NELSON HARBOUR WORKS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 1 October 1907, Page 1

NELSON HARBOUR WORKS.

j To the Editor. Sir, — In your issue of the 3rd inst. there appeared a leading article under the heading, "The Commencement of the Harbour Works. Commencement of a New Era," In this article aspersion was cast at the public in the rateable district for failing to commemorate the completion of all the dredging intended to be done through the Boulder Bank to the ISft. limit. Probably the people might have made some demonstration if the works had been completed, even to the extent contemplated by the Board, long as that has taken hitherto. But they must be rather, tired of jubilating on every trivial occasion,' just to gratify personal vanity. Moreover, they have so often been treated to mis-statement of fact in connection with these works that they are probably becoming restive. To those who have followed events there is much, more cause for dissatisfaction than for hilarity. It is necessary here to give an outline of Mr Reynolds's scheme No. 2, which the original members of the Harbour Board pledged themselves to carry out, and which Mr Graham said he considered feasible for the money and in tho time estimated, after having checked it over with a friend. A channel, 650 feet surface and 500 feet bottom width, was to be dredged through the Boulder Bank, and through the mud bank in the harbour, to a deoth of 15 feet at low water spring tides. The sides were to be flanked by two moles, extending seawards. The "spoil" raised by the dredge was to be deposited so as to reclaim some twelve or fourteen acres contiguous to Fifeshire Island, and this was to be retained by a wall of boulders along the Bank to the south mole, and from the mole to the south-west end of the island. The amount of spoil to be raised was computed at 580,000 yards, and this computation was practically confirmed by Messrs Fitzgerald, Rounthwaite, and Bishop. Of this quantity 300,000 yards were to be taken from the Uouhlor Bank, and 280,000 from the mud bank. The preliminary estimate of the cost of this work, including plant, was £58,000, made before the plant was designed, and on which the 5 per cent commission was based. The subsequent detailed estimate, including alterations suggested or approved by the Board, was £63,150. The time for the completion of the scheme was 16 months from the commencement of the dredging. Mr Reynolds's method of procedure was, I believe, to have been somewhat as follows : — The dredging across the whole face and the erection of the two moles were to have commenced simultaneously,. . so ..that _by the time the crown of the Bank was reached by the dredge the two moles would have been completed, and their seaward ends connected by a temporary wall of piled-up boulders. This would have enabled nlmost the whole work to be done with the aid of the sand pump and pipe-line, in comparatively still water, and at a very low cost — s£d or 6d a yard. Mr Reynolds was appointed Engineer to the Board (1901) to design the plant and supervise the work. He did design the plant and superintend its construction, for which he received the most extravagant praise. Had his services been retained throughout the story of the harbour works would have been much more satisfactory, to say the least. But he was dismissed (1903), although he was working in harmony with and to the satisfaction of every member of the Board, except the Chairman. (This statement was made by Mr Talbot an hour or so before the dismissal). The dismissal occurred before any dredging had commenced. It resulted in a court case, in which Mr Reynolds was awarded £939 damages; biii the Board put in a plea that there was no seal on the agreement. The Apellate Court reluctantly reversed the judgment: each Judge condemning the action of the Board in no measured t?rms. Dredging began in January, 1904. After it had proceeded for some time Mr Barrowman, the foreman of works, was promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Charge. In about six months' time a narrow cut was started through the middle of the proposed channel, in opposition to advice given by Mr Napier 8011. It would seem that the Board had by that time intended to deviate from the scheme. The result of this was that the pipe-line could no longer be used on account of the rapid current. For a long time the hopper and skip barges were used in carrying the spoil to Fifeshire Island, but for five •>r six months all the spoil has been taken up the harbour and dropped into the water! At the present time a channel 360 feet wide (on the surface cf low-water neap-tide) has been dredged through tlie Boulder Bank, and probably half the spoil [150,000 yards) of th::t part of the scheme has been removed ; also a small cut has been made through the mud bank. This has taken threo years and eight months of dredging ! Before a channel the same width and depth is dredged through the mud bank about 140,000 yards of spoil will have to be removed. How long will this take to accomplish? And when that happens will not the £14,000 which the Board has in hand have been absorbed? And even then only half the original scheme will have been finished ! The satisfaction expressed at the Board's savings, by skilful finance, is hard to understand. Have not these savings accumulated by the delay in the work? Had the work been finish-

ed in reasonable time the increased (anticipated) revenue of the port would surely have more than counterbalanced the interest! Something might be written about the constant mis-representations made by the Board as to what work has been done, or the condition of the bar, etc. ; but as this letter is already quite long enough, this must be left till a more fitting time. I am, etc., RATEPAYER. 16th September, 1907.