Dredging the Taruheru.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 258, 8 November 1901, Page 3

Dredging the Taruheru.

MESSRS NELSON BROS. 4 OFFER

A si'KciAL meeting of the Harbor Board was held yesterday afternoon to consider Messrs Nelson Bros.’ application with regard to the deepening of the Tnraheru I river, there being present —Messrs Townlev (chairman), Cooper, Hepburn, Kievwright, Matthewson, and Whinray. Mr W. Nelson, on behalf of Nelson Bros., wrote :—On reading the report of | your Board’s last meeting, I find very ! many natural questions raised referring ! to the propositions contained in my letter !of October 29th. I have now to offer a I few explanations, and also modified pro- | posals. With regard to the ownership of i the dredge, ] had looked upon it as a matter of indifference as to who owned it, as once in your river for keeping our works running, f looked on it as there for all time for a specific purpose. Now, I recognise that from your point of view, it is a matter of considerable importance when paying away your Board’s money. With regard to the probable inelliciency of . the method I propose to adopt in dealing i with the river, and the suggestion that the first tlood will take all the sand down the river, I think the fact of my guaranteeing to relieve you of any further responsibility for three years should satisfactorily dispose of tho • inefficiency question.’ Then, ' if tho next tlood will wash all tho sand down tho river,’ it 6eoins fair to ask wny did not tho last one do it, hut it is clear it didn't, or the sand would not be where it is now. Again, when we have a straight and deeper channel, instead of the present tortuous one, tho high level sand banks should he less likely to wash away than at present. Besides, your dredge has alroady worked successfully, so far as it was able, with fascino work put in very roughly. There appears to bo souio misconception as to tho [unctions

and method of working of a sand pump, Tho pump itself is about the smallest item of the dredging machinery required for dealing with saud and mud banks in a shallow river where tho dredge has to bore its own way into a solid bank. Since writing you last 1 have decided, should we come to terms, to transfer the machinery from one of my dredges now at work in the Napier swamp, which should complete the work it is now engaged on in about four to five mouths, and as this dredge has been, and is doing exactly the same class of work as that required on the Taruheru, only iu a stiff clay soil as well as sand, there can bo no doubt of its adaptability for your purposes. The dredge referred to is fitted up with an excavator as well as pump, with numerous appliances suggested by the difficulties we have met with from time to time. I wish you to fully realise that the sole object of my last proposition was to keep tho river open, not to make money out of your Board, as tho following figures will prove. JVIy estimate for tho barge ready for work is .£1:200 to £I4OO, leaving a working balance of £4OO to £OOO for three years’ coal, labor, fascining, and general stores. .1 think this does not look very grasping on my part.

” Modified Proposal.—Your Board to pay the cost of dredge as soon as it is ready for work, with our guarantee that it shall not exceed .£IOO. You pay all the expense of making the channel, the actual work to be done by us, you paying our expenses. So soon as the channel is complete. the dredge to be dealt with as you think tit. it being jour property. " Second Proposal.—Same as contained in my letter of 13th October, but the dredge shall become your property at the

end of three years without further payment. t would modestly put forward for your consideration that, although I am i not at liberty to put the mystic characters *■ C.ld." after my name, still I have had many years' actual experience in river and dredging works, also with considerable success. Should your Board accept my offer, I should personally supervise vour work. I should add that in connection with the dredging plant, I propose to build a new heart-kauri barge with all new timber fixings, and, by taking iua- ! chinery from here, should hope to have it at work within six months of your acceptance. Your earliest reply will oblige, as I have to get a new boiler made in this connection, which will take four months' building." The engineer ( Mr J. King! reported : I have examined and have taken frequent soundings in the Taruheru river between the Taruheru Freezing Works and the harbor at Gisborne, My investigation has shown that the principal silting-up has taken place near the works, extending from these down the river about '2O chains below this point. The river bottom is compact sand and cl ay, and pipi beds. So far as I have been able to ascertain very

little silting up has occurred in this part of the 1-ivcr bottom. A comparatively small amount of dredging would secure a minimum depth of four deep at low water for the whole of the length between the Taruheru Freezing Works and Gisborne wharf, thus seeming a much better channel for navigation than has hitherto been obtained. The silting-up of the river bed to the Freezing Works occurred during a spell of wet weather about Id months ago, when an extraordinary Hood in the Hapara stream washed out live stone crossing ut the crossing on the Ormond road, widened and deepened the waterway along the creek-bed, and carried a large amount of silt and debris into the Taruheru river near to the Freezing Works ; but none of this disturbed material has reached a point further down the river than about *2O chains below the mouth of the Hapara stream.

! The removal by dredging of the silt de- ; I posited in the river-bed at this point j would not be a very extensive or expensive job. Roughly, the cost would Le | about £IOO. The exocution of this work would restore the navigable part of the river to its normal condition, but as the district advances, increased facilities arcdemanded, and I would recommend the Board to make the improvements indicated on the accompanying drawing. Tins j would give much greater facilities for carrying on the trade of the district, and would probably be all that would be required for some considerable time. The carrying out of the works could be carried over a considerable period, the worst parts being done first. In the event of your deciding to carry out the whole of the works as suggested, or to dredge out the river-bed to live feet below low water, as indicated, then it will be necessary to make a more particular survey. An examination of the drawings will show that it would be necessary to continue the work further down the river than the first bridge below the Freezing Works, as was suggested. As a matter of fact, the work would have to be continued down stream to within live chains of the AYhatanpoko bridge. Mr Hepburn pointed out that there was a big difference between the Engineer's estimate and that of Mr Nelson’s. Mr Sicvwright said the estimate, showed the cost to be £590 as against £6OO for threo years. The Chairman said that the Board must recognise their responsibility as to whether they should keep the channel clear or not. Nelson Brothers went into the undertaking without any consideration being given by the Board as to whether they intended keeping that part of the channel open for their purposes or not. That was the first question, whether the Board were responsible for keeping that portion of the channel clear for navigation. So far as the Marine Department were concerned, they havo stated that they considered the channel ought to he open for navigation. It was the most important work in the district. It was an important question that the Board must consider as to whether it was a part of their duty to keep that part of the channel open referred to by Nelson Bros. It was a very large undertaking, but the Engineer could restore it to its original depth at a cost of £l7O or £2OO, utilising the present appliances. The original depth would bo 4ft below low water line, and it could be done for £l7O within the next threo months. If the Board thought it was their duty, he would bo willing that the Board should do it themselves. Mr Whinray said that it was quite out of their province to keep a mud cstuaryjof that sort, as it was no river. Round about Auckland there were numerous mud channels, and they did not ask the Auckland Board to dredge them out. It was quito out of their province to dredge this, and there would bo no finality if they undertook it. Messrs Nelson went and squatted tlicro to serve their own convenience, and it was never contemplated for the Board to extend its operations threo or four miles into the country to servo the interests of a private firm. There might bo some moral obligation to do a little, but they should ho very careful about spending the ratepayers’ money for the aggrandisement of a private firm. Mr Sicvwright was satisfied the Board had a duty to all who paid wharfage and rates. Messrs Nelson paid them something like £2OOO a year, and as they had control of the Taruheru river it was

undoubtedly within their rights to improve the navigation. The work proposed was not an expensive one. To say that they should do nothing and leave Messrs Nelson Bros, aground to get out their largo shipments was monstrous. He proposed that the works recommended by the Engineer be carried out immediately. The estimate seemed to be a moderate one, and they had a distinct interest to keep the°channel l etter and not worse than it was.

Mr Cooper thought, considering the large amount Mosssrs Nelson Bros, paid —atfd they did not use their wharf—it was the duty of the Board to do what they could. Mr Whinray; For a private firm '? Mr Cooper: It is not for a privotc firm, but for the benefit of the whole district.

Mr Matthewson agreed in part with Mi' Whinray. He thought there was no legal claim, and they should not jump into it. but in the face of tho large amount i f wharfage paid by Messrs Nelson Bros., thero was a strong moral obligation cu them to keep tho river as good as it was when Messrs Nelson Bros, went ru d squatted there. Mr Whinray thought members were making a bogey of what Messrs Nolscn paid. They paid .£1287 for frozen m at and manure, but the other items should not be accounted for. It was a private enterprise wishing to force a responsibility on the ratepayers for their own aggrandisement. He moved as an amendment 'that legal advice be taken. They had no right to commit the ratepayers to such an expense.

Mr Hepburn said that Messrs Nelson Bros, had gone to Taruheru because they though! it was the best site- ; they did not consult the Harbor Board. Considering, however, the Board got £.'1200 a year out of them for wharfage, they deserved a little consideration, and if it could be done for £2OO they ought to do it. Tho Chairman said ho understood that Messrs Nelson Bros, would put a bridge across higher up. He thought it would be a fair proposition to suggest that the Board would do the work if Messrs Nelson Bros, would pay half the cost. Captain Tucker agreed that it was a moral and commercial obligation, but not a legal one. After some further discussion Captain Tucker moved, “ That this Board, without admitting any legal liability in the matter, but from moral and commercial motives only, instruct the Engineer to proceed forthwith with the work recommended in his report until further orders.” Mr Matthewson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously!