THE OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 18 July 1923, Page 3

THE OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In your issue of the 30th ult. there was propounded a series of six questions covering the constructional and financial (revenue) policies of the above board. These pointed questions of vital interest to the ratepayers have remained unanswered. Why? Is it because the chairman dare not tell the ratepayers facts? The reason of the question to the board regarding the output of the factories was this: That at a recent meeting of delegates of all Taranaki factories to discuss the Dairy Produce Control Bill a motion was placed before the meeting, but it was not emphatic enough for Mr. Green (Rahotu), chairman of Egmont County Council, and on his request it was divided. It is the second portion that concerns the above board, viz.: "That Moturoa be retained as a direct loading port for consignments to the United Kingdom." This clevej" motion was carried, by "a large majority. As those delegates present were representative of the larger proportion of the ratepayers in the Opunake area, does not such vote become one of "no confidence" and censure of the scheme upon which €he board proposes to commence operations? That vote means that the factories are not likely to incur the extra charges of shipping through Opunake, but they will, either by road or rail, send their produce direct to the Home Steamer. With their main source of revenue cut off, how do the board intend to make up the deficiency? An extra rate? Regarding the scheme which I placed' before the board, and of which one member was good enough to 'say "that it had some excellent points, but that it had come too late (so I'm told), surely it is never too late to save the ratepayers a large sum of money. I > said the mole could be constructed of permanent material for £20,000. Here are the approximate 'figures'* Hulks (cost, if any) £3000. towage £1200—£4200; ■'ement and other materials for retainers., £9700- cost filling retainers, wages, etc., £2800- -sea anchors, wire, etc., £1100; cranes, winches, and other land machinery, £2200—total, £20,000. You will notice, sir, the binding force in the above scheme is cement, not seaweed. Will the board's engineers tell the ratepayers of another such scheme in Australasia as they propose building, viz.—a rubble wall of smooth, round boulders, built in the trough of open ocean wave action? I may say that according 'to authorities that a reef in front of a solid mole acting as an anron is most desirable, but with loose rubble it would have quite the opposite effect. ] Now, sir, regarding the* resident en- ! gineer's report, under the above scheme there is' no necessity for expensive staging, etc., and so" the board1' would not be left with hundreds of pounds of practically useless junk, the residue of the 'May labour" system. Then, again, he states that with "day labour" any great modification of the scheme could be easily accomplished.Surely that statement "admits a doubt as to the efficiency of, the proposed scheme. The fact that he finds no'harbour constructing firms resident in Opunake is no argument for the "day labour" systeai. His seventh'reason is quite the best argument yet for the scheme I placed before the 'board. His remarks on concrete are excellent, and it is a well-known fact that the" best results in concrete are obtained ■under the day labour system controlledl by efficient supervision. The various work's quoted are con-ret* jobs, and therefore have no bearing upon the main portion of the local work—that is, with the-ex-ception of Xihotapu dam, where the cement shortage, together with the financial stringency., were responsible for i?he Auckland City Council taking over the work from the contractor— the Latter reason was also no- doubt the cause of the failure at Timaru. Gis^ borne have £750,000 to burn, whereas this district, faced with imminent roading loans, must consider the sawing of every pound possible. The essential idea of the report seems to be: "Commence the work at once, and the estimates will look after themselves." Not go, for the ratepayers want to know, and have a right to know, the final cost before one stone is displaced. The ideal system would be. to let the main work on contract (commission basis), the board allocating the maximum amount payable and also having the provision of stringent "time" limit, the concrete work by day labour, and the excavation work (if desired) by co-operative contracts. Thanking you for the space, sir.—l am, etc.,

S. MOORE