AN ANSWER

Grey River Argus, 12 August 1925, Page 6

AN ANSWER

TO HARBOUR BOARD CRITICISM MR STEER DEFENDS BOARD. Mr J. Steer, Chairman of the Harbour Board, last night defended that body from some criticisms levelled at it in an article that recently appeared in the ‘‘Greymouth Evening Star.” Mr Steer said it was a pity that the information was not more explicit. The informant whose name, by the way, was not mentioned, stated that the bar had been very poor, and that the Board had not done anything to obviate the trouble or improve matters. Some time ago he had been talking to the manager of the local branch of the Union Company, and he agreed that the Board could do nothing. Shipping masters coming to the port had agreed that it was impossible to work a dredge on the bar, so it would bo useless getting a dredge from either Westport or Hokitika. Never in the history of Greymouth had there been such a succession of fine weather. This year there had been only a few freshes. At the same time the bar for the last five years had been better than it hud previously been in the history of Greymouth. The steamers coming to Greymouth to-day were larger than those of a few years ago. If the port were capable of accommodating ves-

sels of 23 feet draught, people would want boats drawing 25 feet. The jßoard could not criticise previous Boards. It was .10 use complaining. The present Board had obtained a report. from three of the Dominion's leading engineers, which stated that a great improvement would he effected in the dredging of the lagoon. That report agreed with the o.ie submitted .many years ago by the late Sir John Coode. The Board intended to go on with that important work; but it could not be done in a week or a month, When it was completed, however, he believed that there would be a greater depth 0.1 the bar—more than the engineers had hoped for. The Board was doing its best, and no body could possibly do more. As regards the suggestion that the Harbour Board should bo changed—that was a matter for the ‘Government. He personally was not worrying. If the people thought they could do better with a different Board, that was for themselves to decide. The Board had been hampered for funds | up to the last year or two, but aow a 1 certain amount of money was available, and the Board would spend it in such a way as would derive for tile port the best possible advantages. Mr J. McLean (Deputy Chairman) said a public body must expect to be criticised —110 matter what the criticism. As regards the suggestion that •.the dredge should be employed on the bar, the Board had obtained the opinion of its engineer and Harbourmaster, and they said it was impossible to work the dredge on the bar. It was all very well to criticise and talk. The Board had thought it its duty to ob- . tain the opinion of three eminent New Zealand engineers—Messrs Blair-Mason (Dunedin). Fergttso.i (Wellington) and l-'urkert (Public Works Department). These gentlemen had reported very extensively. When the lagoon was dredged (as suggested by the engineers) it should ensure two scours a day. The Board had done its best, and (would continue to do its best.

There was no ‘‘wait awhile” policy with the Board. It was pushing things along as best as it could.