HEATED WORDS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 272, 1 November 1932, Page 7

HEATED WORDS

RIVERS BOARD DISCUSSION MR HARRIS'S THREAT. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED BY CHAIRMAN. "That the levees be continued from Johns road and on the other side towards the main stream, leaving a gap sufficient to take the water that cau pass the Meeanee bridge; that a filling be put into the overflow channel so that no water can pass down it until such time as the main channel is carrying to near its full capacity.” The above resolution, moved to-day at the meeting of tho Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board by Mr L. E. Harris, gave rise to some heated remarks. in the course of discussion, Mr Harris threw down the gauntlet that if his resolution was not carried he would take all active steps possible to thwart the carrying on of any scheme for the diversion of the Tutaekuri river. The chairman, in accepting his challenge, stated that during his many years’ experience on the board he had frequently contended with similar opposition to that threatened by Mr Harris, and he gave bis assurance that any such future opposition would be wet in the manner it deserved. The chairman said that he was strongly opposed to any blocking of the intake of the overflow channel, as it would have the direct effect of further impeding the facilities at the Inner Harbour. Anyone having the interests of the producers of Hawke’s Bay at heart could nut entertain such a proposal. It was imperative to the district that the Inner Harbour should be kept open, and any assistance the Rivers Board could give towards that purpose should be immediately forthcoming. After considerable discussion the board decided that all work in the overflow channel above Brookfields bridge should be suspended until the Minister of Public Works had given his sanction to a diversion scheme.

SORRY TO TAKE ACTION. “I Uki sorry to have to take tho action that I am about to take, but in view of what has been going on of late I must do so,” said Mr Harris. “We were assured by the chairman that the only work to be done in the overflow channel was over certain parts above and below the Brookfields bridge, and the work was to be done under the direction of the engineer. I have tried to work in with the board. I have word from several people about unauthorised work going on in the channel. On Sunday I got several rings from Clive people about it; in fact, a gang has been working at the mouth of the channel, and has actually been working in the river helping more water into the overflow. The whole business is scandalous. I can’t find words strong enough to express what I think. I have been asked to co-opt rate with the board, and I get this kind of thing put over me. If the board can show me it has any right to go into the channel and also dig out the river I will retract what I have said. An unfair advantage has been taken of the co-operation that I have been trying to give. "I am satisfied that in adopting my motion we will meet the needs or the Papakura settlers, giving them the protection they require, All that lam asking foi the settlers down at the other end is that a small sand filling be placed in the channel so that no water can enter it until the old river is near its capacity, When that is reached the water would flow over this filling. and cut it away. We have no objection to the big floods, it being the smaller ones that cause us ail the damage, and this small filling would save us from them. When the board gets the sanction from the Minister it will be entitled to go ahead opening up the overflow, but until then it has no right io take any steps that will let more water down. I see no reason why the business of this board could not be run decently, and in an honourable manner, the same as members do their private business.” In reply to Mr H, R. Clark, Mr Harns stated that under the Act the scheme on which the board was working, it was distinctly stated that no water should pass down the overflow channel until the old river had nearly approached its maximum. He was satisfied tflat the filling that he proposed would give the Puninga settlers considerable protection, while it would in no way endanger those of Papakura. Mr. Harris’s motion was seconded by Mr, H. H. Burns.

THE NORMAL FLOW. In reply to a question by Mr. C. Lassen as to whether the normal flow was allowed by the Act to go down the overflow, the secretary, Mr. W. J- Fallot, said that the purport of the Act was for a comprehensive scheme, the overflow taking the water that eould not go under the Meeanee bridge. "I don’t see any harm in what Mr. Harris asks for,” said Mr. J. H. Macdonald. “As far as the summer water goes the Harbour Board does not treat us in any way in a liberal manner. I don’t see that they care yhere it goes. The summer flow does no harm and it seems a pity to rob Napier South of its bathing place. I would like to see the board concentrate on the overflow between the stop banks and the channel, and it would then be able to carry a decent flood.” “I want to dissociate myself from any work that is being done at the top end of the overflow,” said Mr. H. B. Clark, a member of the committee appointed to co-operato with the engineer in the Tutaekuri diversion proposals. “I was never in favour of work at the top end until work was done at the bottom. The settlers at the bottom are taking the floods and they are entitled to a great deal of consideraion. It is not a good policy to ask them to take more water, at the same time opening

up the top end of the overflow. I was under the impression that the work was only to be done above and below the Brookflelds bridge.” NATURE’S WORK. Mr. J. H. Sheath stated that he would like members to bear in mind that the overflow had been open since lie had been on the board. Nature opened it and every flood scoured away more showing that the water wanted to go that way. Nature did not want the block across the channel and he therefore could not support Mr. Harris’s proposal. Mr. Harris: Just what I expected. The mouth has been opened every time by manual labour. The talk of scouring is a lot of rot. Mr. Sheath then asked Mr. Harris why he had an iron planting in the channel to stop the scour. In reply Mr Harris said that material was scoured out in one place and put in in another. He could show when 40yds. of wide channel had been completely filled in at the bottom end. It had been reported to Mr. Jarvis that during the last fresh Mr. Harris had taken it upon himself to open up an auxiliary mouth at the Waitangi and Mr. Jarvis desired to know if such a statement was correct. Mr. Harris: Who made that report 1 Mr. Jarvis: 1 am asking you about it. Mr. Harris: I will not answer unless you tell me who made that report. Mr Jarvis: I take it that you did open the mouth! Mr Harris: I won’t answer. Mr Jarvis: If you won’t deny it, I will have to make the accusation. Mr Harris: I did not do it. Mr Jarvis: I have got your reply. Mr Harris: You had to make an accusation to get it. It is a fair thing that when someone makes an accusation I have the right to know who is accusing me. Mr Jarvis: You were talking about me and unauthorised worn, and I can also mention you and unauthorised work.

“I am still of the opinion that the diversion should not go on until we get the approval of the Minister,” said Mr Lassen. Mr Jarvis: The overflow is only being lowered. “It is unfortunate that the Minister has not given his approval,” continued Mr Lassen. “Until he does I would like to see Mr Harris defer his motion for a month, and he can proceed to Wellington with us to get his approval. We have the whole of the summer before us, and I don’t think the normal flow would hurt. It appears to me that a little too much has been done in anticipation of the approval. ’ ’ It was not the first time, said Mr Burns, that work had been done at the mouth. One of the things which had “stirred up” the Clive ward when he came on the board was the fact that the overflow channel had been opened by manual labour, and it had always been opened by manual labour. There was no doubt that the work had been done, and Mr Burns thought that the board should express a strong opinion that work should not be done unless it was authorised. Mr Harris said that he did not know that the work was going on until he heard from Clive, where a great deal of indignation was being expressed. He was keen to get the diversion done, but he insisted that it be done on decent, business-like lines. He did not Hke the diversion, but he had to support it. “If my motion is put off for a month,” said Mr Harris, “ those people at Clive will put up the biggest opposition to the diversion that you have ever seen in the past,"

HEATED PASSAGES. Mr Jarvje, in reply, referred to the opposition that had been forthcoming from Mr Harris, When the latter rose to a point of order and refused to resume his seat when ordered to do so, Mr Harrfs gave utterance to several heated passages, in which he stated he had been misrepresented, and the meeting only progressed after the. chairman appealed to members as to who should remain in control. Continuing, the chairman said that the scheme that Mr Harris was now bringing forward he (Mr Harris) strenuously opposed a short time ago, "It is evident that he is now seeing the wisdom of it," he said. “I know sdt has been left on Mr Harris’s property, and it is not getting to where I would like to see it. To do this it would be necessary to make outs through the berms leading to the low places. For the board to be able to do these things it will have to have 00-operation, and not opposition. I want to see the overflow channel improved above and below Brookflelds bridge. If the property owners interested would meet the hoard they might receive considerable benefit. We have had many resolutions passed to improve the channel, but they have been opposed all along the line. In improving the channel we can also strengthen the banks, which could be carried on below the bridge on its proper alignment. If Mr Harris will move that the bank on the south side be erected he will not have any opposition. All along the overflow channel has been obstruction, and quantities of pug have had to be removed before any scour could take place. By improving the channel the water was being carried in the proper place. By preventing it from spreading over the berm much siltation was prevented. “Regarding the normal flow of the river” I am looking at it from the Harbour Board point of view, I am not a producer, but I am concerned for the general good of the district. If we can help we should give the producers every assistance by making the Inner Harbour usable.

Mr. Harris: I thought you were a Breakwater man! INNER HARBOUR FACILITIES.

Mr. Jarvis: I am definitely an Inner Harbour supporter. I recognise that if we cannot get Inner Harbour construction’wo may have to have something at the Breakwater. At the moment, I am not concerned in either major scheme, but I am concerned in having the silt kept out of the Inner Harbour so that tho trade of the Port can bo kept going. Tho Harbour Board has made us an offer concerning a pump, but have put in a contingent requesting the right to orcet a halftide wall. “Reverting back to tho overflow, it is possible that we have taken out a few more shovelfuls tlian was authorised, but it was necessary to remove certain material before tho river could seour nnd lower its bed.” After further discussion, tho Board decided to suspend all work in the channel above the Brookfields bridge until the Minister’s sanction to the diversion had been received. Mr. Harris then indicated that he would take a leading part in strenuously opposing any diversion scheme.