Whanganui letters: Dredging the river, and food waste recycling lesson from Wellington

Garth Scown could not agree more with the majority of submitters on Whanganui District Council's annual and long-term plans who opposed a food waste service. Photo / Bevan Conley

So the food waste service is rejected. Well done, I could not agree more, the last thing we wanted was a smelly bin hanging around outside our back door either, let alone the hassle of having to wash it out every week, as we do now with our general rubbish bin, which we will still have to have even when the kerbside recycling starts.

I note an article in the Dominion Post a couple of months back that one of the Wellington-based City Councils [Porirua] was wailing the fact that it had spent [between $6000 and $8000 a month] to send items to the landfill that had been put into recycling bins which were not recyclable.

I guess our learned councillors have taken this into account when setting the rate for the year for our recycling bins, as I don't see that this city is going to be any different in their approach to using these bins especially when they wake up and realise that they are still going to have to pay to have their general rubbish removed, which is a cost they can drop as it is not added to their rates unlike the recycling cost.

Or can we look forward to some wailing here when the same thing happens and we have to face an increase in the recycling costs?

Watch this space.

GRAHAM HAWTREE
Springvale

Editor's note: The food waste service was rejected by the majority of written submissions to the Whanganui District Council's consultation about its annual and long-term plans. The council's policy and by-law committee voted in favour of a food waste service in November last year. Council will deliberate on the matter next Thursday (May 26).

The case for dredging the river

Whanganui's river flooding is in the thoughts of many. The [Horizons Regional] Council has spent $130,000 on "experts" to offer a solution.

From what was in our Chronicle they offered nothing new. Raise the stop banks, move the houses.

If memory serves me right, it was the Mississippi that the levees were continually raised 'til the river was flowing feet above the surrounding land.

When the levees were breached, thousands of acres were flooded and they had to put holes in the levees protecting the towns to get rid of the water, flooding the towns.

They realised they should have been dredging and putting the mud onto the farmland, adding fertility and keeping the river low.

We know our lower reaches are tidal, forcing the water to back up. That being said, if the river was dredged from the town bridge for starters, but ideally from the railway bridge, we might only have to dredge from the town bridge as the river might keep the mud moving down river.

If the river was dredged, the river's water-holding capacity would be greatly enhanced.

I am sure dredging would be less costly and certainly less disruptive.

GARTH SCOWN
Whanganui