.

Cr Alexander then moved to oppose the formation of a catchment board in Waikato. Cr Russell seconded.

The chairman said he was fully in accord. The first need was a soil survey to show any loss in production. He considered the scheme a national enterprise, which should be a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and not on local body revenues. The proposed constitution was “ loaded ” against the country areas.

The motion was carried unanimously.