THE CONFERENCE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4420, 29 May 1922, Page 3

THE CONFERENCE.

PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERS ' AND reference board. ■ (Continued.) - following is the conclusion of the conference between of. the Public Works De- ' partirient (Messrs. F. W. Furkert, En- - gihee'r-In-Chief, J* A. Walker, Auckland province; and L. Mays, Paeroa’ district), and the Thames Valley Drainage Reference Board and inter- : ested parties (chairman, Mr E. W. Porritt), which took place ;in the •: Coronation Chambers, Paeroa, on" Thursday.’ The maijor portion of the report was published in the-“ Gazette” on Friday. ) * “A REASONABLE SUGGESTION.” Mr. Silcock said it was not askel that the dredge be moved up and down the\ river, but when the dredge had been in proximity of the work, the work had not been done. Mr. Keys said the mining people had stated that £20,000 tad been earmarked for river improvements.’ There had been no specified manner in which that money had been used. I.t should have been stated that the. Department did not intend to improve tfie Ohinemuri River. That, river must, be considered in the future. He suggested that the £20,000 could be earmarked for a dredge to do a great deal of work to aid the public Works programme. The Public Works Department themselves must admit of very little' improvements to the Ohinemuri.- The Question arises, why the Department has not some definite scheme in : hand ? He suggested that the £20,000 be “re dug up.” Mr Leah said that suggestion may have originated from him. A sum of £20,0(f0 had been suggested to improve the Ohinemuri. Mr. Furkert: To improve the Ohinemuri, which was never authorised by the Act. Mr. Leah K’kaidG apparently the scheme had grown into one of £625,000. He asked the reason for this ■ big increase. Was it’because the first "Commission was incompetent ? , M 1?. 1 Ftirkert said they had tried to “ meUsrtre : the suit -of clothes without ‘"'’kribwiftg'the-sire of the man, and'also ■ that the cost of work had gone’uft. ’' Mr? BucHarihn said that in the evi- ’ dence before the recent commission it was made quite clear that it was possible 'to dredge the sand at the junction. The cost? would be 6d per 'ton. The commissioners had estimated that possibly l-3rd of the njiriing tailings Would go to the sea. It * would bh only right of the commis-, ■ sion tp suggest some means to-take the triflings out of. the ' river,. A ; charge of 4d per ton had beep suggested to levy on ,the. mining for taking tii'p idilihgs out of. the", Mr? Lbah'did not " agrbe.'thaV’two'”thfr'ds of- the in the "' river. " ‘ . •/... Mr. Bahks supported'Mr’/Leah. He- ’ also said a current of 'a foit per sec- : 'bnd was sufficient tp'nioVe the" tailings. . There .was remarkablylittle damage .done -by, the, the last fioMW -fee ’sfdmittbtf thW the silt was in the Ohinemuri, but when it. met the.. ,n)oj^ jf t|sn a third was ’ carried ■ to sea.

m CONSISTENCY t OF ’SILT; ,Mr. Furkert said there- was not a> : velocity, of a foot, per’second at the turn of-the tide. ( ‘' \ , ’ Mr. Banks said that only one. portion Of the river was where the min-, ing slit,.was found. ' . Mr. Furkert said the bottom of} the river had- hardened up by a .cernem- . ing action. .-. Mr Blanks denied that the tailings cemented. ' . ;. : ' Mr. Wynyard said that the banks of the river, which were once soft,, were nbw hard. ’ ; Mr. Keys skid the ordinary, .-action of the big floods was to stir up.the - deposits of silt. It. was,- when ; the water went over the banks, that; the damage was done. The alluvial deposits combined with the and formed a corppact.mass. Mr. Donaldson said there was only 20 per cent.- of tailnigs in the,centre of the rjver. The tailings lodged in the slack water at the sides, an! when a man saw the silt on the banks he thought it was in the middle bf the river as well. ( ■ . : Mr. McLean asked what provision had been made for navigation. Mr. Furkert. said the Department was taking 2,250,000 cubic yards o' spoil and also local dredging.. The work would be completed in about six years from the present time. If another dredge was obtained it would be pvt on the small shoals. Mr. Hor ( n asked what benefit had the river been to the mining. Would :t not be a fair thing to ask the mining to pay for the benefits they obtained for the river being a sludge channel. MYOPIC GOVERNMENT. Mr Banks said if the Government had hot granted . the company the right their , batteries would have been in'a better position than they are today. They perhaps would have deposited the tailings underground. They were quite prepared to pay for' any real harm that the tailings were doing. 'He claimed that 99 per cent, of the stuff , going down the river was pumice sand. Mr. Brenan asked if Mr. Furkert ..meant it would be six years before the lower portions of the river would be dredged. Mr. Furkert: No I mean the whole work. Mr; Brenan asked when the lower portions of- the river would be dredge ed. Mr Furkert: In about 18 months. NGAHINA WHARFAGE CHARGES. Mr. Brenan said that the dredge had been sent to a portion near where ,a bar was existent and icquired to be removed, yet the work require! had not been done. This portion was in the Waihou near the junction. Mr. Furkert said they would consider the matter, but. wpuld not promise anything. . Mr. Brenan : Is it proposed to move the navigation to the Ngahina wharf ? Mr. Furkert: Yes. ■ The wharf was built there for that purpose. - Mr. Brenan : I suppose we will have to pay wharfage charges.

Mr Furkert: Do you expect to get it for nothing ? Mr. Brenan : Yes, because we are getting the present wharf for nbthing. He thought a charge of 2s per ton on that wharf would not be fair. He asked if it was the intention of the Department to do any dredging in the Waiheu River from the Ohinemuri to the Puke bridge., Mr. Furkert: The Department is out to provide navigation to Paeroa and Te Aroha. We do not propose io do any navigating work in "the Ohinemiiri. If the Borbugh’fe drainage was interfered with the 'hiat’ter would be

attended to, Mr. Hill said that above the Puke there was an inlet into the present Puke wharf. He asked if it was hot reasonable to assume that when the navigation was done away with the inlet would fill up. Mr. Fprkert: No, it isn’t. Mr. Hill : But it is possible. DRAIN H. Mr, McLean: There was a lot of work going on which was not as it should, be. What did drain H cost, and why is it being put in ? ' Mr. Furkert said that banks hal been put. along that property and it was being put in to let the water out. It was pot put in yet. Mr. Keys understood that several references' had been made cP the si It which goes into the river. The silt was a large and important part of the scheme and had ultimately to be removed by somebody. He proposed that it be a strong recommendation that the taxing per ton be brought into force by Act of Parliament. The speaker continued that the question arises, who is responsible for silt in the river ? It was undoubtedly the mines. If the Ohinemuri was kept clean the damage would be minimised. He maintained that the Ohinemuri should be cleaned and kept normal. The problem then arises, who is to cope with the continuing deposits which come into the river ? If it was left indefinitely its cost would fall on the local bodies. Mr. Banks asked Mr. Keys why te wished to restore" the Ohinemuri—for navigation or drainage ? Mr. Keys : Fob drainage. Mr. Porritt said : 'the question was, what engineering'steps were the Department going to take with respect to the Ohinemuri, apd when ? Mr. Furkert said when the river was confined, the snags taken out, and the willows cleared, the silt would be easier cleared but. Mr. Keys; With regard to stopbanks above Tirohia, would there be an internal drain ? Mr. Furkert said if it was found necessary that would be so. ; PERENIKI CUT CONDEMNED.

Mr Buchanan.: Are the Government engineers in favour of the Pereqiki x cut, and if riot, why not, arid what" effect 'wbilldit have' on thri upper' ' reaches" o( the " river ? . / ' ' Mr Furkert: We'tire not'ih" favour' of the cut. It would tear awky Auchan amount of material that. a. num_..WrlriVould -be morec prejudiced than what they arq jnow. With a high velocity there would be a tremendous erosiO'n. • ■'■l ’■

iWalters' said : the : overflow down 'the AWaiti had been stopped arid the • flbw-"d3wn : the Wai hou had -been-in-' creased. He asked-'how was the* ; De/ 'partmerit going to 'CQpie' with 1 the ex-' :tra flow’in the-’Waihou?- ,, i;: '' :< cMr Furkert said a lot of the willows had been cleared out and’ the- re mainder were being cleared out. Also hbout 2,000,000 yards of sand was being taken out of the river.

Mr. Buchanan asked if th&. niki cut was put through, would; "not the current wash the silt alongxso that it would- go out to seg. ? Mr. Furkert said that once the silt got a mile or two below the Pereniki cut it would go out to sea. Mr Barrett asked if the Department .could erect a stop-bank on private land without any notification to the owner?

Mr, Furkert said the Government had the legal right to do it, but as jt matter of courtesy they would notify the owner. Compensation must be paid when a claim was made by the owner.

Mr. Barrett said a stop-bank hal been erected on the side sf the river 'on his-property without his consent. Mr. Mays explained that Mr Barrett had been notified. Mr. Barrett said that the bank hal been erected too far inland. NAVIGATION. Mr. Brenan said ho was dissatisfied with' navigation.. During the past 10 yeors nothing had- been done with the lower reaches of the Waihou River The steamers were being driven away from their present landing. Another wharf which they did not require was being givep them, and landing fees charged. On behalf of the people of Paeroa he expressed this dissatisfaction, and maintained that dredging work should be done.

Mr, Porritt said this had twicb come before the Reference Board and representations made to the Government. It had been stated that the fixing of a scale of charges was too high, ap'd until the. scheme was tn operation a suggestion was made that the charges be reduced. Mr. Furkert maintained that who get goods over the wharf should bear the charges.

Mr. Leah : Has anybody expressed disapproval of the present, wharf ? Mr. Furkert: Not that I know of, but it's the difficulty in getting to it. Mr. Silcock said the Department had gone to an expense in fitting up the lower wharf. He asked how did the Department, intend to keep the river open to their whartf. Mr. Furkert: We’ll manage that all right. Mr. Silcock : Why not keep the present wharf open ? Mr. Furkert: It’s a waste of public money. Mr. Donaldson said the wharf may be part and parcel o,f the general scheme. He asked the Department not. to assess any charges until the general scheme was completed. He thought it unfair that users of the shipping should- have to pay for wharfage dups and the impiovement scheme as well, seeing that the wliar. and equipment was part of- the scheme. Mr. R. Coulter supported. He also

submitted that those who were expected to pay should have a say as to the cost of the scheme ; also, taxation and representation were interwoven.

Mr. Furkert said that if the Ngahina wharf had not been built for ten years later, it would have been in time, but the “fierce evidence” Of the 1910 Commission about the jeopardisation of navigation forced on the con- ’ structioh.

Mr. Biichanan stressed the point that it was very desirjfble that thenavigation of the Ohinemuri up as far as the town should be preserved. When the mines were worked out the Ohinemuri would be a valuable navigation Way. The mining companies and Wa'ihi Borough had to pay heavily fjor remedying the damage done, and he maintained that this primary object should be fulfilled. (Applause.) . TAXATION AND WHARF DUES. ,■ Mr. Hill thought that about 50,000 acres of Awaiti land should be charged tor the cost of improvements. He wanted to know if the settlers were going to have representation in allocating the cost. Mr. Furkert replied that t(iere would be representation through the local bodies. £300,000 levy on the Government for 27,000 acres—riot 60,000—was a good solid sum, The benefit was at the rate of from £2O to 10s per acre, on the evidence of Mr J. B. Thompson, Chief Drainage Engineer. .Mr. Donaldson: But Mr Thompson’s evidence was given with great caution. ■Mr Fudkert: And so was the evidence from Waihi Borough. (Laughter.) In answer to Mr. Coulter, Mr. Furkert said that the lands were flooded now, but. the shipping did get up; the shipping was not as important at the present time as was the protection of thousands of acres of good agricultural land. If tihe Department was allowed to employ the necessary number of men> the rivqr could be kept epen to Te Aroha for navigation during the coming summer. Mr. Brenan wanted to know if the wharfage dues at Ngahina- could be lifted and a berthage fee imposed instead. ,

-Mr/? FurkertTh6 decision tc charge Wah made by 'the Government before jny time, and the Charges fixed are low ; it is not- a question for me to-’decide. ’ Tn answer to Mr. Silcock, Mr. Furkert said the wharf charges were credited to the cost of the improvement scheme. The Government had the right to charge half rates for all goods landed firom the river, whether at Ngahina' or elsewhere. Mr. Silcock: Only for 900 yards above br below the Ngahina wharf. Mr. Furkert: Anywhere in the river district/ In answer to Mr. Banks, Mr. Furikertisaid the whhr£ was used only by a percentage of the people, and as its .cost was in the scheme, a charge was; 'made in order to 'give, back to thei whole of the people‘some of the credit 'against cost. , . ... ’'‘'Mr. Coulter/did'further battle, on behalf of navigation, and wanted a definite promise qty betterment, f Mr. Furkert: I repeat that- it is. the policy of the Department to keep the . river open, bpt stpp-bankipg. gomes' first,/Which wqs automatically doing .good.for navigabion, which was sec- ' qpd to protection by '.banking,, but was not merely .‘‘also started.” ‘ Some amusement was caused oy tbs' reading of Mr.- Thompson’s evidence that, the Crown land should be loaded from 10s to £3 per acre, and yet in his report he said some of the land would benefit to the extent of '£l9.

<■ Mr. Hill: And that unclaimed land is not worth, twopence an acne now, and frill net be until the Department’s scheme' is carried out.

Mr. Buchanan said the Commission reckoned that when the lands were sold they would still be liable for an improvement nate. Mr.’ -Furkert: The land would be loaded with 1 only a portion of the cost of improvement, leaving a balance due flor taxation.

Mr. Walters: If lands enhanced by £l9 were loaded with £lO per acre, there would be a f;air, margin left for rating purposes.

Mr. Wynyard pointed out that the damage caused by the Government permitting the rivers to become sludge«chahnels should be takep into .consideration, and also the value of the developments to the nation. In answer th Mr. McLean, Mr. Furkert said he would forward detailed information as to the cost of the vari - ous portions of the scheme. Mr. H. M. Wynyard proposed of thanks to Mr. Furkert, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Mays for coming alopg to give the desired information. Mr. Donaldson seconded, stating that the exchange of views would result in benefit to all parties.—‘Carried with applause.