HARBOUR QUESTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 258, 14 October 1932, Page 7

HARBOUR QUESTION

PRODUCERS CONCERNED EXPLANATION OF EXPORTERS ’ VIEWS. CONSTRUCTIVE RESOLUTIONS FROM WAIPUKURAU. There was a large attendance of farmers and producers of Central Hawke’s Bay, Napier Hastings and elsewhere at Waipukurau last evening to consider matters of importance to the producers of this district concerning the Napier Harbour question. Mr H. Gascoyne, president of the Sheepowners’ Federation, stated that the meeting had been called at the request of a large number of producers and settlers to consider the serious problem that had arisen at the Inner Harbour due to siltation, and to consider and apathy of the Harbour Board as regards maintaining the facilities at the harbour. He said that he did not want the Harbour versus Breakwater aspect to enter into the meeting, but he wanted the meeting to consider the necessity of maintaining the present facilities. These were very necessary, for without them the produce from the province would have to be diverted to Wellington. His listeners would be aware that various experiments had been carried out at the Iron Pot, but they had not been informed of them. If a holdup were to occur now, at the commencement of the busy season, the position would be very .serious indeed, and of that members were fully aware. He then gave a brief outline on the report on the Kaione which has already appeared in the "Tribune,” and then called on Mr G. Kelly, chairman of the Associated Exporters, to explain to the meeting what had happened between the firms and the Harbour Board. EXPORTERS’ VIEWS. In his opening remarks Mr Kelly explained that in hi s position as chairman of the Associated Exporters, he had had to embark upon a fair amount of correspondence with the Harbour Board. He then proceeded to deal with that correspondence and to read extracts to the audience. One letter written on May 20 last, stated that when the siltation at the port had become very acute, the exporters held a meeting to urge that immediate steps be taken to ensure the continuity of lightering to ships, and other matters of deep importance, and in a further letter stressed the extreme urgency of matters. In later correspondence they stressed the great danger of the diversion of trade to Wellington if the harbour became unworkable, to which the board had replied that it was endeavouring to cope with the position and that the dredging operations were costing the board £5OO a week.

Dealing with another letter, Mr Kelly said that he had submitted it to the exporters to see if it was a proper letter to send to the Harbour Board. They hud considered that it was; Messrs Richardson and Co. said that it was a difficulty matter to carry on under the present conditions. Also in that letter Mr Kelly had referred to the work that was being carried out at the Breakwater at that time. The superintendents of the three main shipping lines were invited to come up and inspect, and give their views on the work and subsequent proposals. In this letter the opinion was expressed that the works at the Breakwater would prove inadequate for the purpose for which they were intended, and so the chairman of the board was asked if a committee of exporters could meet the visiting engineers in conference. It also pointed out the urgency and importance of the position, in view of the proximity of the new season. Mr Kelly then went on to relate how this opportunity was not granted the exporters, who wrote to the board expressing their keen disappointment. However, after further correspondence had passed between the two, the committee of exporters eventually met the engineers and found out that it was not the intention of the engineers that the representatives should be confined to only one spokesman, but they would be willing to hear others. The engineers had expressed gratification at the exporters being present, and had intimated that much of the representations and information placed before them would be of great assistance to them in their deliberations. NEED FOR LIGHTERING. The board’s attention was drawn to the necessity of carrying on lightering from the Breakwater, and special reference was made to the necessity of: (1) Maintaining, (2) providing, and (3) improving the facilities. Only one of these three was probable, said Mr Kelly, and that was the maintenance of the present harbour facilities. Failure to maintain these facilities would, be a serious matter, indeed, and it would be inimical to the board's trade endowments and assets. Mr Kelly pointed out that they were not exponents of the rival harbour question, and considered that any major scheme was impracticable at the present moment. He then quoted at length extracts from the Royal Commission’s finding of 1927, and read an extract that suggested that the people of Hawke’s Bay would do better to wait 10 or 15 years before launching any complete harbour schemes. The people were in no position to shoulder any further burdens at present. BREAKWATER NOT SATISFACTORY. The exporters had stated that they desired that steps should be taken to ensure continuity of shipping as before, and that the present facilities should be put into a state of efficiency, and facilities made for the larger vessels in the Roadstead, and for larger vessels at the Breakwater, drawing up to 15 feet. The exporters had also maintained that the present, facilities were not sufficient to cope with the large overseas imports and exports trade, together with the coastal _ trade, and that the lightering was subject to interruptions.

The speaker then dealt with the loading of wool, giving the number of bales that could be loaded each day, pointing out that the position at the Breakwater wharves was not as satisfactory as it could be. He dealt with the number of bales handled, stating that the Gisborne and the East Coast total amounted to 34,000, pointing out wk»t. r serious matter It would be if

this were diverted to Wellington. He again referred to the Royal Commission’s report, in which it was said that it would be impossible to carry on without further borrowing. £5OO A WEEK FOR DREDGING. Concerning the cost to the board of £5OO per week for dredging, the speaker said that the dredging was still going on, and the board was not any better off to-day than they were before. He considered that such an expenditure was excessive and that money was being wasted without any further results. He then enumerated various harbour schemes and proposals, dealing with the costs of each and also of lightering charges between the Breakwater and the Inner Harbour, stating that it would ‘ ‘ bring us to an expenditure of £29,600 for having the luxury of an extended harbour scheme.” MR. HOLMES’ PROPOSAL. The exporters were advocating—seeing that the Harbour Board was unable to carry out the proposed diversion at the Tutaekuri —that they should carry out the proposal of the late Mr. J. D. Holmes. The late Mr. Holmes had proposed constructing a bank across the river channel, with a cut through the Westshore beach, as shown on the plan which he submitted to the investigating engineers. He had already advised that the work could be done, as in his opinion the cost, £9,500, could be looked upon as an insurance premium for the maintenance and retention of the trade at the port. Mr. Parsons, foreman for Mr. Pulling, who had had considerable experience with big harbour contracts, the latest being the Thorndon embankment at Wellington, had made a statement in writing that he was prepared to undertake the work and, if accepted, to start within seven days. His estimate of the cost was £B,OOO, as against Mr. Holmes’ £9,500, but the former’s estimate did not include the purchase of land and the erection of a small bridge, which was included in Mr. Holmes’ scheme. The Harbour Board had stated that Mr. Holmes’ scheme was not suitable, and they were carrying on with a scheme that, so far, was not attainable, and which was costing them £5OO a week. In view of this would it not be better to carry on with the proposed cut at Westshore ? “If that is a practicable why of getting rid of the silt that is causing all the expense at present doesn’t it appear to you as being the best step to take J ” Mr Kelly asked. LIGHTERING CHARGES. Dealing with lightering charges Mr. Kelly referred to the Royal Commission’s report, which said that the ultimate object of harbour construction at Napier would be clearly the abolition of lightering, for which £30,000 was being paid. However, he considered that it would be merely an exchange of that burden for a burden of interest, and sinking fund. Mr. L. Glenny, Ruataniwha, nt the conclusion of Mr. Kelly's address, asked if the proposed cut costing £B,OOO or £9,000 were put through would it do away with the silt at whore the lighters had been working. The chairman replied that it would, as the engineer had told him that the drift was to the north. A COMPREHENSIVE MOTION. Mr. R. H. White, Otane, said he had always been sympathetic to the Breakwater, but thought that the. time at. present was inopportune for any expensive undertaking. He considered that such a step was unwarranted as the expenditure of £375,000 was for a hastily got up estimate of two engineers. If by the expenditure of £B,OOO they could find relief they should certainly do so. The farmers were de-

sirous of getting their produce away, and Mr. White thought that the cut at Westshore had a good deal to recommend it. He then moved the following resolution:— ‘‘That this meeting is greatly alarmed at the prospects of the exports of the province being seriously interfered with during the season now beginning if the siltation of the Inner Harbotir at Napier is not stopped, having regard to the opinion expressed by the investigating engineers, Messrs. F. W. Furkert and D. Holderness, in their report to the Napier Harbour Board: “(1) That the ability of the port to carry out its functions is at the moment threatened by the conditions obtaining at the Inner Harbour, which is at present the only place having reasonable operable facilities for handling the lighterage craft upon which the loading and discharging of the majority of the overseas vessels at the Inner Harbour are entirely dependent. “(2) That the present facilities for lighters must be preserved in the meantime; their recommendation (made in interim report on July 29) of the ‘immediate and complete diversion of the Tutaekuri river through the overflow channel already constructed at Powdrell’s Bend,’ and their assertion that ‘if this is not proceeded with it is inevitable that the remaining berthage at the Iron Pot and the western quay will be rendered unworkable on account of the shoaling which even at normal river flow is greater than can be coped with by the dredging plant now. at the disposal of the board and which in the event of a heavy flood could not be prevented from completely filling up the already inadequate waterway’, and further having regard to the fact that the recommended diversion has not been carried out: ‘‘That this meeting earnestly requests the Napier Harbour Board to take the necessary steps without further delay to divert the Tutaekuri river at Westshore as proposed by the board’s late engineer, Mr J. D. Holmes.” This was carried by an overwhelming majority, only seven votes being recorded against it. MR. PEACOCK'S REPLY. Mr. H. R. Peacook, Waipukurau, and a member of jhe Harbour Board, replying to Mr. Kelly, said that Mr. Kelly had stated that he was going to keep his speech clear of Inner Harbour v. Breakwater, yet he had never heard a speech more controversial. He refuted the suggestion that the board had been dilatory in coping with the menace of siltation, which, he reminded the meeting had been with them for 40 years, and on which £400,000 had been spent in the last 20 years in an endeavour to cope with it. He refuted the statement that the shipping of meat at present was not successful, and added that if it was not they would most certainly have heard about it. Regarding the cut, the board had said at first that it was all right, and that if it were successful it would get them out of their trouble. However, two engineers, Mr. Furkert and Mr. Holderness, had said that it was impracticable. Mr. Parsons’ cut at a cost of £BOOO, if it were to bo permanent would have to bo faced with stone, and this would probably be an increased cost.

Mr. Peacock said that if the late Mr. Holmes had made any specifications for the proposal, he had not placed them before the board, He had made one or two wild guesses and had said that it could be done for £8,000: having regard to Mr. Holmes’ wild statements, however, the board had not placed any great regard on it. He refuted Mr. Kelly’s contention that the board had endeavoured to prevent the exporters meeting the engineers in conference. He said that the engineers were being paid £lO a day, and in order to avoid waste of the eitfclneers’ time and to avoid expense, the board had not a proviso that any-

one who wished to submit anything to the conference had to do so in writing. MR. PEACOOK CORRECTED. Mr. Kelly, in reply, said that Mr. Peacock was not quite correct on the question of lightering. It had not been said that lightering could not be conducted satisfactorily at ths Breakwater, but that lightering could not be considered satisfactory by the present facilities. He agreed with Mr. Peacock that the dredging that was being carried on was hopeless. Mr. R. McLean, Mayor of Waipuku-’ rau, and a member of the Harbour Board, said that Mr. Holmes’ report was a general sort of statement made by him in respect to the cut, but that it contained no details at all. When asked to get out a detailed statement of the cut, he had said it would take him three or four months to do and he did not have the time. Engineers had recommended a cut at Powdrell’s, which could be done in two weeks at a cost of £2OO. This had not been done because of controversy among the members of the Rivers Board. The Harbour Board was agreeable to subsidise, and had taken steps to subsidise the Rivers Board to carry out tho cut, and to divert the normal flow of the Tutaekuri river at Powdrell’s bend. He took no sides on the harbour question and had always endeavoured to provide shelter for the fishing fleet and lighter coastal vessels. The Harbour Board had recommended and engineers had recommended that the diversion be made at Powdrell’s bend, “and sure we, as laymen, should abide by what they say, ’ ’ Mr. McLean concluded. Mr. W. A. Chambers. Waipukurau, an cx-Harbour Board member, said that it was necessary to have a scour to keep

the spit open, which would itself do the dredging. Mr. L. M. Monckton, Mt. Herbert, then moved the following resolution which was seconded by Mr. Peacock and carried: — “That this meeting is strongly op posed to any major scheme of harbou, construction being embarked upon ai present. ’ ’ A further resolution moved by Mr E. C. Nation (Pourerere), and seconded by Mr. McLean, Mayor of Waipukurau and a member of the board, was also carried:— “That the resolution passed by the board that steps be taken to ask th. Government to set up a Commission—with the same wide power* aa thi Napier Commission —to assume eontro of harbour affairs at Napier and to carry out a programme of work* aoutlined by tho board, such programme to be based on the expert advico re ceived from the investigating engineers be resolutely opposed and the board be asked to withdraw such request it it has been already submitted to the Government.” The final resolution proposed by Mr R. E. Talbot, Hastings, and seconded by Mr. J. H. Joll, Havelock North was then parried unanimously:— “That copies of the resolutions pass cd this evening at this meeting, be for warded to tho chairman of the Napii Harbour Board, and, if it is four that a request has been made to th' Government for the setting up of th Commission as proposed, then a eoyof the resolutions referring to tb.-r question he forwarded to the Priin. Minister.