HARBOUR SCHEME.

Thames Star, Volume LVII, Issue 15777, 12 February 1923, Page 5

HARBOUR SCHEME.

MR. ADAMS’ PROPOSALS

DISCUSSION BY BOARD

(IV.)

j The detailed report published in the Star and read before the Thames Harbour Board at its last meeting, was followed by a discussion. Mr Adams was present, and answered many questions. Mr Laughlin wanted to know if deeper water were wanted, whether the retaining walls would be effected.

Mr Adams replied in the negative. : Mr Hetherington asked why the proposed mooring channel was not brought alongside the present wharf. Mr Adams: The present wharf is ip such a state that it would simply fall into a channel dredged alongside. .

Mr Bruce said that all he could see for spending £60,000 was that the Wakatere could get in at any state of the tide. , To Mr Cooper. Mr Adams said «*that very little more would give 7ft. }n the channel. The fathom line had not altered for the last 40 years. That was a curious but important

fact. To Mr Danby: The siltation at the mouth of the cut would be about 3ft in 40 years. To Mr Donaldson: The amount of filling in the enclosed portion would be negligible. To Mr Danby: The silting-up from the shore had already reached the peak. The Kauaeranga Valley had been the most persistent source of siltation. The Waihou River had I sandbars which were in existence Sir John Goode’s time.' They had never altered their position. The 'wind was a factor that prevented ■ the Waihou River depositing .sift towards the proposed harbour. To Mr Laughliii: He had put in months of investigation in regard to the tidal movements of the silt. The tidal movement was not greater than 14 miles per hour. ' His records; showed that the velocity was less; than one mile per hour. '* To Mr Danbv : f The gravel taken from Shortland would be used to form the foundation of the walls. When dumped in its proper place the wave action would distribute the j gravel to the required width. ! To Mr Miller: The walls mention-I ed in his report would be the per- 1 manent walls for the larger harbour i scheme. They could be carried high- j er if necessary. The present facilities would b& maintained in addition to the new proposals. The proposed reclamation would be a valuable asset to the board. To Mr Hetherington: The batter would be protected bv rubble which would lie and prevent further move-

ment. Mr Coulter said the doubtful feature was the tides affecting the cuts. If the tide would disturb the shingle for the foundations of. the walls, would it not do the same to the shingle on the batter? Mr Adams instanced the cut made at Bayswater, which did not fill in.

It was a matter of knowledge that where this class of tidal current existed anything low-water mark would not alter. The case was totally different above lowj water mark. J Mr Coulter asked was it not true that when 'one interfered with nature the result was doubtful. Mr Adams said he could see no reason why the 900 yards of the cut should fill up. Mr Coulter asked if the tide action svas so small, why construct the enclosing walls?

Mr Adams stated that unprotected dredging would not keep open on the foreshore.

< To Mr Danby: The idea in ob- [ taining gravel from Shortland was jto improve the channel as well. He could not say it was permament improvement. It would be economical to take the gravel from there. It would pav the board to give attention to the Shortland berthage, To Mr Danby:' A boat drawing 18ft could come into the proposed channel. The largest vessel to enter Wanganui drew 17ft, and this was acclaimed as a great advance, i. To Mr Cooper, the secretary, stated that the present cost of dredging was about £SOO per annum. When the new scheme was completed this cost would not be incurred. Mr Miller pointed out that some of this would be required for maintenance. ' The interest and sinking fund would be £2OOO a year. The secretary said that the present lack of harbour facilities turned away a lot of shipping. He instanced the delay to the Awahou lately.

Mr Coulter said that 'before they started out to spend £60,000 they should get all the information possible about the development of trade. They had nothing reliable to go on. This had been overlooked. The ratepayers would ask these questons. Mr Laughlin: If the trade did not increase it would place the board in an awkward position.

j Mr Donaldson said that an immense amount of data had been colilected. He. considered, the facts, al- ! ready preheated were as complete as j could be. It required a bit of cour- ‘ age and an optimistic spirit to go (into these schemes. There would have been no Hauraki Plains but for this spirit. To his mind the scheme was doown to bedrock, and they could go to the ratepayers. The j cost to the ratepayers was onlv j £2OOO, and they should go to them I with courage. An assured regular | traffic with Auckland would mean i greater trade through the port. He | could see sufficient increase to justi- | fv going on with the scheme. If they had no revenue and in the event'of a rate being struck, Te Aroha’s share would be £36/7/2. Mr Laughlin said that the biggest obstacle was that vessels of heavy tonnage could go to Turua and Kopu but could obtain no return cargo. The chairman said that if the j members considered the scheme satisfactory he would ask them to j approve of it, and fix the amount of t the loan poll to be taken on April 26. Mr Coulter said that it was an extraordinary thing to ask at such short notice. They should have the | opportunity of going into the details. [

They might be able to improve on the scheme. It was a business proposition, land should be considered at The cha!Mb» said that it would take six the preliminaries, and not afford to put the laymen, they should not enginMr Hetherington said that* the report showed that they had reasonable grounds to go to the ratepayers. The chairman said that the scheme was identical with that put before the Commission. Mr Laughlin said that they

I should not be hasty in the matter. The public should know all about it. Mr Coulter said that his point was that it was not in the public interest to hurry it through. The details should be left to a later meeting to decide. Mr Donaldson said that there was a lot in what Mr Coulter said. But the scheme had been in front of the board for the last two years. He understood that Mr Blair Mason was one of the foremost harbour engineers, and Mr Adams’ scheme was the same in a smaller way. He was forced into the opinion that he was free to vote for a scheme that either suggested. This was a concrete proposal which would be completed almost out of the board’s resources.

The chairman said the ratepayers would have the fullest information given to them. He and other members would visit various centres and give addresses. Mr Miller moved that the board should approve of the expenditure of £60,000 on harbour improvements on the lines laid down in Mr Adams’ report. This was seconded by Mr Donaldson and carried, Messrs. Coulter and Laughlin dissenting. The chairman moved that the loan poll to be taken should be for £60,000.

Mr Hetherington seconded the motion, Messrs. Coulter and Laughlin dissenting. Mr Coulter moved that the report and estimate should lie on the table until the next* meeting, and that copies of the report should be sent to each member of the board, and to be dealt with at that meeting. Mr Laughlin seconded the motion, v which was carried.