THE RIVERS COMMISSION.

Western Star, 23 March 1920, Page 2

THE RIVERS COMMISSION.

This sat at Otautau last Tuesday to enquire into the state of the Aparima River and as to the erosion caused to adjacent lands, when evidence was given by eleven settlers, whose statements appeared) in our last issue. From these it was made clear that years ago the channel was mmch deeper than at present, and that the damage done so far as the Aparima is concerned was not so much by floods as by erosion, a considerable area of land having been washed away. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr F. W. Furkert, should have a good knowledge of the river, he having been chairman of tlie Commission which enquired into the loss of land near Otautau sustained by Mr Scatter. Hence, with the evidence given as to erosion, their own knowledge of the river obtained by personal inspection, and their expert knowledge of rivers in general it is to be hoped that they will be able to offer some solution df the problem—the prevention of erosion. Of course erosion is inevitable with a channel that is continually getting shallower, and to the lay mind the solution wouldi appear to be the deepening of the channel. One would like to know the opinion of the Commission upon this matter —whether it is. practicable, and, if so, would deepening be too expensive. Arising out of the enquiry into the flooding and erosion was the question of the control off the river, and upon this subject there was a diversity of opinion, although the majority of those who gave evidence favoured sole control in one form or another. Messrs F. J. Linscott and W. ’Brown dad not favour a single controlling authority, Mr A. Anderson expressed dissatisfaction with the existing system of divided control. Mr Geo, Rodger considered there should be one controlling authority, Mr Juo. Lindsay thought there should be a River Board every fifteen or twenty miles, general supervision to be exercised by the Government, Messrs J. Fisher, Jno. Macdonald, and G. A. Burnett took the .same view as Mr Rodger, provided a comprehensive scheme were laid down, Mr T. A. Buckingham favour eel one authority with local committees, Mr Jas. Egan would place control in the hands of the County Council, which was recommended by the county engineer, Mr Baker, while Mr M. O’Brien was against single control unless there was strong government representation on the controlling body. Thus the concensus of opinion is against the present system, and there is no question but that a conflict of authority means waste, loss and lawsuits. As was .mentioned by Mr Fisher, only one-fifth of the Aparima requires attention -so far as erosion is concerned, and for the control of this a comprehensive scheme should be devised to be carried out by a single controlling authority with local coramitees, as suggested hy Mr Bucking bam.