REFERENCE BOARD.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4434, 30 June 1922, Page 4

REFERENCE BOARD.

MONTHLY MEETING. .The monthly meeting of the Thames Valley Drainage Reference Board was held in the County Chambers on Wednesday, and was presided over by the president, Mr E. W. Pprritt, represent the Paeroa Chamber of Commerce. There were also present, Messrs.. J. W.. Silcock, Northern Steamship Co.; W. K. McLean, Kerepeehi Farmers’' Union; V. Gibbs, Thames Harbour Board ; G. Buchan-f an, Dairy Co.; W. D. Keys, TirohiiiRotokohu ' Ratepayers’ Association ; B. Edwards, Paeroa Borough Council; W. F. Johnstone, Ohinemuri County Council. A number of apologies were received ; the up-country members had ’phoned the president regretting their inability to attend. ASSISTANCE SOUGHT. A petition signed by Ralph Stock, J. T, Brown, H. Henton, R. J. C. Wigh!, and J. Dean was placed before the Board. It brought under the notice of the Board the serious position they found themselves in as regards the drainage of 1 their farms. The outfall from the main drain entering the river at the Puke floodgate is being rendered useless owing to the river silting up at that point, and if; not immediately dredged the next flood will probably render use--less some of the best land in close proximity to Paeroa,. Before the channel was allowed to silt up any water finding its way on to the land was completely gone in two or three days. During this year the land has been under water for periods of from, ten to twenty days on every flood ac~ casion. and the grass on some ofi the land near the flood-gates has been, completely destroyed, andi most of It is rapidly going back to rushes. This: is a serious matter to the settlers, and if some relief is 'not immediately, given will result in serious loss to all-’ in the area draining to the pointmentioned. They asked the Board’s 'assistance in their efforts to have the river at once dredged at this outfall and in impressing upon the Public Works Department the extreme urgency of the matter.

The president said that this referred to the 3-barre.l flood-gate. Mr, Silcock said that the chief obstruction was to the entrance of the outlet where the Public Works Department built a groyne to the detri-r ment of the drainage and navigation. He thought that the .Board should: urge upon the Public Works Department to clear the entrance. Mr. Porritt said that the settlers had told him that the flood-gate would; be useless unless the channel was> cleared. If the Ohinemuri River was going to be allowed to silt up it was. going to have a much wider influence than simply stopping the drainage of the area complained of. Other creeks, and also the Paeroa drainage, would, be seriously affected. Mr. Silcock pointed out that the Department had recently ejected a. coal hopper and sheds on the dead; end at the Ohinemuri River. Mr. Buchanan said it seemed; to» him that the policy of the board was to look after the old settlers. The Public Works Department had been, looking after the settlers on the upper reaches, but not on the I'ower reaches. It was an absolute shame, he thought, and. the Board should protest. He> moved: “That, this Board protestsagainst the inadequate protection of’ the settlers’ lands in the vicinity of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers, which lands were, previous to the; erection of stop-banks, free from flood, water in the course of two or three days, but are now subject to flood water remaining two or three; weeks, and requests that adequate protection be immediately given to | these lands.’’ This was seconded by Mr. W. F. Johnstone, and after discussion was) carried. It was decided that a copy of the resolution, and also the report of the conference with the Public Worksengineers, be sent to the Minister, ef Public Works. Mr. Porritt moved that the petition be sent to the Minister of Public Works, and a copy to the assistant engineer, Mr. May, with a request to give the matter urgent attention. Mr. Silcock thought that the officers o,f the Department from the Chief; Engineer down were fully aware of what was required to be done. Mr. Buchanan seconded the motion, which was carried. SHIPPING COMPANY’S POSITION. The Northern Steamship Company, wrote stating that it had been approached by the Public Works Department for the company to abandon the present wharf site and shift to the Ngahina wharf, and stated that no doubt the Board is awrtre that the Order-in-C'ouncil under which, this wharf is governed gives the power to

the Public Works Department to collect 2s per ton wharfage on goods, half rates for transhipment, and berthage on steamers. A suggestion has come from the Department to reduce these charges as lar as the cargo is concerned, by 50 per cent. Up to the present time the Paeroa. and Waihi people who have been shipipng by this company’s steamers, have received their cargo free of all wharfage charges. The concluding -part of the letter said that should the company be forced to abandon its present wharf and proceed to the Ngahina wharf, it will mean that the Department will collect wharfage on goods and charge berthage on steamers. It had previously told the Department that it would be prepared to shift down to the lower wharf- provided it was under similar conditions as at its present w.harf, and that there should be no wharfage charged to consignees of cargo. It may mean that it will be forced to go to the lower wharf, and would, therefore, like to have the opinion of the Drainage Reference Board upon this mat-, ter. Mr. Silcock said that he had recently been called to Auckland on. the matter, and had advised the manager to take no action until the matter was placed before the Board, chiefly owing to wharfage dues that the Paeroa and Waihi people would have to pay. He estimated that it would cost from £750 to £BOO. Another matter w.as that, the present approach to the Ngahina wharf would be taken away. When this was done the Ngahina wharf would be practically .an islahd. The wharf is situated about 400 yards from the stop bank, and. when the ston-bank was coinpleted the volume of water would be such; that they would have to consider if it would be safe for the landing of cargo. The wharl was in the wrong position, and was 10 years in advance qf the requirements. Flood water had been eight inches in the new wharf, and therefore it was not safe for storage of cargo. To be able to get to the wharf in flood time they would have to build a bridge from the stop-bank to the wharf. In speaking to the To Aroha Borough representative , he said they would like, the matter discussed with those who were vitally concerned. Mr. Porritt said that Mr. Donaldson said that they would be aganist the proposal if it was, going to add to the cost of freighting goods. Mr. E. Edwards said that the ratepayers would not only have to pay the rates on the Improvement Scheme bu.t double rates by paying wharfage dues. The cost of clearing out the river was not as big a thing as the cost of wharfage would be, and he thought that the Department should clear out the river. He moved : “That this meeting enter a protest to the Public Works Department strongly objecting id the removal of the present head of navigation further, from Paeroa, as requested by the Public Works Department to the Northern Steamship Company, and that the Public Works Department be urgently requested to dredge the entrance of the Ohinemuri River to the present wharf and restore tlie channel to its previous state, so that it will he open for navigation.” Mr. Keys thought that the engineer who put up the Ngahina wharf had forgotten to make provision for access. to the wharf in flood time, and foe would like to suggest that the discussion of the matter be deferred until all the parties affected could meet and discuss it fully. Mr, Johnstone said that, he was not in favour of the resolution. The cost of opening the bridge at the present time was borne by the Ohinemuri and Hauraki Plains County Councils. This cost his council £6O a year; this cost should be paid by others, and at present it was not an equitable arrangement. Mr. Silcock said that if the company shifted down to the Ngahina wharf there would have to lie somebody in charge </ the bridge, as scows were continually passing up the river. The bridge would not be closed. If the opening of the bridge was wholly for his company, and they remained at the present wharf, the company would be willing, he felt sure, to see to the opening of the bridge at their own cost. Mr, Buchanan seconded Mr. Edwards’ motion, firstly, because the Ngahina wharf was isolated ; 'secondly, it was unsafe owing to the likelihood of flooding, and thirdly, the posit'on of goods in the wharf was insecure. Another reason, he considered, was that as a reference board they should endeavour to restore navigation to the town itself, as in former days. The town of Paeroa in a short while was bound to be of considerable importance as a distributing centre. There should be a strenuous opposition to any bridge being closed. At this stage the meeting jvent into committee ahd on resuming passed the resolution,

COST OF STOP-BANKS. Mr. W. D. Keys said that when Mr. Furkert was in Paeroa at the conference he stated that th,e Department would be pleased to supply the cost of the various stop-banks, and he moved : “That the Department be asked to supply the actual cost in the aggregate and also per yard pf all stopbanks erected on .the Waitoou below the Ngahina bridge, and also the total cost and cost per yard on the stop-bank on the right bank of the river from the Criterion to the Puke.” This was seconded by Mr. W. P. Johnstone. ' Mr. Porritt said that this information had already been promised, and also a copy of the figures the engineers, had at the conference, but they had not yet come to hand. The motion was carried, and it was resolved to write stating that .the other information had not yet come to hand. DREDGING THE RIVER. Mr. Buchanan said that th,e Board should not let Mr. Furkert’s statement with reference, to dredging the river go without some comment fr,om the Board. The statement referred to was as follows: "Mr. Keys: ‘Was it not part of the scheme to dredge the Ohinemuri River ?’ "Mr. Furkert: ‘lt was not proposed to improve the river, and it was not proposed to restore navigation in the river, and, secondly, they did not. think dredging necessary. Clearing up the snags in the river and banking the river will make the floods run more fast and carry debris out to the sea. He did not think the river would fill up, and they would not have to go on putting up stop-banks ad infinitum.’ ” A Voice: How does that state'hient coincide with a previous one, namely: “Mr. Furkert said the mining tailings had a tendency to cement at the bottom of the river and the velocity of the water cannot shift them.” As a reference board, said Mr. Buchanan, they should take action, as the question pf a navigable river betotally destroyed was a serious matter. Any work done was simply to improve the Waihou, and not the Ohinemuri River. At the present time there were mountains of silt at the Junction, and also at Snodgrass’. This was proving that the river would be as full of tailings as it was before the Extraction Company started work. There were also sonic acres of silt along the banks. He moved: "That this Board, views with alarm the very large accumulation" of silt at the old junction of the Waihou and Ohinemuri rivers, apd also on the small island immediately below Nethierton, and at Cryer’s landing, and that the Public Works Department. be asked to make the rembval of these accumulations a matter of urgency. Seconded by Mr. Silcock and carried.”

BOARD TO VIEW THE RIVER. Mr. Buchanan moved that the Board meet on this day four weeks, and that the Public Works Department be asked to place its launch at the disposal of the Board to make an inspection of the river from Wharepoa to Paeroa in company with the Public Works officers. Mr. Silcock, in seconding the proposition, said that the shelving at Cryer’s landing was only a fore* runner of many more that would come, It was causing land to flood that had not previously been flooded. The motion was carried..