THE H.B. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1911. HARBOUR MATTERS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 184, 21 July 1911, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1911. HARBOUR MATTERS.

Having championed the Break- : water scheme from its inception, it was hardly to l>e expected that- the “Telegraph" would display great joviality over the advice given to the Harbour Board by Mr. I'ergiil son. but we certainly did not an- ! ticipate it would express approval of the sound recommendations he 'made, and of the decision of the j Board to adopt them. However, our anticipations were not to be realised, and the " Telegraph ’’ still bewails the fact that the ratepayers are not foolish enough to (continue blindly throwing hun-! i deeds of thousands of pounds into: t the sea at the Bluff Hill. Fortu-, i nately the day is past, when anything it says on harbour matters> ■ can influence the policy of the i Board, and much as it may lament i i the expenditure of a few pounds ! on testing the channel proposals, 1

i the test will be made, and the re- ' spective merits of the two harbours; will be made clear. Our readers ; will remember that it was only a i few months ago that the same jour-, i nal protested against the Board i spending money on testing the 1 depth of water obtainable at Port j Ahuriri. that the tests were marie ! despite their opposition, and that; I the result proved that their allcgaI tions that rock would be found rd.; j shallow depths were absolutely and (wholly nothing else hut false ->us- • representations. As in the case »i ; the borings, so in the matter >f t’n ■ channel, the bogey of expert <,pinion and advice was held up by the ' “ Telegraph ” as proof that rock {existed, that the sea would obiiti erate the channel “ the deep channel from 100 to 600 feet wide to be {dredged in the open sea.’ as the “Telegraph' termed it. It tried ! to lead its public to believe that 1 the advocates of the inner harbour | proposed to dredge a cut 30ft deep (through the sea bottom- that is to j a depth of 30ft below the top | pebbles on the sea floor, ami that . this cut would be subjected to the ; action of the breakers, which would t fill it up. But what are the true ■facts abbut this channel.' At the ■ present time the average depth tn, the channel front the heads to deep I wafer is as great as the depth • 1 i water alongside the Glasgow ; Wharf, and were it not for the | boulder bank between the pierheads at Port Ahuriri -a bank easily removed—the biggest vessels

that now moor at the Breakwater would be able at. high tide to make the entrance. As a matter of fact, flu- average dredging of sea floor i in the channel does not require to he more than four feet deep, so the ; experiment will not be the costly undertaking our contemporary would lead the people to believe. , In its yesterday’s article it recalled the fact that hundreds of thousands had been spent on the Breakwater, a work which has proved itself to be nothing better than a costly and • unprofitable experiment. It was ev< n foolish enough to recall the fact that quite recently it alter- . nately threatened. urged, and pleaded for the ratepayers to spend another £300.000 on the same problematical harbour proposition. And yet. while recalling these follies, it laments the expenditure of a few hundreds, or at most a few thousands of pounds on an experiment, the result of which must; si-ttle once and for al! the harbour ; problem of Hawke’s Bay. It is a; pity its exquisite caution was not; displayed years ago. when it might; have prevented the waste of close; upon half a million of money.