The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, August 15, 1944. HARBOUR PROBLEM.

Grey River Argus, 15 August 1944, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, August 15, 1944. HARBOUR PROBLEM.

Whatever the upshot, the uiith 1 . five of the Progress League in the proposing l that the Government consider providing this district with a deep-sea harbour is timely. It is essential that the in dustrial, future of the district should, as far as possible, be assured, and to that end the vital factor of transport should, be a matter of certainty. The League’s deputation yesterday to the Minister of Marine expressed its recognition that there is a very real problem, a technical one of on gineering. 'On his part, the Minister, who, as Member for the District, is specially anxious for the best solution, went so far as to say that the Government would co-operate in a scheme if there were that guarantee of certainty that would satisfy engineers, and so would warrant the very great outlay which any deep sea project must entail. An allweather harbour, permanent and commodious for larger vessels, would be most desirable, assuring to the State continued revenue from coal and other exports; to producers and traders profitable returns, and to workers an adequate livelihood. Indeed, sea transport must be assured, and tht outlay of money directed to such an assurance. This present port must be made as efficient as possible until it can, if possible be bettered. There is meantime no certain site for a better one Point Elizabeth not yet, ac anyratc, having gained engineering endorsement as such. Its development, at a cost of say five millions would take years, during which the present port must meet requirements. The local, wish for a better alternative, shared elsewhere, is naturally an insuffic l ent inducement for the Government to stake the money men tinned against a doubtful result, or even one which would entail a continued heavy cost for main tenahce in coping with the great littoral draft of debris from our long series of mountain torrents. The country scarcely exhibits in actuality a harbour such as mail? confidently see potentially ex isting at Point Elizabeth. There fore further investigation and ex perimentation must precede a de cision. Until then the Harbour Board’s task is and it must not a>t all remain in abeyance. We have resources for industries which would feed a deep sea har hour adequately to meet very considerable maintenance outlay Yet those resources now need development, whether their sea outlet is here or there. To fulfil

that heed is to augment oui means for carrying out in any event further improvement 01 our facilities of sea transport. It appears that the weight )f en o-ineering opinion is that Point Elizabeth, with a couple of miles of breakwaters, would require re gular dredging to maintain a depth not much greater than there is here under favourable conditions. with a risk that even then the port might lack permanence. The history of man-made harbours shows that with very few ex-

ceptions they never compare with natural ones. If however dredg ing practice yet should be adapt ed for such conditions as those here, the regular recurrence, after an interval, of shoaling each time there is a breakwater extension might be so mitigated as almost to eliminate loss of time 'with shipping. It remains notable how much larger vessels entail greater delay than smaller ones under adverse conditions. This in itself is a spur to seek a a escape from such adverse eondi tions. Put before going ahead in that direction it is natural that those responsible for meeting risks should make certain that they are right., because of theif trusteeship for the nation’s funds. Moreover a new venture proving a failure 'would tend to prove a complete stopper upon any further improvement in our position. Point Elizabeth or any other site for a deep-water port deserves, in the present circumstances, every study, but more than that is required so that our sea. export trade shall expand. Existing facilities must be kept at their best.