THE SHANNON BRIDGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2592, 12 June 1923, Page 4

THE SHANNON BRIDGE.

CONFERENCE OF LOCAL BODY DELEGATES. ENGINEERS TO REPORT. A meeting - of local bodies interested in the Shannon bridge, convened by the Horowhenua County, the controlling body, was held at Shannon on Friday. Those present were: Messrs Field and Linklater, M.’sP., Sir James Wilson, chairman.of the Manawatu County Council, Mi’ G. A. Monk, chairman of the Horowhenua County Council, Mr R. T. Bell, chairr*an of the Manawatu-Oroua River Board, Mr J. Liggins, chairman of the Makerua Drainage Board, Mr Taylor, chairman of the Buckley Drainage Board, Mr W. Murdoch, Mayor of Shannon, Mr J. Chrystall, Mayor of Foxton, Mr F. W. Furkert, Engineeivin-Charge of Public Works, Messrs Dinnie and. Anderson, Engineers of the Mangahao Electric Power scheme and the engineers of the different local bodies. Mr Murdtfck - was voted to the chair and called upon Mr Monk, chairman of the Horowhenua County Council to explain the objects of the conference.

Mr Monk on rising, said he would like to say at the .outset that the object the Horowhenua County Council had in view in calling the present meeting was not that of shirking their responsibilities. This bridge however, was a big question and of direct interest to the Horowhenua and Manawatu Counties and to the Foxton and Shannon Boroughs. The other bodies were not, directly interested, perhaps, but the works being carried out by them were to a great extent responsible for the present condition of things. Dealing first with the Makerua Drainage scheme, lie admitted that this body had no legal responsibility but as the confining of the water by the stop-banks caused a lot more water to run in the river during a flood, it imposed a strain on the bridge which the structure was not built to stand: The Horowhenua County Council felt that something should be done to protect the bridge but were forced to realise that that protective work might not be of much use owing to the banking scheme. They had thought that if they could get the different local bodies and the Public AVorks, together with the Makerua Drainage Board and Manawatu River Board together, some solution of the problem might be found. They thought that the best time to at-

tack the question was now and not to wait until the damage was done. ■He had no desire to cast responsibility on to any particular body and considered that the best thing to do was for the local bodies present to allow their engineers to go into the matter and bring down a report as to the best method of dealing with the question. After that the question of means could be gone into. The reason for bringing the Public AA T orks into the matter was that if the bridge were carried away they would have to go to the Public \\ r orks for money to rebuild. It was in the interests of all concerned to protect what they had and obviate this. The object of the conference was to seek advice as to the best means of proceeding and the engineers were the best men to give opinions and he would suggest that each local body give its engineer permission to go into the matter with the Public AVorks Department. Mr J. Chrystall stressed the importance of the bridge. Some people had taken exception to remarks he had made about the bridge being washed out to sea, but he did not think he had over-stated' the case. He did not agree with Mr Monk

that the Engineers of the different local bodies should be left to go into the question.-'ln Mr Furkert they had the best engineer in the Public Works and he would suggest that it bo left to him to make a report. The erosion was an act of God and they should approach the Public Work's for a pound for pound subsidy. He wished to say in conclusion that while adverse criticism had

been levelled 1 against the Horowhenua County Council, the Foxton Borough desired to work wholeheartedly to protect, the bridge. Mr' Monk said as far as the Manawatu River Board was concerned they knew that they were making their banks as high as the bridge, which meant that in flood time, if the banks did not go, the bridge must. Mr Jickell, engineer for the Makerua drainage scheme, explained that the stop banks to be built would be several feet below the bridge. The work had been started at Mr Aitken’s home-stead at Linton, and would follow the Manawafu river as far as the Otauru stream, which would also be' banked for a certain distance. About 23 miles of bank had been;constructed up to date.

Mr Barber- asked- if Mr Jickell could give any idea as to whether the area between banks was sufficient to carry flood waters. Mr Jickell said that he did not know. Inolaying out the scheme thatuhad-not' been "their concern. Mr Monk: l T> would' like to know ones thing.’" Did J the Makerua people consider thCquestioil of what would happemto l the' Shahtfoii bridge when they laid l but the scheme? Mr Jickell: Their chief concern was to protect their property. Mr R.T. Bell said he would like to explain why this Board was formed;*- The ■Mdkeriia people found themselves faced'with 1 the necessity of bringing'dhls -country into cultivatioiY’owing ‘to-the ravages of the

yellow leaf, which was destroying the flax. Wjhen they had started to bank, the settlers on the other side of the river took exception to the work and waited on the Minister about it. They in turn, had waited on'’the Minister, who had advised them to form a Board in order to protect themselves. About 70,000 acres was affected and possibly when the scheme was completed the matter of the Shannon bridge might appear in a different light from now. The flood water might be relieved further up and protective works might not be needed. At the same time he realised the importance of the Shannon bridge which was the only connection between Shannon and Foxton, and desired as much as anyone that it should lie preserved. Mr Chrystall moved that the question of the Shannon bridge protective work be left in the hands of Mr Furkert. Mr AA'. Carter seconded the motion.

Mr Furkert protested that the motion did not get the meet ing much further ahead. He understood this meeting had been called to go into the question of who should pay for the work that it would be necessary to do. Also what was the River Board going to do? It was understood that the Government would do its part, hut if he were to undertake to make this report, (lie Government would probably tell him he had no right to do it and had other work to do. Mr Carter had touched the head of the question when he had said that the drainage scheme was the controlling factor in the situation. It was certain that the Shannon bridge with a 700 feet span could not carry the water that it took 1,100 feet to carry at Longburn.

Mr Chrystall expressed his willingness to alter his motion to the effect that Mr Furkert consult with the other engineers on the matter. Mr J. Liggins said he would like the meeting to know that the other side of the river had been hanked for years and Makerua had been merely a spillway for flood waters. The time had come when they could not stand it any longer. He thought that unless the bridge was made much wider and some of the angle above taken out, that it must go. and he considered that Makerua had done good work in forcing the local bodies to recognise this.

Sir James AVilson admitted that the river on the Manawatu side had been banked. They were in the same position there as were the Makerua property owners and had to protect themselves. When the Manawatu County had banked the road they knew it was only a makeshift, and lie would like to know what was the solution of the difficulty.

Mr Furkert said that if he were to go into the question as suggested lie would be taking over the work of Air Hav, who was engaged to look after tlie interests of the settlers along the banks. He had neither the desire nor the time to do this.

Mr Monk explained that the idea of calling the conference was the immediate protection o’f the bridge a.nd also the question of means. He had said this work was necessary, but lie thought protection of all the people along the river. He would like to know from the other bodies whether their engineers could meet.

Sir James Wilson asked if Mr Furkert could let the meeting know what preliminary work would be required. Would soundings be necessary? Mr Furkert explained that that would not be required. He asked if the meeting was going to consider who was going to bear the cost of this work. Mr Monk said that as far as finance was concerned, if Mr Furkert brought down estimates for five or six thousand pounds he did not know where it was going to be got. The local bodies did not have it. (Laughter). The motion was then put and Carrie*.

Mr Chrystall suggested that a means of relieving the pressure at the bridge would be to keep the bank back on the Shannon side and allow the water to go over there. Mr Furkert supported the idea, saving that if a spillway were provided where a certain amount of country could be flooded, it would be an advantage, and he asked what would be the attitude of the County Councils towards such an idea.

After some further general discussion as to the practicability of such a scheme it was decided that nothing further could be done until the Engineers’ report was obtained. Such report to be presented within one month.