RECLAMATION.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19690, 6 August 1929, Page 7

RECLAMATION.

HARBOUR SCHEME [ proposed. ENGINEER'S REPORT AWAITED. A proposal 'o a reclamation scheme for in-lus? rial purposes, and to discontinue the of dumping at the im'Uth of the harbour | was submittc i ly Mr H. M. Chrystall at yesterdav', meeting of the Lyttclton Harbour Hoard. In accordance with notice, Mr Chrvstall moved: "That th«- present practice of dumping dredtrinc< "at flu- nu>uth of the harbour be and that a reclamation scheme be prepared and put into force US soon as possible, such scheme to provide that the dredgings .shall be so placed as to prevent them from escaping, and so form reclaimed land for industrial and other purposes, to meet the anticipated future requirements of the Port and Borough of Lyttelton." The" mover said that he considered the question of reclamation was possibly the most important part of the harbour policy. He was in favour of reclamation because it eft down dredging costs. He had taken samples of mud from Governor's Bay, and an analysis had shown it to be identical with mud from the harbour bottom. There had been a loss of 9,000,000 tons of mud from the reclamation.From the engineering point ot view the dredgings could be put down behind retaining walls. Every scheme that was gone into by the engineer proved to pay on figures. He quoted the Thorndon reclamation at Wellington as an instance of the value of such work. A large area at the head of Evans Bay was bein.tr reclaimed, he added, and that did not interfere with their tidal flow. Mr \V T. Lester seconded the motion, saying that the question of reclamation svould open up the whole matter of improvements to the port. Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P., agreed j with most of wliat Mr Chrystall had said, but said that they had already asked the engineer to prepare a report. | Was the Board too impatient to wait j for that? The present method of dis- j posing of the dredgings had led to a deeper channel than they had ever had before, and he could not, therefore, see the logic of Mr Chrystall's contention that the dredging was going back again. It was decided to receive the mo-1 tion and defer consideration until the I engineer's report was received. j Mr Chrystall said that he had brought that motion up on the understanding that the engineer's report would have been presented that day. He was quite i prepared to wait until it came to hand, i