LAKE ELLESMERE DRAINAGE.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20921, 31 July 1933, Page 7

LAKE ELLESMERE DRAINAGE.

TO Vfft EDITOR OF THIS I'P.EiS. Sir, —On July 13 you kindly published a letter of mine on the above subject, in which, inter alia, I remarked that, according to the District Engineer's estimate of the period of usefulness of the mole in his original scheme, the shorter mole now proposed should serve for roughly 10 years. From this I found that we should have a capital outlay of £BOOO to £9OOO a year of service. I challenged those concerned to say whether or not I was right in the rtbove. You were good enough to have my letter submitted to the District Engineer; but he "did not wish to comment Upon it." The inference is. of course, obvious. And while, of those whose views on the Canterbury Progress League's proposal you have published, all but on 6 have scathingly* criticised it, the supporters of the proposal have, by their silence, manifested caution rather than candour. The meetings held for the purpose of considering the league's proposal each went into committee, and the in-committce attitude appears to be the rule with the promoters. "All paries concerned [who expect to benefit 1 are agreed." But, as Mr MeLachlan has pointed out, they who are to pay are not regarded as a party. And are not the questions raised in my letter referred to above l.rrlinen!" By what process ol' rea-.-;onin.", was it decided that there was lu«t "one scheme worthy of consideration"? Does the league know? If it know*-*, why does it not tell all who are to pay? If the league has not enquired into such matters, what worth-while thing has it done?— Yours, etc., •J. IS. HOLLAND. Hillsborough. July 28, 1P33. * Nearly a month ago I wrote to the secretary of the Progress League, endeavouring to show how success with my suggested experiment must be an infinitely greater success than Is possible with the league's own scheme, and in addition must lead to a saving of at the very least £50,000, while failure could mean little if any loss. My letter, which was accompanied with a sketch and copy of s.

letter to the District Engineer, Public Works Department, has not been even acknowledged.— J.E. 11. TO IHK KDITOU O." VIIK J'RESB. Sir, —I note that Mr Gread in reply to Mr Stead now says: "I knew all along that both sides of the cut would have to bo protected.'' Yet. while (lining the last two or three years I have been advocating, for reasons definitely stated, protection lor the north yiclc of the channel, Mr Gread has put forward more than one scheme in which there was no mention of protecting the north side. Mr Gread says, as others have said, that "it is the shingle that is washed out of the cut that always comes back practically yard for yard." There probably is a measure of truth in this; but the channel would be closed again, whether or not the scoured shingle was there to come back. believing as he does, Mr Gread will be simply delighted to know that, according to my scjieme, the channel would be wholly formed by the scooping of shingle out of the way. Under my plan velocity of flow would be too low to cause scour, except at the outfall, where velocity would be very high. With the shingle out of the way its return, as Mr Gread has it, would be impossible: $o why press for a mole costing £88,000? —Yours, etc., J. E. HOLLAND. Hillsborough. July 29. 1933.