The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15, 1928. ON THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10511, 15 February 1928, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15, 1928. ON THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA.

It. will come as no surprise to the ratepayers to find that the Harbour Board is now groping about in the dark, as it were, unable to come to any complete decision as to what course it should follow in connection with the new harbour works. The Board i.s. really badly in need of additional engineering and other expert advice and the Commission of Enquiry recommended l*y Parliament cannot possibly he avoided. fhe Board, at its special meeting on Monday, displayed evidence of utter helplessness, its plight being all the more excusable on account of the- conflicting advice tendered to ii by its engineer and harbourmaster on the question as to whether it would or would not lie advisable to hasten the “change over. ’ or. in other words, to fill up the gap in the diversion wall and throw practically the whole of the traffic, of the port on to the Kaiti side, which is so ill-prepared, as yet, to handle ii. Mr Campbell fold the Board that, unless the grp were closed immediately, floods wouln silt up the entrance and tints render the port unworkable. On the other hand. Capt. Carson held that the gap was required, as at present, to enable the.depth at the entrance to.be maintained: to assist in eliminating range ; and to avoid the wharfage accommodation being cut down to onefourth of the extent now available. In view of what the harbourmaster had to say. the Board, wisely, we think, decided to play safe, by refusing to authorise the closing of the gap until more accommodation baboon provided on the Kaiti side, or until the advice tendered by the engineei is confirmed. That, then was the question that pressed most urgently for consideration at the meeting. hut it was merely the central point of a very wide issue, viz. "He: much further work at the entrance is absolutely essential?" It would seem that the engineer favored going on witli the extension of the breakwater to minimise the range difficulty bound to arise when the gap m the* diversion wall is closed. A majority or the Board, however, preferred not only to leave the gap in the diversion wall, but also to close down on the work of extending the breakwater, and to concentrate on developing the inner basin. This further decisionwas, clearly, reached for financial reasons and not on engineering grounds at all. What remains to be said, therefore, is this: that, if the Board concentrates on the development ot the inner basin, it will still remain in a quandary. Would it then he wise to risk closing the gap in the diversion wall ? Or, must a further section of the. breakwater be gone on with, or some provision be made in the way of a wave expansion area? The ratepayers, we think, will agree that, at all costs, an adequate portion of the port must, meantime, be retained to enable the traffic to le handled.