PORT AT KAIAPOI.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 701, 10 May 1916, Page 3

PORT AT KAIAPOI.

WAIMAKARIRI HARBOUR.

RANGIORA DISAPPROVES OF SCHEME. Quite a lengthy, but nevertheless interesting and important discussion ou the proposed Waimakariri Harbour District Empowering Bill, took place at Eangiora yesterday, in the rooms of the. North Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association. Owing to Tuesday being "market day," the building was filled by many interested farmers from all around the district, in addition to a large number of ratepayers. Mr E. R. Good presided, and amongst those present were Messrs F. Horrell (chairman of the Rangiora County Council), J. H. Blackwell (Mayor of Kaiapoi), and W. Doubleday (chairman of the Harbour Board). Mr Horrell said that, as chairman of the County Council, he considered it his duty to call the ratepayers together to discuss the Waimakariri Harbour Board's Empowering Bill, and the Harbour Board's report. He trusted tiiat he would be able to convince them that the provisions of the Bill were not in the best interests of the county, but, on the contrary, were likely to result in an absolute waste of the ratepayers' money. In September last the Waimakariri Harbour Board convened a conference of those local bodies constituting the area of the present Harbour Board's district, viz., the Kaiapoi Borough, the Eyreton Riding of the Eyre County/ and the Rangiora Riding of the Rangiora County, to discuss principally the question of raising a loan for the improvement of the river. He attended that conference, and he asked whether the Harbour Board had any report or statement to lay before the meeting showing what the revenue and expenditure were anticipated to be. The reply made was that the board had no report. Lying on the table, however, was a report pre pared by the Waimakariri Harbour improvement League, to which the members of the Harbour Board kept referring, though not endorsing it at the time. This the Rangiora and Eyre County representatives objected to, with the result that a motion was carried requesting the Harbour Board to prepare a report and forward copies to the local bodies interested. The board failed to furnish this report, but, at a meeting in October, declared that it had adopted the report of the Harbour Improvement League. He had made this short statement to show the scant courtesy extended to the local authorities by the Harbour Board. Continuing, Mr Horrell outlined and commented upon the principal provisions of the Bill. Clause 4, with its schedule, described the harbour district over which a rate might be levied. It comprised the Kaiapoi Borough, the Rangiora Riding of the Rangiora County, and the Eyreton Riding of the Eyre County. This small rating area he strongly objected to. In the league's report it was stated "that the districts to which the use and influence of a port at Kaiapoi extends are Kaiapoi, Rangiora, Eyre County, Rangiora County, Ashley County, Kowai County, and" Oxford County," The speaker's contention was that if all these districts were to benefit by the port, they should be included in the rateable area. Not only were the two largest grain-growing districts in the Rangiora and Eyre Counties, viz., Cust and West Eyreton, excluded, but also the Rangiora Borough. The reason for this was obvious. Clause 5 gave the board power to pur chase, construct, and maintain tugs, dredges, wharves, cranes, sheds, training walls, and, in fact, everything necessary for the working of a port. Clause 6 gave power to borrow a sum not exceeding £50,000. He could see nothing to prevent the board E.fter having spent that amount from saying to the ratepayers that the money had been entirely lost unless another £50,000 or £IOO,OOO was forthcoming to complete the work, and that was what probably would happen. Clause 7 authorised the board to pay up to 6 per cent, interest for the loan. It was doubtful while the war lasted and for some time afterwards whether it would succeed in obtaining the money much cheaper. Clause 8 provided for preparing rolls and taking a poll in connection with a loan. An unjust proposal in this clause was to give to a small ratepayer with a cottage and, say, one-eighth of an acre of land, the same voting power as a farmer owning some hundreds of acres, and who would be called upon to pay a very large rate. Another objection was that a bare majority would carry the loan, whilst the present law provided for a three-fifths majority for county loans. Clause 12 provided for differential dues. Importers and exporters residing or producing outside the harbour district if they used the harbour would have to pay higher dues than those residing within the rating area, as the board determined. That clause would certainly leave the door open for people to act dishonestly. Mr Horrell read portions of a. report in reference to plans and specifications of training walls for the mouth of the river, supplied by Mr Holmes, Chief Public Works Engineer, and a report by Mr F. W. Furkert, Acting Marine Engineer. It would be noticed that the Public Works Engineer estimated the cost of the training walls at £13,000, whereas the Marine Engineer's estimate was £20,000. The walls could not be erected now for anything like the sum originally estimated. Further, the engineer stated the work would not be of the most permanent character, and in consequence he considered that a sum of at least £7OO per annum should be set aside for renewals and maintenance. There was no provision in the estimates, aa far as the speaker could see, for cutting the straight chat.nel of 300 to 400 yards required for the present mouth of the river, being some two miles to the south of the proposed opening. Mr Furkert stated that he was convinced that the wall as indicated was what was required to make a satisfactory port for Kaiapoi, and further, in reply to the question, "Would the proposed wajl do the work expected from it?" stated "Ye 3." Now, if the engineer wished it to be understood from those statements that the river's mouth could be kept straight and the normal depth of water on the bar, viz., 7ft to Bft, maintained, then the speaker was inclined to agree with him; but if, on the other hand, by the erection of such wall a depth of 12ft of water at the bar as required by the Harbour Board and the prevention of spits forming in the upper reaches of the river can be achieved, then he must beg to differ from him entirely. Mr Horrell then spoke at length on the difficulties attending the proposed undertaking, after which he stated that ; no provision was made in the report for dredging, wharves, sheds, railway!: sidings, and other conveniences for the 1 ' proper working of a port, but he iin- \

agined the board took these matters i into consideration when framing the Bill, hence authority being asked to raise £50,000 instead of £20,000. He was afraid the bulk of the larger sum would be sunk at the bar. Prom the report it appeared that something like 28,000 tons of coal and 3,000,000 ft of timber were delivered in North Canterbury. One-half of the coal was lignite, or brown coal, and was conveyed by rail, but this was not mentioned in the report. Newcastle coal would also naturally come by rail, as also would hardwood timber. The board admitted that the bulk of the coal came from the West Coast. Could anyone deny that when the Midland Railway was opened it would convey the bulk of the coal, timber, and produce? As to the shipping trade done at Kaiapoi in late years, judging from the amount of duos collected, as published in the New Zca land Year Book during the past four years, it had been comparatively small, the dues collected being from £250 to £3OO annually. With regard to expenditure, Mr Horrell said he saw no provision in the report for the payment of a pilot, secretary, rate collector, wharfinger, and other employees necessary to carry on the work for a port such as contemplated. He considered that £750 a year would be required for administrative purposes. Dredging would cost £IOOO a year, if not more. His estimate of the annual expenditure, verified by a gentleman competent to judge, was:— £ Interest on loan of £50,000 at, 54 per cent 2750 Sinking Fund at 1 per cent. . . 500 Interest on present loan of £2OOO 100 Dredging 1000 Renewals and repairs to training walls 700 Renewals and repairs to wharves, etc 400 Administration 750 Total £6200 The contemplated receipts were:— £ Rents 480 Dues on 2J million feet of timber at 6d per 100 ft 625 Dues on 12,000 tons of coal at 1/- per ton 600 Dues on 1000 sheep at Id per head' 416 Dues on 15,000 tons produce at 6d per ton 375 Total £2496 These figures showed a debit balance of £3704, but he' was cbnviuced that, with the completion of the West Coast railway, the receipts from coal, timber, and produce would be reduced to at least one-half, or, say, £BOO, so that the actual deficiency would be somewhere about £4500, which sum would have to be provided for out of rates. To provide the deficiency a rate approximating 9/16 th of a penny in the £ would be required, and the proportion each local body would have to contribute would be, roughly, Rangiora five-tenths, Eyreton four-tenths, and Kaiapoi onetenth. The prospects of the river trade did not warrant such a costly scheme. The very excellent harbour at Lyttelton, with the railway facilities, were quite adequate to supply the needs of the district in the matter of transport for many years to come. If the Bill went through they would be. required to subscribe one-half of the capital for a scheme which he had no hesitation in saying would be an absolute failure. :

Mr Horrell then moved: —"That this meeting of ratepayers in the Harbour Board area is entirely opposed to the Waimakariri Harbour Board Empowering Bill, as the provisions contained therein, are not in the best interests of the district generally." In speaking against the motion, Mr Doubleday said that since the scheme had been proposed by the Harbour Board quite a number of amateur engineers had cropped up, who professed to know more than those who had had years of experience. They had been told by experts that the Kaiapoi bar was one of the easiest bars in New Zealand to control. At Wangar.ui the conditions were something similar to those at Kaiapoi, and the first training wall put up gave a depth of 44 feat. A loan of £120,000 had been raised there, and the authorities had power to borrow a further £140,000, and yet a rate did not have to be called up, although the district was previously a heavily-rated one. With regard to the Harbour Board District the speaker said that the districts which it was proposed to rate had been represented on the Harbour Board since its formation, and that was the reason why they were included. However, if it was found necessary to extend the districts, this could easily be done later. As far as the voting was concerned, there was no difference from any other proposed bills in New Zealand. Mr Horrell had tried to make the best out for the Midland Kailway as he possibly could. Nobody could say what the tariff would be on the railway until it was opened, but by having a port at Kaiapoi 20 miles of railway would be saved for the northern district. While the bar was good there had been any amount of trade, but in order to increase and maintain the trade it was absolutely necessary to have a good channel at the bar. The harbour dues had been £4BO when two steamers had i visited the township at regular inter-' vals, and they would naturally be much larger when the trade worked with certainty. The speaker thought the present would meet all requirements. h\ Blackwell, Mayor of Kaiapoi, who also spoke against the motion, said that | the proposed Harbour District Empowering Bill was not clearly understood. All bars were more or less irregular. When a bar was good the trade was good, but no traffic could be built up unless a bar was improved so that it would always be regular. To ensure this regular trade at Kaiapoi the Harbour Board got up the idea of getting a regulation training wall erected at the mouth of the river. At the request of the Harbour Board, Mr Holmes (Chief Public Works Engineer for New Zealand) reported on the method necessary to secure a permanent and satisfactory river entrance. Mr Holmes recommended a substantial training wall of heavv timber, and estimated the cost at £13,600. Later, Mr Furkert, a Government engineer, enquired into the position, and he considered that the board would be wise not to raise less than £20,000, and he also stated that if any rate had to be struck on the harbour district it would be a very small one. Mr Blackwell then demonstrated where the engineer recommended the erection of a training wall, namely at a point opposite the mouth of the Styx i Kiver. Mr Horrell had drawn attention to the fact that Mr Holmes's esti-i mate was £13,600, and Mr Furkert'sj £20,000, but this difference was due to! Mr Furkert having gone very much more into detail, and probably having' provided for connecting to a railway) siding. Some materials had increased in price through the war, and Mr Blackwell said he considered the ratepayers should be asked to allow for £25,000, thereby providing an ample margin. By! having a port at Kaiapoi they could all get grain and produce to coastal ports I iu New Zealand. It cost 17/- a ton to

1 I get coal from Westport at present, and only half of that if it came by boat. Timber and other commodities could also be landed much cheaper by boat at Kaiapoi. The combined capital valuation of the Harbour Board District was £2,01f,095, and the rate necessary to be guaranteed as security would be equal to 6i per cent, on £25,000. This was equal to £1625, which meant a rate of less than one-fifth of a penny in the pound. Supposing the worst were to happen, and the whole rate had to be collected, the maximum cost to ratepayers would be 1/8 on each £IOO of valuation. Continuing, Mr Blackwell said that there was very little doubt that 2,500,000 feet of timber would be brought through Kaiapoi, as 1,800,000 feet had already been brought over the ( bar in one year. It would not mean a very big increase to reach the 2,500,000. The great advantages derived by trad-1 ing direct with Kaiapoi would be that, a large amount of money would be saved I on timber, coal, and produce, owing to not having to pay for the 20 miles of ■ railage. Altogether something like £4500 or £SOOO would be saved to the districts in question.

The speaker further stated that even, if the Bill went through the House the j money eould not be raised without the, sanction of the people, and they had, I therefore, everything in their own hands. I

Mr Black well then moved, as an i amendment: "That, in view of the fact that no loans can be raised by the Harbour Board, except by a poll of the ratepayers, this meeting offers no op-1 position to the proposed Waimakariri j Harbour Empowering Bill." Mr B. Lissaman, ex-chairman of the | Harbour Board, favoured the original motion, and stated that the most Kaiapoi had ever done in the way of shipping was to dispatch 32 cargoes in a year. The scheme had already proved unworkable, and if the river was put' in proper order they would never get anything like the trade anticipated. The whole scheme was simply going to be of benefit to the merchants in Kaiapoi. The board had opposed the raising of the harbour dues, and in his opinion this was with a view to favouring the shipping company.

Mr Blackwell saiii this was a fair type of the statements made about the board, and he wished the meeting to take particular notice of it.

Mr Doubleday remarked that it would not have been fair to raise the dues, because it was not certain whether the boats could use the river. Mr E. O. Dixon said that he had heard a great amount of talk, but still he failed to see how the producers would get any benefit from the scheme. Mr James Stevenson also spoke on similar terms, and pointed out that the harbour at Wanganui was altogether different from Kaiapoi, in that it was not situated 20 miles from a main port and connected with it by rail. The proposal was a needless- expense, and, in any case, the present time was not opportune for such an undertaking. As far as he could see, Mr Blackwell had not shown how the producers would benefit financially by the scheme, and he objected to being again rated for harbour facilities when Lyttelton gave him all he wanted.

On being put to the meeting, the amendment was lost by 15 votes to 30, and the motion was carried.