RECLAMATION OF THE HARBOUR

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 9 January 1929, Page 6

RECLAMATION OF THE HARBOUR

(To (no Editor) Sir.—L think • I am quite in orjer iii again ''barging m” on (lie above que-.lion, notwithstanding (lie fact (bat (lie chairman of the Board did mil reply to my last litter. But, further developments have taken place and some information gained through (lie reports of tlie chairman anil engineer, and a discussion on the subject by members of the Board. 1 would like first to mention that in my last letter I put, what I. considered to. lie some pertinent questions to the chairman, an answer in which would have been of interest to me, particularly the question pul, “that if the chairman was having the reclamation work carried out on his own behalf as a private citizen, would lie he satisfied with the amount of work done for the large expenditure involved

1 am pleased to have the information conveyed in the reports, but to me the position disclosed is far from satisfactory. 1 have no inclination to traverse the whole of the reports presented, but these and the subsequent discussion, viewed in the light of the estimate for reclaiming tlie four acres, and the results actually obtained, cquld not be deemed satisfactory to the ordinary intelligent ratepayer. 1 think this is putting it mildly. I have failed to see why tlie true position of affairs in regard to the method of carrying out this work and its cost should nut have been attained months ago, and if found unsatisfactory an attempt made to remedy it. The Chairman in his report said : “It was somewhat difficult to reply to the class of criticism as it lias not been •very clear.” The only criticism 1 have beard has been to tiie effect that the work was being carried out in an antediluvian method and at great cost to tlie ratepayers. My criticism, if it can be so called, consisted ill asking a number of perfectly clear questions seeking information, among other things, on the area to be reclaimed, the estimated cost, the amount of work already completed, its cost, and the cost per cubic yard; also the cost of the dredge, etc. No difficulty should have been experienced in readily answering these questions. Divested of what is usually telnied

“padding,” the chairman’s report contains the following information: “The Board decided to reclaim from two to four acres at an estimated cost of £6IOO, exclusive of the alterations to the dredge.” The dredge cost about £9OOO and is now placed on the books at £6287, “and viewed from all points of view,” he stated, ‘'the work was warranted even from the results so far achieved,” and that the dredging would allow vessels ol' about 250 tons to berth and two such vessels would bring in an income of £3OO per annum. It is needless to say that I do not agree with his main contention, and I could put quite a different complexion from the point of view of the estimated cust of the filling. In fact, 1 regard the chairman’s remarks as little short of begging tlie real question. The engineer informs us that 75,000 cubic yards would be required to reclaim the four acres, “that the dredge can put out 70 cubic yards an hour or 560 yards per eight hour day,” and tlie cost is one shilling per cubic yard “when allowing for the value of the plant at the com pletion of the five acres. ’ I am not going to dispute the engineer’s statement regarding the dredge’s capability, but the actual results achieved appear to a layman to have fallen far short of its alleged capability. He further stated that 28,414 cubic yards bad been deposited to date, and that the daily output when working was 250 yards, per day, and if this output is maintained the half acre (as there are only 4500 yards to place) should be completed by Christmas.” (The report does not mention which Christmas.) The report concludes with what appears to me a remarkable if not an extraordinary statement, viz., “that the whole cost of the reclamation to date, except the stone wall, should be really charged to harbour maintenance.” The estimate of reclaiming four acres of land at a cost of £6IOO, exclusive, of the alterations to the dredge, was given irrespective of additions or improvements to the berthage, the estimate, I understand, being based on one shilling per cubic yard. If the comparatively small area already reclaimed lias cost so much it would be interesting to know what the four acres will cost when completed. I have in a bona fide way endeavoured to elicit the true facts concerning tliis reclamation. Although I have not been entirely successful, yet sufficient information lias been given to enable ratepayers to form some fairly reliable opinion regarding the question. —I am, etc., WILLIAM LOCK. Nelson, Bth January.