GISBORNE HARBOR BOARD.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 143, 29 May 1884, Page 2

GISBORNE HARBOR BOARD.

The following is the Engineer’s Report which |Was read at the last meeting of the Harbor Board, but which we were unable to publish yesterday :— Harrowing at the Wharf,— This so far has not been successful, the bed of the river turning out to be harder than was anticipated, another trial will be made to-morrow, when it is to be hoped that better results will be obtained. Floating Breakwater,— Some time ago, at the request of a member of the Board, I wrote to a friend in England for particulars of the floating breakwater—a model of which was shown at the Fisheries Exhibition in London. These I have now received and submit for your information. The invention appears ingenious, but it has not yet been practically tested. It would not in any case be suitable to Gisborne, where we want quay accommodation —not a harbor of refuge. 2»’ore«/iore.—Having in view the proposals which have been made at the late meetings of the Board, which contemplate cutting up and leasing the foreshore along Read’s Quay, I venture to submit that such a course would be objectionable from an engineering point of view. The navigable part of the river, (at any rate up to the junction of the Waimata and Taruheru) ought to be treated on some uniform plan with a view to improving and straightening the channel. This could bo done by the Board, but probably not by a number of private individuals. After the necessary works had been executed (the chief of which would probably be a breastwork and a parallel training wall), the reclaimed land below the present highwater mark, not required by the Board might be let as suggested. But at present the foreshore along Read’s Quay is of little value as a means of access to the river, except where (as near Common, Shelton & Co.’s store) the navigable channel is on the town side.

Salient point at Common, Shelton cO Co.'s.— The removal of this point ought to be included in any scheme of river improvement, and such being the case, I do not think that any new permanent works on the point should be sanctioned.