CORRESPONDENCE

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 179, 30 August 1929, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

A. E. MORGAN (Chairman).

JAS. HELLYER, (Secretary).

^ (To the Editor). > Sir, — I enclose herein a copy of a c letter vhich has becn forwarded to \ ihe Mayov of hastings and wkich mv \ committee would deem a favour if you c wonld publish. in your valued paper. — J J. am, etc., S JAS. HELLYER, Hon. Sec. C Clive and District llatepayers' Com1 mittee. S Clive, August 30, 1020. C G. F. Hoach, Esq., Mayor of Hastings. 2 Dear Sir, — In Saturday's Telegraph S there appeared a report of a conferc Ptice between the Hawke's Bay Rivers J Board and certain members of the S Hastings Borougli Council, to consider c the clauses of the proposed Hawke's Bay River Bill. As this bill is really \ only a further step towards the finalc isation of the Hay sclieme, we desire 2 to express our surprise that you did f not consider ifc worth whilc to extend * an invitation to the district committee, who have so strenuouslv opposed the Hay sclieme whicli the Rivers Board luis adopted. It is move than peculiar ) that when our committee afked for a conference with your council recently, to lay their views of the Rivers Board proposals liefore them, that you did, on your own initiative. invite the chairmnn of the Hawke's Bay Rivers Board and their engineers to be present, and thev were given the opportunitv to. if ijjev so desired, and which tliey did, to express their disapproval of the E schenie, which we support, or to elohorate the presmned good points oi their own (th© Hay sclieme) and tliey took every advantage of doing 50, hut whether it lielped them or not the ultimate result only will prove. 1 What we object to, Mr Mayor, is that you gnve tlie board and Mr Hay every opportunitv to be present at our conference. bufc for reasons besfc known to yourself you did nofc extend the same courtesy to us. Are we to presunie thafc you are moro interested in Napier South, Taradale and Greenmeadows, than you are in Hastings, Raupare, Twyford, Tomoana, Mangateretere, Whakatu and Clive, and also thafc you are prepared to ngree to a wicked injustice being inflicted on more than a thousand fanners in these districts ? Did you read the whole bill _ tliat tlie Hawke's Bay Rivers Board is trying to get passed into law? We tliink, not, hufc if you did and the only objectionable clauses were tliose that you did take exceptton to, all wc caii say is, that as fnr as you are concerned the fanners know whei*e tliey stand. IVe woulcl liko to know whv you sliould ally Hastings with Napier South in regard to the question of liability of rates. We are not raising the question at the moment of what proportion or change there slionld be in the rates levied, but considering thafc tlie total diyersion of the Tutaekuri gives what is liumanely 100 per cent. protection to Greenmeadows, Taradale, Napier South ancl the Napier High School, and confers no bcneiit wliatever 011 any other parts of the district. incuding Flastings, but is a menacc, we are interested to know whv you shoud consider it necessary to protect Napier South from beiug called upon to pay any greater proportion of rates than tliey do at the present time, when they are obviously getting all the henefit at the risk of otliers. . .... Now, sir, reverting to the bill, it is in our opiuion 0110 of the most obnoxious doeuments ever framed and in its present form will be thrown out root and braneli by the Bills Committee in Parliament. It coutains clauses wbich no democratic community would tolerate, and Mr .Tarvis must rate the intelligence of the fanners of the district, whicli we rcpresent, and _ the members of the Local Bills Committee in Parliament, at a very low leyel if he tliinks they are to be hoodwinked by his proposals. and woukl grant permission for a loan of £250,000 to be raised ivithout a poll of the ratepayers being taken. We consider Mr Jarvis wrong when he stntes that the Hay sclieme will benefit Hastings, and we asserfc without fen r of contradiction that 111 _ so far ifc refers to tlip Ngaruroro river " ifc would be a menace to tlie Hves and ruin to the residents adjacent to it. Mr Jarvis liad the temerity, in replving to CT. Lyon's question, ''as to why tlie board had not advertised their sclieme, prior to getting the Governmenfc sanction," to say, "tliat lie did not tliink there was any need for this to he clone." We cannofc understand Mr Jarvis making this statement, as he is fully aware thafc the act distinctly lays down, "Thafc the board shall advertise its sclieme ancl leave its plans open for inspection for 21 days, before ifc goes to the Minister for his approval."

Mr Hay states that if there was a floocl in the maia Ngaruroro river iTtider his sclieme, the old Ngaruroro would back up and cause a miniature flood. Does Mr Hay expecfc anyone to believe this? With no banks at the present time at the Pakowhai bridge the counfcry is inundated in a tlood froin Karamu road to Raupare. What will be the positioa when tlie Te Aute and Poukawa lakes aro lowered, and their watcrs in flood timo rusli down th rough Pukahu and are bloeked by the unhroken bank line from Hassall's corner to Raupare? Only two things are possible, "an inland sea hacking up towards Hastings ancl aeross to Raupare," or a break between tlie points mentioned, causing a new river to cut th rough Mangatere or Clive to the sea, with the probahle loss of life ancl ihe certain ruin of hundreds of acres c.f the besfc land in New Zealand_. This would he the certain destructible reresulfc, and yet, Mr Mayor, you are reported as having stated "thafc if Mr Hay were assured that the banks would be adequate and if provision was made for getting the sewerage away satisfaeorily Hastings would be content." You evidently hold that the question of the disposal of Hastings sewerage is to he the deciding factor in regard to river control before the drainage of the land contiguous to the Ngaruroro. but we do not tliink that the people of Hastings are so blind to their own interests, or so disinterested in the fate of their best friends and customers as to wish to see them ruined, and which we emphatically state they would be if the Hay sclieme is finalised. In conclusion. sir, we desire to state that had we heen present at the conference the statements made by Mr Jarvis and Mr Hay would hav6 been flatly confcraclicted and disproved at the time ancl this protest would have been unnecessary. We are sending a .copy of this letter to the Press for publication. We-are, vours faitlifullv. for the Clive and District Ratepayers' Committee,