MATATOKI CANAL

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 60, Issue 4352, 6 November 1950, Page 6

MATATOKI CANAL

WORK TO COST MORE EXTRA SUBSIDY NEEDED •He had inspected the work done at Matatoki by the Hauraki Catchment Board, said Mr E. Clarke, at the October meeting of the board, and it seemed to him that a minor mistake had been made in the original construction of the drain. A lesson had been learned as to the danger of taking soil from the bottom of a drain to build up the sides.

The work was essential and ratepayers at Matatoki had to face up to the cost of getting the work done. Good work was certainly being done and there was no fear now of a major flood in that locality, said Mr Clarke. The work at Matatoki must go on, said Mr H. M. Corbett, who expressed the opinion that it was a most important work. Finance for the work would have to be found and some subsidy would certainly be available though the Thames County Council would have to find a portion of the extra cost.

In reporting upon the position, the chief engineer, Mr G. Davies, said “The working conditions in the topping up of the canal banks have been more severe tlhan anticipated, due mainly to having to excavate the spoil from the channel sides under tidal water. The banking material is naturally a very soft silty clay but its condition deteriorated when drawn out from under water with the result that banks cannot be properly formed and an extra amount has to be dug to get the required height of bank. “The dragline works on pads on the berm between the channel and the stopbank and on the northern side the tidal water rises practically over the berm.

“Up to Thursday, October 27, 58 chains of the right bank had been built up and the cost of the work amounted to £645.

“The scheme was approved at an estimated cost of £1175 but now in the light of the experience gained on it with the dragline the cost of the work will be well over the estimate. A carefull examination of the position now indicates an expenditure of £l9OO to complete the dragline work and later, possibly as maintenance work, a light bulldozer could trim the banks for a further £150,” concluded the engineer. It was explained by Mr C. H. Walsh, secretary of the board, that upon an estimated cost of £l2OO a subsidy had been gi anted but the’additional cos.t was now likely to be £BOO. It would mean applying for an additional subsidy and the Thames County Council ’.’ould have to find its proportion of the additional £BOO.

A motion was moved by Mr D. G. McMillan that, providing the Thames County Council was willing to meet a portion of the additional cost that application be made to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council .for a subsidy on the additional cost of £BOO.