Harbour Reclamation

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 282, 14 November 1923, Page 3

Harbour Reclamation

THE ENGINEER’S DUTIES.

MATTERS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION. MH. NELSON’S REPLY TO THE CHAIRMAN. At the Napier Harbour Board meeting yesterday, a letter from Air. George reclamation engineer to the Board, concerning the chairman’s (Mr. A. E. dull) remarks relating to the engineer’s report at the previous meeting, was taken in committee. Air. George Nelson, in the letter, states:— If the newspaper reports are to be relied upon—and 1 have carefully compared them and find; that all three agree—the remarks of th© chairman with regard to my last report call fur reply. GANT) BETWEEN GEORG ICS DRIVE AND HIGH /SCHOOL SITEMr. .lull is reported to have said “the area is part of Napier South and does not come within Air. Nelson’s scheme..” It is not a question of whether the area is embraced in my scheme, but whether it falls within my province. As the Board has placed me in charge of the whole of its landed estate lying without the Borough of Napier and to the south and west of the railway, that it is within my province is evidenced by the fact that the Board was, at the time, in negotiation with the County Council regarding the reading of the area in question. Not only is this land within my province in the geographical sense, but, being neither drained, levelled, nor roaded, the difference in status between this and the other areas under my control is merely one of degree. RAILWAY DEVIATION. Mr. Jull is reported to have saiu that he •’could not agree that Mr. jYvisun should take up any negotiations witn the Department. 11 he had sug gesHons to make the Board would hear num” 1 did not ask authority either to suggest or negotiate. My object was merely to ascertain the requirements or the Department and to satisfy m\selt how they could best be met in the interests of all concerned. Any suggestions which 1 may have to make to the Board will come after, not before, the discussion which I trust you will authorise. LOCAL BODIES JOINT COMMITTEE Air. Jull is reported to have sam that there was ‘‘no such body in existence,” and that it was “no use discussing the questions mentioned by Air. Nelson.” In reply 1 would refer the Board to the minutes of a conference of local bodies held in the Borough Council Chamber on 30th June, 1923. to consider my land reclamation proposals. These minutes, as recorded by the secretary of the Board, show that such committee was set up on the motion of the chairman of the Napier Harbour Board, who “was authorised to call it together when occasion should arise. The first business of that body was to take steps to secure a topographical survey of the whole district affected. This was the first item on my agenda, and it is absolutely essential to the preparation of the general plan. The second item, re datum plane and establishment of permanent “bench marks” arises out of the first and is, in my opinion, more than desirable. The reason for the third item re provision of better means for disposal of tins and rubbish is that, as pointed out in an earlier report, the Board’s property is being made a dumping ground. In consequence of this, we are “up against it” at the present moment in cutting a drain along Lower Beach road, the path of this drain being blocked by a great quantity of tins* My idea was that, by arrangement with the bodies concerned, the Board’s dredges might excavate pits, in suitable localities, as opportunity..offered, a sufficient quantity of the excavated material to be aside for covering up the dump as the filling of the pit proceeds. Ground to be reserved for a belt of trees around such pits. One needs but reflect upon the possinilities of such excavations as a source of supply of material for raising low areas, to appreciate the bearing of ••provision for rubbish disposal” upon the general plan. The fourth item on the agenda was

•‘to consider the adoption of certain mam roads.” These roads share with

••railway requirements” the distinction of being the most rigid features of the plan, and should be provisionally determined as soon as possible, so that the position of canals and drains may be laid out in conformity with them. Tlie construction of certain of these roads should be put in hand early in the New Year to give access for the close settlement of some SOO acres of the Whareo-Maraenui block. The opportunity for discussion, created by these four items of the agenda, justifies the inclusion of the fifth, and last. I to understand Mr. Jull’s remark that it is “no use discussing th n questions mentioned hy Air. Nelson ” BASIN DREDGER. Mr. Jull takes exception to the closing sentence of my report. He is stated to have said : “it is a matter of surprise to me, and regret, that Air. Nelson put those last words into his report,” and added, “I am not going to say any more about the report.” Sirs, do you realise (1) That the recommendations of Messrs Cullen and Keele, engineers of Australasian repute, with a long experience of suction dredges, upon whose proposals the Board went to the ratepayers, have been deferred to the advice of an engineer whose resignation was already in the hands of the Board ? (2) That, though I have had a long and successful career as a mechanical engineer and was the designer of the “C.D.K.”, the most efficient dredge the Board ever owned; though I have lately discussed Napier’s dredging problems with British. Dutch and American dredge builders and dredging-con tractors; and have . studied these machines in operation in various parts of the world. I have neither been consulted nor invited to assist, in framing the specification! ■ (3) That, though the dredge is likely to be engaged for four-fifths of its time

upon my work the specification was not submitted to me for approval before being issued 1 (4) That tenders ligve been invited Jfor a dredge without regard to the work which it will lie called upon to perforin and that, in consequence, the dredge specified is wholly inadequate for its job. (5) That, though responsibility for supplying suitable plant is thrown upon the dredge builders, they are neither told the total quantity of material to be excavated nor, as regards the great bulk of the material, the distance to which it has to bo dumped. (6) That, though asked to decide for themselves what the motive power should be, tenderers have not been told the cost, either of fuel or electric-

Gentlemen, am I not entitled to express surprise and regret? When considering the purchase of plant of any kind, the first question which naturally arises is, “the size of the job.” Now, seeing that the spoil from the dredge is to lie for reclaiming land and that the demand for spoil for that purpose is likely to bo greatly in excess of that which, normally. would be forthcoming as a byproduct of harbour construction, then it is evident that the size of the job will be determined by the requirements of the reclamation scheme. The dredge specified is to have a capacity of ,220 yards per hour. The rated capacity of the dredge specified bv Messrs Cullen and Keele would ho about 500 vards per hour. By the same method of calculation the “C.D.K.” would be rated at 170 yards an hour

It is impossible to think that, for so oreat a work, it is the intention of the Board to purchase a dredge hut little larnr.o r than the “C.D.K.” ! The larger the dredge the lower the working costs per yard, the larger the dredge the higher the capital charges per yard. That size nf dredge for which the sum of these is a minimum is the size of dredge for the Board to employ. Now it is clear that the capita! charges per yard will depend upon the number of yards to be shifted. If Messrs Cullen and Keele were right in recommending a (p 0 yards per hour machine to deal with the 4.000,000 yards of excavation which they proposed for the accommodation of ship' ping then something a good deal larger than a 220 yard machine must be required to handle the fifteen or twenty million yards which, it appears probable, the reclamation proposals will ultimately call for. As the dredge will be mainly employed on my work may I presume to suggest that the specification should bo withdrawn and another issued in its stead.

In conclusion, I ask the Board to .give these several items of my last report the consideration which they deserve. CONSIDERATION IN COAIMITTEE. The letter was considered in committee, and on the Board resuming the chairman reported that the following resolution had been adopted:— “That this Board regrets that Air Nelson has thought it necessary to write such a letter as he has addressed to the Board. ’ ’