THE RIVER FLATS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9398, 26 March 1898, Page 2

THE RIVER FLATS.

The Question of Dredging Again Before

the. Bqtyd.

After we went to press yesterday (Friday) the Harbour Roard discussed tho Foreman of Works' report on the dredging of the flats. In leply to tho Mayor, the Foreman of Works stated that the cost of dredging last year was Is Od per oubic yard, which included the time lost through unfavourable weather. His present estimate of Is OJc included only working days. The Mayor— What quantity of Bpoil was removed from the flats daring the year ? The Foreman— ll,ooo yards. Mr Stevenson pointed out that tho Bame conditions would probably prevail in respect to the weather in future as in the past, consequently the cost of dredging would be 4s 6d per yard. In reply to a question the secretary stated that the wages of all the men had been debited to the dredging account. Mr Parsons (to the Foreman) — Your report is based on the channel being dredged 200 ft wide. Is thero any occasion to dredge that width ? Mr Gerrie — It was at the snggestion of tho Mayor that 1 estimated tho cost of a 200-feot wide channel. Mr Parsons — Are you aware Mr Reynolds suggested a channel 100 feet in width? The Mayor — According to Mr Reynolds' report 40,000 cubic yards of spoil would have to be removed. Mr Parsons (quoting from another and later report of Mr Reyolds') — " To reinstate the tidal compartment above the town to its original capacity, it would be necessary to rdmove from the fan way be< tween the town and Landguard Bluff by drodging and snagging, material to tho extent of about 130,000 cubic yards. This would give a channel with a bottom width of 200 ft, and a depth of Bft at low water spring tides, which would bo equal to a navigable channel of 13ft to 14ft at high water spring tides. ... A channel half the width would be sufficient for the requirements m the first instance." The Mayor — There is a big descrepancy between Mr Reynold's estimate and the Foreman's. The foreman drew the Board's attention to the official map oT the soundings taken in the rivor previous to the erection of tho wall, showing a depth of from lft Oin to 3ft, whore was now a uniform depth of Oft. Mr Parsons— And yet it is said the river channel has not improved. The Chairman— There is at pi'oseut a depth of Oft all over ihe flats at low wator spring tides. Tiie Foreman — Vessels never stick now where I have dredged. Mr Parsons— Did the dredging do any good? t Most certainly. The steamorß that traded hero many yoar3 back always stuck on the fiats, but not a single vessel has stuck on the recently dredged flats. Formerly there was only a depth of 4ft 4in, now the average is Oft. In reply to questions the Foreman stated that if the flats were further dredged there would be a greater depth of water in them than on the bar, and that it would be impossible in places to dredge the channel 200 feet wide, as the walls would be undermined. Mr Stevenson contended that in view of tho fact just stated and also taking into consideration the poor results of the drodging, the Board was not justified in spending so large a sum of money on further work on the flats. The Mayor read tho comparative statement of soundings taken ou the flats at different places up to and after the diedgnig, which was as follows :—1893,: — 1893, Oft ; 1807, Oft lin; 1895, sft 2in; 189u, Oft; Sft 4m and Urb lin ; sft 4m and Oft lin ; and Oft and Oft 2in. Ho expressed the opinion that the idea of the fiats having 3iHed up after the dreJgini{ wa3 oxploded by tho figures of the Foieman. Mr Steveiuon — Tho flats were dredged to a depth of Sft, and now you have about 11 inches. The Mayor — that is because you have improperly dredged. Tho chairman then moved, That the estimated cost of dioJging and the fact that tho soundings in the river show a depth unequal to that expeoted by Mr Reynolds in hid report of 3rd February, 1891, the dredging be not pioceeded with. He pointed out that Mr Reynolds in 1894 said ho had carefully studied tho condition of the river with a view to determining to what extent the channel might safely be dredged, so that it would keep open by scour after the training walls have been repaired.and that asuffioient body of water might bo directed over tho flats to counteract the tendency of silt deposits after floods. Mr Reynolds concluded there would be amplo scour to maintain a channel with a depth of Oft at low water spring tides and a bottom width of 200 ft. Mr Peat said he did not know anything about the bottom width, but they had the full depth of water as Mr Reynolds had predicted. Vessels might possibly stick on the flats as they did on the bar, and they might go ashore after striking on tho bar. There was no danger to a ship stioking on tho flats, aud no great loss. It would be a great struggle for the Board at the present moment to meet its engagements if it authorised an expenditure of £5000 on the flats on a work that would take three years to complete. The Board's finances were now in a flourishing condition, and if they conserved their funds they would in eight years be in a position either to borrow money to do the work, pay off half of their loan, or lower the port charges. In addition to the estimated cost of the dredging, the Foreman had told them something like £1000 or £1200 would be requird for tho breakwater and other necessary works, and the Board was also face to face with an expenditure of £7000 for the erection of a new wharf. Ho strongly opposed committing tho Board to such a heavy expenditure for Dredging at the present juncture. Mr Parsons asked if the chairman, in face of a resolution passed at a previous meeting in favor of dredging, intended pressing his motion and submitted that he should give notice of motion. The chairman said he had no desire to press his motion and would give notice accordingly. Mr Parsons — Of course I have no objection to the dredging remaining iv abeyanoo till the next meeting. The chairman- I will take care the works are not gono on with, and am preparod to take the responsibility and blame if necessity m the matter. Tho Mayor drew tho Board's attention to the fact that the matter had already been thrashed out at the Board's table and the motion for rescinding the resolution defeated. Mr Ste\enson said he desired to make an explanation. Ho was very anxious to attend the meeting of the Board when Mr Jackson was to move his notice of motion, but was unable to be present, and he had suggested that the date of meeting should be altered, but he understood Mr Hatrick hod objected. The Mayor— You have been misinformed. Mr Stevenson, continuing, said he was glad to hear Mr Hatrick say so. He, however, thought it would have been only courteous to their late chairman (Mr F. R. Jackson) to allow his motion to be adjourned, seeing that tl-at ge'Jeinan's a1» >enco wis caused through illness. The Mayor said Mr Notman had asked him if he would be agreeable to have the meeting altered, but he (Mr Hatrick) had remarked that while personally he was not in favor of it he was not an authority on the subject. He thought Mr Stevenson should be sure of his ground before he made such statements. Mr Stevenson — I accept your explanation. The matter then dropped and the Board adjourned.