WAIMAKARIRI WORKS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 694, 22 February 1933, Page 7

WAIMAKARIRI WORKS.

Proper Maintenance a Necessity. The necessity for proper maintenance and administration of the Waimakariri River works was mentioned by Mr J. Wood in a paper dealing with the control of the river that was presented at the conference of the New Zealand Society of Civil Engineers to-day. Ultimate success can only be achieved,” said Mr Wood, “ if as much care and attention is given to maintenance and administration as was given, to the construction. Neglect of proper maintenance will not only fail to give the results expected, but may do damage greater than that which the works were built to prevent.” The River Trust kept a staff well trained to maintenance work, and pioposed to allocate not less than £SOOO a year towards maintenance. It was hoped that after next year a fund would be established to enable serious damage by floods to be repaired at a moment’s notice. The building-up of the bed of a river carrying shingle could be delayed, but never entirely prevented until a grade that gave it sufficient energy to carry its shingle to the sea was obtained, and comparative stabilisation of its regimen was secured, but the height to which that building-up must go was much less, the shorter the river’s course to the sea. and therefore the shortening of the Waimakariri River had been made as great as economically possible, in the belief that that was the best foundation upon which to build works for the future, and was the best legacy the present could leave to future generations. Mr A. Wells Newton said that he was impressed with the excellence of the report. lie thought that local engineers should be trusted more than they were. When they had engineers of the eminence of those in New Zealand there was no need to go overseas for a concurrence of opinion. Mr Newton paid a tribute to the work of Mr Wood and Mr H. W. Harris. Sir Arthur Dudley Dobson said that he and his father had made the first survey sixty years ago. lie was happy to say that, in spite of all the opposition. the scheme had l>een carried out. Mr F. W. Furkert said he considered that the only weakness in the scheme was the groyne at the mouth. There were not enough concrete blocks, and another £2OOO could have been spent. The blocks could have been longer, and not cubic. Mr Wood was thanked- for his interesting paper.