THE HARBOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1787, 19 June 1906, Page 3

THE HARBOR.

(To the Editor Gisborne Times.) Sir,—ln Mr Sievwright’s letter I read of " every irresponsible eccentric ” and " the irresponsible element ” I presume both terim refer to the same class of persons, and inolude all outside the Harbor Board, as they seem distinot from that body; therefore the Board, as I understand it, is considered by Mr Sievwrighl (omitting the word eooentrio) the only responsible body with respect to harbor mat tors in the district. This may be eo; but I think probably some responsibility a>so rests with the electors who :*

that position. I farther understand that the Board’s responsibility is a moral responsibility to aoi in the best interest of this irresponsible element by which it was elected, and which I should prefer to apeak of as the ratepayers of the district, and to whom the Harbor Board is acting as servant. If I am oorreot in this sup. position, is it unreasonable to suppose that ~ if any of these ratepayers have, or think they have, any information to impart that may be useful to the Board that they should hesitate to offer it ? seeing they r*are acting in their own interest iu common with the general interest of the district, and which of course is identical with that of the Board. I may be wroog, but it seems to me to be the duty of everyone to assist the Board in this way ao far as possible, eaptoially through tbe Press, so as to open up discussion upon Bny matter ol importance. Yet this course is apparently resented by a siction of the Board (elthcugb I miy add only a small one) as the nnweloome interfere! c* oi eccentric irresponsible. But to pass on to mure important matters. With regard to the “oermin results" numbered 1 to 5 inclusive in Mr Bievwrigbt’s letter, they simply mean that if Mr Thompson’s plan bad been completed we sbonld have had the month of the river carried out to a further dislanoe into the Bay, and also bad the privilege of trwkin'g anotbpr bar bor in the future between tbe groin and Grey street, or I suppose anywhere >ls- in the B»y that might be considered advisable. But as Mr Thompson’s plan bas already received its death blow at the hands of the Government, and for which the district, I submit, should be truly thankful, it is only waste of time end spaoe to discuss it. Mr Bievwrighc continues, " A few may, of course, oi jeot that the silt comiog down the Turanganui will be discharged and rest in tbe enclosed area. But all tbe engineers who have investigated and reported thereon say that tbe quantity is insignificant, and oan easily-be dealt with, and especially will it be so when the woiking of tbe sand at the present groin by wave action is stopped, jjM'for that has always been tbe real troub'e." I should very much like to know who all. these engineers werp, and how they investigated this matter ? Were they, many of them here daring a heavy flood, and, ii 80, did they at that time take eny oross seotion of the river, oalonlate tbe velocity of the current, evaporate a given quantity of water, and meaßure the sediment that ramained 1 ? If they did, a report giviDg details should be iu the possession of the Board, and its contents would be very acosptable at the present time to tbe public. If they did not, how did they obtain their information ? Was it by consult-1 log some of tbe responsibles, who did not think much silt oame down the river, and then reported accordingly ? Let us remember that floods in tbe Waimata occur daring times of heavy rain, when most people (who are not ccoenteio irresponsiblrs) are as far as possible comfortably enjoying themselves by their parlour or office fires, Instead of roamiog about in the rain investigating river flood and mad. The late Mr A. Y. Roes investigated tbe matter by the first method described above, and although not a civil engineer, was a man quite competent to perform tbe woiksuffi ciently oorreot for the requirements of the present controversy, and his evidence, I think, air, yon will probably remember, was very from ‘bat of the authorities referred to by Mr gievwright. I have very good reason to believe the statements made by Mr Ross in reference to tbis tnatier to be sufficiently correct, for at that time I bad an interest in some land on the Eaiti at the Hole-in-the-Wal), Perbape, sir, yoa remember a swamp running from tbe present riter along the western boundary of Mr McLean’s land, and which was once tbe bed of tbe river before it broke

through the Hole-intbe-Wall. This swamp perhaps three or four or more chains in width, and I believe some two miles long, aad was at one flood oovered with mad, I think I can safely say of an average depth of 3ft. How, suppose we say the swamp was 60 chains long by three chains wide, this would give us 13 aores.eovered with Bft of river mud at one flood. It was deposited from eompara' - tively still water, the swamp beiDg covered With backwater from the river, oonseqaeDtly it can represent but a small amount compared with the quantity that mast have been washed into ths bay daring the three or four days the river was in flood. This I say of my own personal ■knowledge, I also saw at the eaaio tirno

several acres of Ur Ross’ land adjoining the river oovorod with mud to a depth of about two foot. The river at this flood loft rubbish in tbo trees, showing its height to have been 12 or 14 foet above its ordinary high tide level at. and above Mr Bess’ lend. Knowing these foots personally, what valuo can I piaoo upon the reports of those engineers who say tbo quantity of mud coming down the river is insignificant. It is generally allowed that the landslips increase in proportion to the I bush olearod in tho watershed, and also the quioker tbo water reaohes its drainage outlet, which in this case for a largo j exlont of oountry is tho Waimata river Other matters contained in Mr Sievwright’s letter will, with yonr permission, bo considered in my next.—l am, olo„

THOS. S. LEWIS, O.E.