RIVERS COMMISSION.

Thames Star, Volume LVII, Issue 15160, 22 February 1922, Page 5

RIVERS COMMISSION.

HARBOUR AREA.

THE PROPOSED ALTERATION.

One of the recommendations of the recent Rivers Improvement Commission transfers the control of the mouth of the Waihou River, together with the Turua and Ivopu wharves from the Harbour Board to some other body, the charges on shipping ifro be devoted to reducing the sums paid by the local bodies for river improvement work. Yesterday a Star reporter interviewed Mr.' C. W. Harris, chairman of the board. . 1

“This is only a suggestion,” he said, in reply to a question, “and I take it that before the matter passes ■the House we shall have an opportunity to be heard.” The Harbour Board had not been cited to appear before the Commission; it had put forward no evidence and was not likely to consent to any alteration likely to affect the river. “We are now building at Turua ” Mr. Harris added, “a wharf that will be quite the strongest under 1 the board’s control. It will carry more, weight than any other wharf. It will cost between £3OOO and £4OOO. • We have £6OOO worth of debentures and when the money market improves we expect to finance on them for the work. The board will decidedly oppose any loss of revenue, especially in view of the work on hand designed to benefit the district.” Mr. Harris drew attention to a clause in the report which stated ■that in the nature of the work the Thames County would not benefit except in the Hikutaia and Puriri areas, and it seemed strange that the Commission should go even further afield and include Kopu ancV Turua. Then again the Commission; had emphasised the need for cutting down the costs of the scheme, yet it proposed an extension that would involve considerable expenditure. The board, if this suggestion went ■through, would demand full value. Any other course would mean confiscation.

Asked if the Harbour Board had received any notice that the Commission was considering matters affecting the harbour, Mr. Harris said that the board had received no intimation, had not been represented and had advanced no evidence. “We ■took the attitude that the board Avas not a,n interested party, and this proposal has come as a complete surprise to us.. We had no idea that anything like that Avas e\’en likely. On receipt of a telegraphed report of the Commission’s finding the hoard had telegraphed to the local member, stating that it understood ■the report “recommends this board should be relieved of administering any portion of the Waihou Ri\’er. This means possibility of losing Kopu and Turua. Please strongiy resist any attempt to rush through Bill giving effect v to Commission s recommendation before my board has an opportunity of being heard.” The matter, the -chairman said, would come before the board at the next meeting, and lie felt sure that every effort would be made to pievent such a suggestion being given effect to.

“The hoard cannot allow the area under its jurisdiction to be decreased. Our object, if possible, is to get it extended and push on with the larger scheme for the whole district. A proper harbour would he a valuable asset for these rivers. Any proposal to curtail the operations of the board -will he fought to the bitter end.”