DREDGING THE HUTT RIVER

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 9, 10 January 1920, Page 9

DREDGING THE HUTT RIVER

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir, —The River Board proposes taking a poll of the ratepayers on the 15th inst. for sanction to I'aise a loan of £9000 for the purpose of erecting, a dredging and crushing plant on the Hutt River to-sup-ply gravel and sand for concrete work in the Wellington district. I would like to give the ratepayers the benefit of my experience in similar work. [ would like to point! out tliat the River Board intends to spend the money on a scheme that Pitcaithly and Co. found absolutely impracticable some years ago, owing to the fact that the gravel in the river bed,, below where it was waterwashed contained little or no sand, and was of the same clayey formation as the gravel banks along the western _ Hntt-Belmont-road, and that most of it was oxidised, and, as any practical man knows, cement will not adhere to .oxidised stones; also to the fact that the material deposited in the dredge paddock, when the river was, in flood, contains a lai'ge quantity of water-logged wood, leaves, and rubbish of all description, which it was impossible to separate from the gravel, .and that after a big flood SO per cent, of the gravel in the paddock -was useless. If any ratepayer is sufficiently interested in the proposed scheme, and doubts this statement, I will prove conclusively to his or her satisfaction that my statements are absolutely true, any time when we are working, should they care to pay a visit to the pit (that we were working on at the time of the .1915 flood, and I can show them places where 75 per cent, of the material deposited by that flood was water-logged wood and rubbish). In regard to the Board's intention of crushing stones over 2 inches in diameter, and to dispose of them for road metal, this is also impracticable. 1 know that good road metal can be obtained from hard sand stone such as the Hutt River contains, and that several .local bodies crush such stone, and use thfem with satisfactory results, but they, select the largest' stones obtainable, probably six inches and over in diameter, which, when crushed, make a fair road metal, as a iairge portion of the product is cubeshaped. Very few stones in the Hutt River average more than three inches in diameter, which when crushed for twoinch road metal, contain'such a preponderance of road-ended pieces that they will never bind, and it is impossible to get satisfactory results from it. Many ratepayers who have had such gravel put on their footpaths round their houses know from bitter experience that my contention is a correct one.

Looking at the proposition from a financial point the quantity of Hutt River gravel boat ballast included.^ used outside the Hutt River district, was about 16,000 cnbic r yards for the year. lam prepared to admit that the consumption of gravel will increase considerably, but it will not increase three-fold, as many factors combine to limit the quantity of gravel to be used for some years to come, not the least of which, will be the acute shortage of labour, and the high price of material. On a capital outlay of £10,000 for a dredging and crushing plant, 15 per cent, at least must be allowed for depreciation and upkeep, and S per cent, on the capital cost would total £2000 per year. Taking the yearly output of 40,000 yards (which is very considerably more than the preseri* output of 16,000 yards) the cost of interest, depreciation, and upkeep would be one shilling per yard, while if an outside party sold that quantity of gravel, the River Board would receive at fourpence por yard royalty (which is the present price paid), equal to £656 13s 4d per annum, without any deductions.

The cost of labour, coal, and oil nt~ eessavy to run a dredging plant,, would, in my estimation be £80 per week at the very lowest cost, which, on an output of 40,000 cubic yards per year, would amount to 2s Id per yard; add to this, interest, depreciation, and upkeep, and fourpence per yard lost revenue, I fail to see how the board's proposal is going to benefit the ratepayers, and lesser* the cost of metal to the consumer.

The members of the board ,say that they will improve the river channel by erecting the dredge between Melling and the main • bridge, which is, I believe, their intentiou; but I fail to see how the river as a whole is going to benefit by drpdging and deepening one portion.

The p'r.tte of discrediting my rtaU'mentß lies with the board. I have had 10 years'

practical experience gold-dredging in Central Otago, two years' dredging on Uio Hutt River for gravel for concrete work, 10 years in connection with the Wellington gravel trade, four of which .1 was foreman' for Pitcaithly and Co., and four years as manager of the Hutt River Shingle Co. I am also a ratepayer in the Hutt River district.

In my opinion, a meeting of the ratepayers should have been called earlier, details of the scheme laid before them, and the true facts of the- workings laid before them for their consideration, before being nsked to sanction a loan of this magnitude.—l am, etc.,

C. B. WILLIAMS, Manager Hutt River Shingle Co.

Lower Hutt, 9th January

[Since this letter was received it has been announced in "The Post that a public meeting of ratepayers will be held on Tuesday night.—Ed.] ■ *