THE SHANNON BRIDGE.

Shannon News, 12 June 1923, Page 2

THE SHANNON BRIDGE.

CONFERENCE CONSIDERS RIVER MENACE. ENGINEERS TO REPORT. A meeting of local bodies interested in the Manawatu bridge at Shannon was held in the Parish Hall, Shannon, on Friday, representatives of the Horowhenua County Council, convenors of the meeting, the Manawatu County Council, Shannon and Foxton Boroughs, the Manawatu-Oroua River Board, and the Makerua and Buckley Drainage Boards attending and the Shannon and Foxton Borough Councils.

Amongst those present were Messrs Field aqd Linklater, M.’sP., Sir James Wilson, chairman of the Manawatu County Council, Mr G. A. Monk, chairman of the Horowhenua County Council, Mr R. T. Ball, chairman 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. F-urkert, Engineer-in-Cha.rge of Public Works, /Messrs Dinnie and Anderson, Engineers of. the Mangahao Electric Power scheme, and the engineers of the different local bodies. Mr W. Murdoch" was voted to the chair, and in opening the meeting said that the conference had been called to go into a matter of grave concern to all the bodies represented. There did not appear to be any doubt thatif something was not done soon, the Shannon bridge would be swept away. He did not intend to say anything about what should be done —there were engineers present who- could give much more definite information than could a layman. Mr Monk, the chairman of the Horowhenua County Council, wa!s present and would explain the reason for calling the meeting. 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 ai big question and of direct interest to ibe Horowhenua and Ma.na,watu 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, he admitted- /that this body had no legal responsibility, hut as the confining of the water by the stop-banks caused -a lot more water to ruri in the river during a flood, it imposed ai 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 Works together with the Makerua and Drainage Board and Manawatu River Board together, some solution of the problem might, be found. They thought that toe best time to attack the- question was now, and not to wait until the damage was done. He had no desire to cast responsibility on to- any particutoir 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 /a<s to the best means of dealing with the question. After that the question of means could be gono into. The reason for bringing the Public Works into the matter was that if the -bridge were carried away, they would have to go to the Public Works for money to rebuild. It was in the interests of all concerned to protect whajt they had. and obviate this. There was one pomt he would like to- mention: Some of the bodies present were represented more fully than others, and while he was very pleased at their being present and would be glad to hear anything they might have to -say, be would suggest that if it came to a vote, each body should have equal representation. They were here to-day 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 lodal body give its engineer permission:' to go into the matter with the PußLic Works Department. Mr J. Chrystall said that this question of the bridge was a very important one. Some of those present were 'not be awar© just how important was. Some people had taken exception to remarks he had made about toe 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. In Mr Furkert they had the best engineer in the Public Works and he would suggest that it be left to'him to make a report. The erosion was an act of God and :they should ' approach the Public Works for a pound for pound subsidy He wished to say in conclusion tout while adverse criticism had been levelled -against the Horowhenua County, the Foxton Borough desired to- work wholeheartedly to protect the bridge. (Applause). , Mr Monk said he would like to mention one point. As far as the Makeruascheme was concerned,, they did not know how far this was going. He thought the representatives of that body might speak freely and give the meeting some idea of their 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 m flood time, if the banks did not go ! , the bridges must.

Mr Jickeil, 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 1 at Mr Aitken’s homestead at Linton, and would follow the Manawatu river as far as the Otauru stream, which would also be hanked for a certain distance. About 23 miles of bank had been constructed up to date'. , , ~ Mr Barber asked if Mr Jickeil could

give any idea as to whether ihe area netween banks was sufficient to carry flood waters.. Mr Jickell said that he did not know. In laying out the scheme that had not been their concern. Mr Monk: I would like to know one thing. Did the Makerua people consider the question of what would happen to the Shannon bridge when they laid out the scheme? Mr Jickell: Their chief concern was to protect their property. Mr W. Carter (Shannon Borough Council) said everything depended on what the River Board proposed to do. If the Makerua works held- it would mlgan that the other -side of the river "would be swept fairly clean. Evan now thousands of acres which formerly were feet deep under water during floods'were fairly dry, and-if they were going. to; remain so. well the water would have to .go somewhere. Mr R. T. Bell said he would like to , explain why this Board was formed. The Makerua people found theffiselves faced with the necessity df bringing this country into cultivation owing to. the ravages of the yellow-leaf, which was destroying the flax. When they bad started to bank,’the .settlers on the other side of the; river took exception to the work -and waited on the Minister about it. TJiey in turn had. waited on the Minister, who had advised them to forma Board in to protect themselves. About 70,000 acres was affected and- possibly 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 . betweien Shannon and Foxton, andde si reel as much as anyone that it should be preserved. ' > '. A;. Mr Monk said, he; wished Mr Bell - to understand-that he had nothing to say against the Makerua people "for nromctitfg their land. He was very. interested To hear what they were (Joint* but!at the same time if this work did not come into; operation for -aiiother 12 months/ the bridge might in the meantime have gone out to sea. Mr Chrystall moved that the question of the' Shannon bridge protective ' work be left in the hands of Mr Furkert. Speaking to the motion he said v that he understood that some engineers did not consider that protective no idea of taking up the question of the ‘ that by moving as he had done, they would get a conference of engineer* and get something done. When the question of cost arose he thought the bodies interested would be quite willing to pay their quota. Mr W.' Carter seconded the motion. Mr Furkert protested that the motion did not get the meeting 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 itg part, but if be were to undertake to make this report, the Government would probably tell him that 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 n6t carry the water that it took 1100 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. i Liggins said' he would like the meeting to know that the other sidle of the river had been banked for years and Makerua’ had been, merely a spillway for flood Waters. The time had corrie 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 d<®& good work in forcing the local bodies to recognise this. _ Sir James Wilson 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-prptect themselves. 'When the Manawatu County had banked the road they knew it was only, a makeshift,' and be would uke to know: what was the > solution of the difficulty. ' , . Mr Furkert said that if he were .to go into' the question as suggested Tie would be taking over the work of Air Hay, who was engaged to look after the interests of the' settlers along the l banks. ■ He bad neither the desire J nor the time to dp this. . ' I Mr Monk explained that the idea or; ’ calling the conference was the immedI iat e protection of the bridge and also I the question of means. . He had hap work wa, s necessary,- but he thought . J 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 thie meeting wais 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 knew where it was going to be got. The local bodies, did not. have it. (Laughter). The motion was then put and carried.

Mr Chrv'tali' 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 sunnor - ed the idea, saying that if a spillway were provided where a cert alp amount of country could toe' flooded it would toe an advantage, and he asked what would toe the attitude of the County Councils towards such an Idea..

After come further general discussion as to. the practicabilitv of such-a =chpme it was decided that nothing further could, be done until the Engineers’ report was obtained, such rreport to be presented within one month.