CATCHMENT BOARD CHAIRMAN REPLIES TO CRITICISM

Wanganui Chronicle, 23 July 1949, Page 6

CATCHMENT BOARD CHAIRMAN REPLIES TO CRITICISM

MARTON, Last Night (0.C.) Statements made by Mr. F. K. Pearce, hill country representative on the Wanganui Provincial Executive of Federated Farmers, at a meeting in Wanganui when discussing the report of the . Royal Commission relating to the abolition of catchment boards and reported in yesterday's “Chronicle ” were referred to by Kir. K. A, Williams (Marton), deputy-president of the New Zealand Catchment Board Association and chairman of the Rangitikei Catchment Board, in an interview today.

Mr Pearce is reported to have said that “over the next 40 to 50 years the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council proposed spending £200,000,000 all of which would he charged on rates and the lan.d,” and “that present grants to the Soil Conservation Council and Catchment. Board were mainly for administrative purposes.” The reference to the expenditure of £200,000,000 was no doubt taken from page 64 of the Royal Commission's report. on the sheep farming industry, said Mr. Williams. This was apparently a calculation made from a statement of policy submitted to the Commission by the Soil Conservation Council which appeared on pages 65 and 66.

“Nowhere in the Commission's report and the council’s statement is any reference made as to the period of time involved,” said Mr, Williams. Th® policy of the council, he continued, was a very long term one, which must be, from the very nature of the work involved. The Commission had no comments to make on the council’s wellreasoned statement of what should be done. Yet the Commission recommended in different places practically all the essential proposals of the council’s statement. The council stated that it was undoubtedly necessary to give the farmer financial and technical assistance This was what the catchment boards were doing, said Mr. Williams. AIJ works carried out by boards carried subsidies from the Government ranging from £1 for £1 for tree-planting to £3 for £1 for other types of work and in some cases the subsidies had been higher. In addition free grants had been made to boards for certain soil conservation purposes. The difference between the subsidy and the cost of the work was borne by the land. The difference was obtained either by a direct payment made voluntarily by the farmer or by classification of the' land for rating purposes according to the degree of benefit received.

The Government itself determined the expenditure on works by catchment boards through its control of the amount of money it would make available annually for subsidies- said Mr. Williams. For that very reason boards were unable, if any were so ill advised, to embark upon any extravagant expenditure. Mr Pearce’s statement that’ grants made to the Soil Conservation Council and catchment boards were mainly for administrative purposes was misleading, added Mr. Williams. Except in the case of two very small boards no grants were made for administration purposes. These two boards had an exceptionally low rateable value and the maximum administration rate of J-8d in the £ ‘was inadequate to provide funds for even a very small administrative staff. No other board received any grant for administration expenses nor were they likely to, said Mr. Williams.

The bulk of the grants were employed in subsidising the work of the board or on the council’s own soil conservation areas, said Mr. Williams in conclusion.