£1000 GUARANTEE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIX, Issue 21992, 18 June 1941, Page 4

£1000 GUARANTEE

Seadown Drainage Scheme Minister Requests Payment Petition By Settlers A request by the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. R. Armstrong, for the Immediate honouring of the personal guarantee of £l6OO signed by Mr T. B. Garrick, chairman of the Levels County Council, as a contribution towards the cost of the Seadown Drainage Scheme, was the occasion of a special meeting yesterday. After discussion it was decided to defer action in the meantime. The Council also received a deputation from the recently formed LevelsSeadown Seepage Committee which presented a copy of a petition urging the Minister of Public Works to close the Levels irrigation scheme owing to the damage being done by seepage to the highest producing land in the area, and asking to be recompensed for land ruined by this cause. Letter From Minister “I have to acknowledge your letter of May 27,” wrote Mr Armstrong on June 11, “in which you state that your Council is unable to obtain the consent of the ratepayers of the Seadown Drainage District to the original loan of £lOOO as a contribution towards the cost of the work, and to a further £5OOO to enable the original works to be extended. . , , . .. “I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Council and of the ratepayers in this matter, and I have given instructions that all further work is to be postponed until the full local contribution has been received. “In regard to the original contribution of £lOOO, I wish to point out that the original work was put in hand on receipt of a personal guarantee, signed by Mr T. B. Garrick and I would like your Council to take immediate steps to honour this guarantee.” In his letter to the Minister dated May 27, the County Clerk (Mr G. B. Bird) said that one of the Council’s employees was recently appointed to canvass the district with a view to obtaining the required number of signatures to allow the Council to proceed with the raising of the loan. Of the 43 ratepayers in the district, 35 were interviewed and only one signed the consent. The Council recently received a letter from the District Engineer, Christchurch, advising that the Cabinet had approved the additional expenditure of £2500 on the scheme and asked if the Council would consider making a contribution of £5OO towards the cost of this work. “As the ratepayers have refused to consent to the raising of the first £lOOO, the Council is uflable to proceed further, and it does not appear that the Council could undertake to approach the ratepayers for their consent to raise an additional £500,” the writer concluded. Position of Guarantor The chairman: As far as I am concerned, when I put my name to the back of a thing I will carry it out. But I would like to say that the whole trouble is 1 that the Seadown settlers will not sign the consent for the raising of the loan. In spite of the scheme the land is just about as bad as ever it was. One or two settlers have gained an improvement, but in other cases the reverse has been the position. I did think that unless the guarantee was given the job would never have started. In regard to the other £5OO which the Minister expects from the settlers as a contribution towards the expenditure of a further £2OOO, there is no guarantee that that £5OO will be forthcoming. I would like to refer to the fact that other Council schemes have been completed by means of special rating areas. For example, the Fairview Scheme had cost £2OOO but the settlers had been behind it and paid the rate. Similarly, when the Opihi water race was established some years ago it was carried out by the Opihi ratepayers alone and they had never asked anyone else to contribute. The Kerrytown water scheme had also been run entirely by the Kerrytown people. In regard to the Minister’s remarks that he was disappointed at the attitude of the Council and of the ratepayers, Mr Garrick said he could not understand it unless Mr Armstrong meant the Council refusal to approach the ratepayers to secure a further £5OO. As far as paying over the £lOOO guarantee, he thought it would have to be paid. He would have to take the risk of the settlers eventually signing the consent when the work was completed. Views of Settlers A deputation comprising Messrs S. Cargo and W. Cargo, representing the Seadown-Levels Seepage Committee, then appeared before the Council. Mr S. Cargo said that a meeting of his committee at Seadown the previous evening had been attended by seven out of eight members. He mentioned that the Public Works Department had spent £10,600, a further £3OOO had been expended under Scheme 13 B on drainage and to-day 75 per cent of the land was no better than if no money had been spent on it. He recalled that the former Minister of Public Works, Hon. R. Semple, when the scheme was mooted, had assured the settlers that it would not cost them any more than the original £lO,OOO and that they would not be expected to pay anything further. They had now got a reply from Mr Armstrong inviting them to contribute a further £5OO towards additional extensions to the drainage scheme. Referring to the guarantee, Mr Cargo said that his committee was strongly of the opinion that the £lOOO should not be handed over until the settlers received justice. “You are in an unenviable position,” he added, “but the committee thinks the money should not be paid until the job is completed properly.” Petition Presented Mr Cargo then presented a copy of a petition signed by 117 ratepayers in the Level:: irrigation area, who asked the Minister to close the scheme owing to the damage being done to the highest producing land in the area and to pay compensation to the owners of the land which had been ruined through this cause. In reply to a question, Mr Cargo said that ratepayers at Pleasant Point who were gaining some benefit from the irrigation scheme had signed the petition because they realised the injustice which the men in the Seadown area were suffering. Cr. J. Scott: Although I am in an area where the irrigation scheme has done me no harm, I supported the petition on behalf of people on good land which is getting ruined. I would go so far as to say that the petition would be all right from the Department’s financial point of view, as, obviously, the expenditure has been a lot greater than the revenue.

Mr Cargo: This is a question that will have far-reaching effects in Canterbury. In the Redcliff scheme in the Waimate County I believe they are having similar trouble. We have got the support of men in the irrigation area as they did not feel justified in receiving some benefit at the expense of others. It shows a wonderful spirit on the part of these people. To Mr Garrick: I doubt very much if the position can be rectified. If more drains are laid it is going to cut up half the Seadown area. After further discussion Mr Cargo mentioned that they had entered their fourth year of difficulty. They had got land which had been idle for three year and which must lie idle for another year. He had grown up to 62 ■ bushels of wheat to the acre in the

same paddock which had been idle for three years.

Payment by Settlers Mr Garrick: If the scheme is finished satisfactorily, what is the position in regard to the guarantee? Mr Cargo: I cannot give you a guarantee, but I know a lot of the settlers are prepared to pa” up their share at any time, but they think they are being asked for something when the job has not been completed. As a matter of fact we think the request for the £lOOO is a downright injustice. We think the Minister has no ri-ht to ask for it until the land has been restored to its former productive standard. Mr Garrick: If the scheme goes through are you prepared to have a maintenance rate? . . . Mr Cargo: No. It is a most unfair proposition right through. In reply to a question the County Clerk said that there was no liability on the Council to pay the £lOOO guarantee. “Your guarantee is all right,” he said to the chairman, “but there is no liability on the Council to pay that £lOOO. The special rating district was declared 10 months before you signed the guarantee, and when a petition had been received asking the Council to declare a special rating district. , , , . .. Mr Garrick: I must have had the idea that the settlers were behind me when I signed that guarantee.

Action Appreciated Mr Cargo: Personally, we appreciate your action and the settlers all realise that you endeavoured to help us when we were in a difficulty. Mr Garrick: If the job is done to your satisfaction are you prepared to be rated? . , Mr Cargo: We have not authority to do anything, only to get the petition signed and push it. We came in more or less as a gesture of good will. We realise you are in an awkward fix and we do not like to. see you in that fix. If the ground is restored to its original productive capacity I, personally, do not think for one minute that the settlers will fail to contribute their share. Before the deputation withdrew, Mr Garrick said that the question of asking that the water in the Levels Irrigation area be cut off was a matter between the committee and the Minister. The settlers seemed to be very definite that they did not want the guarantee of £lOOO to be paid over. Cr. D. Grant: I don’t think we should be in any hurry.