PATEA HARBOUR.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1010, 16 March 1883, Page 2

PATEA HARBOUR.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sib,—l have been waiting patiently to see action of the Patea Harbour Board in reference to the report of their consulting Engineer, Mr Thomson. We now sea they have all but unanimously accepted it, and by its acceptance wo are to understand they propose to carry out his recommendations, viz., the construction of the west pier for 300 or 500 feet at a cost of £8844 for the first 300 feet or £21,153 for the first 500 feet. Mr Thomson has, to reduce the apparent cost, set off the selling value of the plant, but no practical man will presume to think that plant which cost originally £3OOO, will depreciate in value only £456 after using it for two years, especially on harbour works. We may therefore look upon the selling value of the plant as a purely speculative line, and we may safely, in studying ways and means, estimate the costs of works as follows :

For the first 300 ft. of west pier, £8844 „ „ „ 500 ft. „ „ „ 21,153 „ „ Inner or training wall 6000 The Harbour Board will, no doubt, have to come before the ratepayers with this new recommendation of Mr Thomson’s, and I think it becomes every thinking ratepayer, indeed every person who has the slightest desire to see Patea harbour carried to a successful issue, to acquaint himself as far as possible with the minutest details which will be likely to affect the ultimate supcess of the harbour, and to impartially judge and lend his assistance in proportion to the conception he forms as to the practicability, or advisability of tbe proposed scliemea o£ carrying out, the works, whatever they may be. For my part, I most decidedly take exception to the recommendation of Mr Thomson, and as briefly as posible shall explain why. The west pier, together with the root and depbt, measure in all about 1200 feet. The first part of this pier, or root and depot, stands" on an angle of about 60deg. from the east, or now partially constructed pier, but if carried to its completion, 1200 feet, it would end parallel with the east pier when both are finished, its parallel having been accomplished by the insertion of a curve 370 feet from the commencement of the pier proper. When both east and west piers are completed there would be a distance of 220 feet between the two piers, inducing, according to Sir John Goode’s calculation, a velocity of 2 miles per hour at half ebb, under ordinary circumstances, through an opening of this size. Sir John Goode, in his report on Patea Harbour, says under the head of “ Recommendations',” “ The governing principles to be kept in view in designing an improved entrance for the Patea river are: First, to fix the position of the channel, so that the whole of the tidal and fresh waters may run continuously through a properly proportioned outfall ; Second, to carry the works well seaward so as to remove the outfall as far as practicable from the disturbing action of the waves on the sand bottom, which action takes place to the fullest extent at the beach line, and diminishes as the depth of water increases ; Third, to modify the direction of the channel or sailing course, so that vessels entering would not be checked by a foul wind till well within the river, or driven leeward by surf as formerly.” The latter or third part of the recommendation has, to a certain extent, been carried out by the already executed work. The carrying out* of Mir Thomson’s recommendation at a cost of £21,000 would leave us with an entrance to our river approximately 700 feet wide, measured at right angles from the present eastern pier, and I think all of us who took any notice of the physical condition of the river about the time the Wakatu met With her mishaps, saw plainly what we wanted was more width, or in other words the sandspit which was forming inside the river cut away so that a vessel coming in could steer with safety more to the north-west. At that particular time, and many times since, the danger has been this :—The channel, which was narrowed by the encroaching sand compelled the mariner to “ hug ” the present breakwater, otherwise his vessel was in danger of running bn the north sandspit and probably fetching up where the s.s. Patea did. The other danger which exists is if he “ hugs ” the breakwater he is in constant danger of. being ruthlessly smashed against the wall (as was the case of the Wakatu) by the heavy north-western seas. The sands which continually form these spits are brought in principally by the action of the seas from the north-west. If we construct a pier of (say we take Mr Thomson’s largest scheme) 500 feet, we are nowhere near the termination of the sand- on the beach, and from what I can see we shall still have thesandspitsforming both inside and outside the river for these reasons On the inside because we have a distance of 700 feet, or 480 feet in addition to the limit to which Sir J, Goode wishes to confine the river, and consequently the same velocity could not be attained as though the river was confined to its proper limit, viz,, 220 feet;

therefore the,tidal and fresh waters would not run continuously through a properly proportioned (outfall, but run ad libitum through 700 feet of an opening, with its proportionate diminution of scouring force. But in addition to the loss of force we have 620 feet (allowing the channel of the river to be 80 feet wide ordinarily) through which the sands from the N.W. seas (which prevail about 9 months in the year) will still pour in upon us, and as the proposed work would not extend far enough into the surf to reach deep water, I can see nothing, to prevent the sand spits forming outside as they do now. I will acknowledge that could.the whole of the west pier be carried to its completion (1200 feet), I could then see plainly the desired result could be achieved, but as the west pier would cost, according to Sir John Coode, £80,790 completed ; we must, 1 think, for the time being at least turn our attention to some more modified plan of expenditure. Mr Thomson in his letter to the Mail of October, 27th, says “ small improvements could be made at a cost of £4OOO by building the inner training wall parallel to these present pier on the town side of the river. Plans and specifications were prepared for this work some years ago.” In the same letter be says, “ What is really wanted is 6 or 700 feet of the west pier ; a shorter length would not be advisable on account of expensive plant,” He now comes forward and lecommends us to undertake 300 feet or 500 feet of the west pier, and makes no reference as to the advisability or not of constructing the guide pier. It seems very inconsistent in one letter to consider it inadvisable to construct nothing less than 700 feet, and then in his official report recommend the construction of 300 feet; and it is very evident to my mind that Mr Thomson must at some time have entertained the idea of the guide pier being the most practical work to proceed with, or why those plans, &c., prepared by himself, and more than that, the order in Council obtained ior the execution of the work, which fact alone shows that the undertaking of the struction of the guide pier was of by the Marine Engineer at that together with the local body of Harbour Board and their Engineer (Mr Thomson). When we look at the relative cost of each undertaking, I think we cannot but conclude but the small improvement is the proper scheme ; and although Mr Thomson says the improvement would be small ( quod erat demonstrandum ) I am decidedly of opinion that the improvement would far exceed our. expectations, as in the case of the present work. For what is more feasible than if the river is confined to its proper limit, the velocity (as computed by the greatest Marine Engineer of the day) attained, we shall have a constant well-directed force playing continually on the sandspit on the outside, with no possible chance of the sandspit forming inside the two walls, and 220 feet for vessels to move in. The cost of the one work would be £4OOO, or say we allow £6OOO, as it would probably be considered advisable to extend the already constructed pier some distance seaward. The cost of the other is £21,153, and in this case we should again require the services of an Engineer at £SOO per year, as before, and. that for two or three years. In the case of the minor work, as the plans, &c., are prepared, all that would be required would he an honest Inspector at £IBO per annum, with a. consulting Engineer to come up occasionally. The raising of £4OOO or even £6OOO would, at the present time, not be a veiy difficult matter, if, as Mr Symes justly, remarked at the last meeting of the Board , the settlers are approached properly. But one thing seems certain to my mind, and it is that ratepayers will not lend their voices, or give their votes to a scheme involving the expenditure of £21,153, which most of them know to be practically of no more present utility than the expenditure of £6OOO. If this minor work is done, we can, with the*anticipated increase of revenue, which Mr Gibson hopefully looks forward to, borrow sufficient to proceed with the west pier. There seems to be an idea prevailing amongst some of the more ancient members of the Board that we cannot commence until the railway is open to Hawera ; that means about 3 years. I should most certainly say, that as some of the members; of the present Board who were members of the former (and who. so effectually froze off the Hawera patronage of. this, port by increasing wharfage and putting on exorbitant storage) ought to endeavour to retrieve their reputations by not waiting for the railway, but commence at opgfe if possible, so that * when the way is open the harbour - be open too, and Hawera and surrounding district persuaded by the most forcible means known, that of the saving of £ s d, to again extend its patronage to. this port, as it most certainly will if it is properly managed. If nothing can bedone until the railway is open, and according to Mr Thomson, it will' take two years to construct the harbour works which would mean about 5 years in all, then the acceptance of Mr Thomson’s report was very premature.; But it is not for us to look at the gloomy aspect of affairs. It is evident in Mr Symes the Harbour Board has attractive number, and one who will reflect credit upon those who have chosenhira to represent them, and if the other gentlemen do i not “toe the mark” the ratepayers must ask them to resign in favour of some who will. In the meantime I would advise all. interested'in the pushing forward ofharbour works to procure (price 2s) Sir John Coode reports on New Zealand harbours in which will be found an exhaustive report on Patea Harbour, and by a careful perusal of it together with the plans which are attached, they cab very readily form an intelligent idea of the past, present, and future conditions and requirements of our harbour. —I am &c., F. G. Mace.