DREDGE OTAKOU

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22717, 1 November 1935, Page 7

DREDGE OTAKOU

APPLICATION FROM NAPIER BOARD REFUSES CHARTER TOO MUCH WORK AT HOME The request of the Napier Harbour Board for the use of the dredge Otakou for from six to 12 months was again before the Otago Harbour Board last evening, and a lengthy debate on the advisability of chartering the vessel ensued. It was finally decided that the dredge should not be allowed to leave tlia harbour, and that the Napier Board should be informed by the chairman ol the reasons why a charter could not be given. Mr Sharpe said he was against the dredge going to Napier, basing his objection on an unfavourable report by the engineer and the harbour master. The vessel was specially built for dredging the Otago Harbour, which meant it was not suitable for the clay and papa rock of the Napier harbour. Another point was the necessity for a channel up the harbour that could be used by a vessel like the Marama, which was soon to be put on the Melbourne service, at any stage of the tide. Moreover, they had to remember that if anything happened to the dredge it would be months before another could be built. He moved that the previous decision of the board be adhered to and the letter drafted by the chairman setting out reasons why the dredge should not be chartered, be approved. \. •. Mr J. W. Munro said he knew the papa rock of the Napier Harbour, and he was convinced tliat if the dredge went to Napier it would be months before it was of any use in the Otago Haibour wfien it came back. Mr T. Scollay supported the hiring of the dredge, particularly as the Napier Board was in " a bad hole," and tlie Otago Board could help it out. Their dredge was the only one that could do the work they wanted done. Mr W« Begg: Could it do it? Mr Scoflay: Our engineer says so. Mr Thompson said he was in favour of the dredge going to Napier, but not for the same reason as Mr Scollay. The Otago Board could do a lot with the £21,000 it would get for the hire. Mr Munro: Yes, build a new dredge. Mr Thompson: No, rebuild wharves 01 help re-build thsm. Mr Sharpe had re fcrred to unfavourable passages in the engineer's and harbour master's report, but lie quoted only paragraphs which suited his own purpose. Both oflicera said the dredge could be spared. Mr Begg: Query. Mr Thompson: There can be no queryabout it. Our executive officers both say the vessel can be spared. It Is my opinion that dredging here can be completed for the meantime in six months and the vessel chartered under proper safeguards and under our own terms for six or eight months. The board had had to do without dredging for 12 months in the past, and in this case the reward was well worth the risk and loss of the dredge for a period. Mr J. Preston said he thought the Beaway ;at "Napier 1 Heads was much heavier than at tie Otago Heads, and since the dredge could not work the Otago entrance it surely could not work the Napier Heads. He was afraid of strjictural: damage that no repairs could reme^y.^.,; ; .V Mi F. Tyson eaid it was a bit premature the matter until, they knew how effective the suction pump was going to prove. If the pump were a success tho dredge must stay here; if not, they could charter it, because the entrance could, not be effective alone. He would move that the matter be held over for a month to enable a report to be submitted with regard to the suction'pipe. The chairman read a • telegram from Mr J. H. Duncan stating that he considered the chartering of the dredge a grave, blunder, and hoping the board would: not; agree to it. Continuing, the chairman directed the attention-of, members .to the proposed dredging programme and the projected inspection by the engineer of the suction pipe. The engineer said he had 12 months' dredging ahead of him. Mr Tyson: Why did the engineer say the dredge could be spared? The chairman: These matters have cropped up since that report. . Mr Tyson: The engineer should have foreseen them. :■■'■"'"'/• Mr Thompson said that the works in the prepared programme were riot urgent and he was inclined to support Mr Tyson. Mr T. Scollay seconded Mr Tyson's amendment. Mr W. Begg camplained that any postponement was useless procrastination. Lett them, make up the>r minds and at the same time let Napier know where it stood. Mr Tyson said he would like to rewind Mr Begg 'that if the suction plant were a success the dredee simply could not go. If it were not a success the aredge could be spared for six or eight months. Mr Copland opposed chartering the dredge on the ground that there was any nmount of work to be done in the Otago Harbour. On the subject of reciprocity he reminded members that when the Otago Board inquired about the loan of the Lyttelton Harbour Board's dredge the answer was definitely in the negative. On a vote being taken five, including the chairman, voted for the amendment and five against it, the chairman exercising his casting vote against the amendment to maintain the status quo. The motjon was then put, seven voting for it and three against it.