THE TUTAEKURI

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 7, 19 December 1932, Page 7

THE TUTAEKURI

DIVERSION PROPOSAL ENGINEERS FAVOUR WAITANGI. CUT AT WESTSHORE OPPOSED. At its meeting on October 17 last the Napier Harbour Board decided to ask Mr F. W. Furkertand Mr D. Holderncss that, in view of the opposition to the diversion of the river to the Waitangi and the consequent delay in , giving effect to it, to consider the question of providing facilities for lighters at the Breakwater, or, alternatively, the diversion ox the river to Westshore. The fallowing separate report was received from Mr Furkert: — With reference to your letter forwarding copy of resolution of the ulto. particularly in reference to the diversion of the Tutaekuri river, I regret that, owing more particularly to the fact that my services with the Public Works were coming to an end I have not been able to go fully into this matter until now. I had hoped to meet Mr Holderness here this week-end to have a further examination of this locality and the facts, but owing to his other duties he was unable to make the trip to Napier and agreed to leave the matter in my hands. After going fully into matters with the engineer I would prefer to have a further opportunity of discussing the matter with Mr Holderness before making any definite pronouncement, but this should not result in very long delay. Since my arrival in Napier the chairman has informed me that a proposal has been brought up again to build the bank across the Inner Harbour approximately on the line of the old bridge, which proposal was an integral part of the idea of diverting the Tutaekuri at Westshore.

I have had no opportunity of discussing this matter with my colleague, Mr Holderness, but speaking offhand 1 cannot think of any more certain way of helping nature to close the entrance to the Inner Harbour than the erection of a barrier such as is suggested to prevent tidal inflow and outflow. If the Tutaekuri is entirely diverted then the natural action of tho tides will establish a certain depth in the entrance which may be adequate without any dredging to cater for trawlers, lighters, etc., but if the tidal influence is cut off or reduced to about 10 per cent, of its present volume (as seems likely if the project is carried out) then dredging will be necessary, the volume of such dredging being, with present information, unascertainable, CERTAIN FACTS REQUIRED. If desired we can go fully into this question and report for a later meeting of tho board, but will require the collection of certain facts: — 1. Area of high water within entrance Io Moles divided up into; — (a) Area to proposed line of causeway (b) Area to Westshore road and railway bridge. (c) Area of channel of Tutaekuri and ehuuncl connections to main lagoon. (d) Area of so much of the lagoon as is affected by tides.

2. Areas of low water in same subdivisions.

(b) Average rise and fall on each of these areas separately and, if ascertainable, in different parts of each area if considerable differences exist.

4. Particulars from periodical sounding between Iron Pot and entrance showing the variations in general levels of bottom correlated to rainfall and floods.

5. Particulars of tidal currents in and out at positions of smallest cross section in entrance (probably about sounding line No. 5) to be observed at various stages of tide with particular attention to the time and duration of maximum or * ‘ near maximum ’ ’ flows. fl. Samples of bottom between entrance and Iron Pot to be obtained and particulars of grading determined. On receipt of this and any other relevant facts which your engineer can collect, we will go fully into the matter. LATER REPORT. At a later date the foiling report relative to the same matter was received from the engineer:— We reiterate our opinion that the proper procedure is to divert the Tutaekuri to the Waitangi and we cannot too strongly stress the desirability of your board and the Hawke’s Ray Rivers Board acting in conjunction, and urging to the uttermost the Government to permit this to be done immediately.

In view of the possibility of delay in bringing this to pass, and knowing the further and critical development of the sjltaticn problem at the Inner Harbour, we have further considered the possibility of making a cut at the Westshore. We cannot, however, recommend that such an attempt be made. Although it might appear that a suitable cut could be put through at a figure which is not beyond the resources of your board, and might be justified as a temporary expedient, we feel that the ultimate result is so difficult to forecast, and the probability of further ancilhary works becoming necessary is so great, that there is quite a likelihood that the ultimate cost would be several times the figure which we understand you now have in mind. Furthermore, the reduction m the rate of the already very small tidal in. flow and outflow through each entrance by reason of the inflow being diverted into two channels, is likely to involve both entrances in further shoaling. CUT SHOULD NOT BE MADE. Viewing all sides of the matter we are of the opinion that a cut at the Westshore should not be made, but that the board should concentrate its efforts on such portions of the work recommended in our mam report for the accommodation of lightering and fishing fleets at the Breakwater Halbur as finances will permit. If it were jxissible for the bouid to raise at once the necessary finance, then the building of approximately 1800 ft. or possibly even IflCOft. of the western mole, with its accompanying breastwork, should provide for the housing and working of the lighters and fishing fleet. As owing to the necessity tor special legislation, the passing of which this session seems improbable, there must be some delay in obtaining the money for the £375,000 scheme which we have geoommended, and as we understand

that approximately £70,000 is already in the hands of the board, the purpose of which can possibly be changed, we think a start should bo made with this sum immediately the necessary change cf purpose has been arranged with the Local Bodies Loans Board.

If, say, £40,000 of the money available were spent in extending the easttern Breakwater, and a timber wharf long enough to provide, sav two coastal berths and four lighterage berths, was run out midway between the Giasgow Wharf and our proposed No. 1 Wharf, and this wharf were provided with adequate railway tracks, this would enabte lightering to be carried out entirely from the Breakwater, while the fishing fleet could still probably get into the Inner Harbour by studying the tides. There should still be a sum between £lO,OOO and £15,000 available for dredging plus the rate of dredging expenditure which the board is now involved in at the Inner Harbour (something over £lO.OOO a year, we understand). It would be much more desirable if this sum were diverted to work at the Breakwater.

COMPLETED HARBOUR SCHEME. The obvious advantage of the course of action indicated above is that'the whole; of the expenditure (except tor the timber wharf) involved, is a neces. sary part of the completed harbour scheme. The timber wharf also will always be a valuable adjunct to the harbour facilities even if the board proceeds immediately with the full development, and accommodation < the lines indicated above could be p. ovided at least as qujckly as could the work of diverting the Tutaekuri through Westshore, securing it and then dredging out the Inner Harbour at very considerable expense, which expense would be only for a temporary use.

Shortly, we consider that every effort should be concentrated on getting the Tutaekuri diverted at Waitangi, but that as an alternative, the Westshore cut should not be made, and that provision should be made for working lighters and coastal vessels at the Breakwater Harbour in a way which will not involve any waste of money when the final Breakwater Harbour is developed. Should our notes regarding financial delays (Par. 7) be based on wrong assumptions, and more money be available, then it should be spent in advancing the Breakwater faster and proceeding with the western molo and dredging. BOARD’S DISCUSSION. When the above reports came before the board this morning, Mr. H. R. Peacock said he was glad that they had come before them, because they (the reports) had given an emphatic answer to the meetings held throughout the district urging the board immediately to proceed with th ediversion of the river through the Westshore beach. The movement, he said, originated from two bodies whose interests were interwoven, and whose chief fear was that the bouid might make further use of the Breakwater. Members of the board were surprised that those meetings should pass resolutions which to-day appeared to be stupid. The only member to upplaud them was Mr. Jull, whose argument, in view of his position, might be excused.

Mr. Jull: That is very kind of you. Mr. Peacock: The board had every tool working, and what more could it have done? I wag surprised at intelligent men falling for such propaganda. If they had had a crusader who was an orator it would not have been so bad, but he was no silver-tongued orator, and was, in fact, the most tiresome speaker I ever listened to. Our expert advice shows us that what they wanted us to do would have been most stupid, CONCERNED ABOUT WELFARE OF PORT. Mr Jull: I did applaud what they were doing. They were asking for something more than simply making a cut through the Westshore beach. They were very concerned about the welfare of the port. If there could not be a total diversion of the Tutaekuri, then they wanted the cut made through the beach. 1 am not surprise at the reports of the engineers, as they are on. the lines of their original report. On that 1 moved that the Government be asked to give effect to the diversion of the Tutaekuri and the Minister of Public Works said that effect would be given to it. Mr Peacock: You don’t understand.

Mr Jull: I can understand. People who were not silver-tongued orators were able to impress their audiences with the facts, and as a result they passed sensible resolutions urging th'at the port be kept open. I see no real need for the data asked for to be prepared because the Bill before Parliament has as its purpose the diversion of the Tutaekuri river. DIVERSION OF MONEY. lu the reports made by the engineers there are suggestions which call for some comment, continued Mr. Jull. First of all there is the amount of money available for proceeding with the Breakwater. The engineers modestly suggest that £70,000 of Inner Harbour money should be used to start the extension of the Breakwater and u small wharf. I won’t promise my support for the diversion of any money to the Breakwater scheme until the people of the district bavc had an opportunity of voting on it. What certain members are anxious to embark

upon is to carry out a project that will cost £1,500,000 before it is completed. Mr. L. Stevenson asked whether this question would not better be deferred until the report of the special committee was considered

Mr. Jull said he had no objectioh, provided he had further opportunity of discussing it.

Mr Geddis said he wished to reply to Mr Jull’a assertion that he was definitely opposed to the recommendation of the engineers being carried into effect until such time as the people in the district had the opportunity of voting upon it. In the year 1926, he said, when Mr Ellison was chairman of the board, a thorough investigation was made into the harbour position, as the result of which the board promoted certain legislation to proceed with the Breakwater.

“Everything seemed all right. The legislation submitted to Parliament was under consideration when along came an election. The people of this district have had experience of this sort of thing over and over again, and on this particular occasion they had an experience of Mr Jull’s going through the district from platform to platform urging the candidature of certain gentlemen and opposing certain members of the board.’’ “PRETTY SUCCESSFUL, TOO. Mr Jull: Pretty successful, too. Mr Higgins-. Yyt ineffectually so far as the platform was concerned, Mr Jull. Continuing, Mr Geddis said: “Mr Jull urged that this legislation should not be allowed to proceed or any harbour scheme proceeded with until a referendum was taken. The result was the return of Mr Jull’s candidates. But what happened? As soon as Mr Jull got into power he moved that the legislation be withdrawn by Parliament —not that there should be a vote or referendum of the people upon whether there should be an Inner Harbour or Outer Harbour. That was the last the people of Hawke’s Ba v had heard about the case. They were tricked on that occasion and one does not have far to look to see that an endeavour would be made to trick them again.

Mr Higgins: I endorse what has been said, and—— Mr Jull: The motion was that this better be received and The chairman: That js so. The letter was received.