The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15. THE WAIWAKAHIO BRIDGE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 264, 15 December 1909, Page 2

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15. THE WAIWAKAHIO BRIDGE.

H> learned with considerable salisfe:tion yesterday that the Kilzroy 'jWi. Board had promptly registered its pro test against the decision of lhc Tnr.inaki Comity Council to creel "cutwaters'' with the idea of protecting the threatened piers of the Waiwakaiho bridge. Although the Council evinced an unseemly haste to rush this work along at Holiday's meeting, they would lie utterly failing in their obligations to the protesting body if they proceeded with the erection of the cut-waters before a conference on the question has been held. Fitzroy's undeniable rigut to have a deliberate voice in the settlement of this question is based on Hie best of claims, i.e., their liability to 'pav half the cost of the work. In view of the Tarauaki County Council having recently insisted on the observance of the principle of joint consultation m regard to the repairing of the boundary bridges with the adjacent Clifto'u County Council, it cannot consistently and thus early go back on the principle and refuse to listen to the voice of the Fitzroy Town Board before the work is undertaken. The course events have taken is the more satisfactory because we arc not thoroughly convinced the scheme adopted by the Council is one tliat will beet overcomu the peculiar difficulties that have arisen. At present, owing principally to the great amount of boulder stone that has been and is being removed from the bed of the river below the bridge, the scour has been tremendously increased, and the level <f the rive r lowered, factors which both operate prejudicially on the concrete pillars of the bridge. The matter is a very serious one, as the gradual undermining of the foundations is threatening the stability of a practically ns'v £4OOO structure.' The question is how best the bridge might be protected, and the lowering of the bed of the river checked. Messrs Sladden and Palmer recommend that a weir be constructed right across the river at a point a little below the remains of the old one, below the bridge. The object of this is nVvious—to back up the waters of the river and gradually bring about a settlement of the material continually being brought down and thus raise the bed of the river, in the vicinity of the bridge, to something like its old level. The weir proposed is a comparatively inexpensive one of boulder stone encased in i strong galvanised wire-netting. Mess;-' Orbell and Macltay, on the other hard. recommend that water-divertors. in the form of piles driven "V" shape, be placed about 2.5 feet up-stream from the piers, with the object of diverting Hie water into the channels between the pier;. Xow, while the latter proposal is n"l very well in its way and as a temporary expedient, we entirely fail to see in what direction it is going to effect a permanent solution of the difficulty. II certainly cannot be claimed that it will operate in the direction of raisins (ho bed of the river ill the vicinity of Ine bridge, which is undoubtedly tlic proper course to aim at. As a matter of fa'.'l. if we are to judge from the discussion nt the Council table, none of the councillors question the correctness of Messrs Sladden and Palmer's remedv. a I though a majority of them decided in favor of Messrs Orbell and Mackav's r<commendation. The chairman stated if' the weir were to cost £OOO instead o about £250 as estimated, he would vol; for it. Presumably Mr. Brown is r opinion that the suggested weir woah not be strong enough, but rntcpavw will want tn have a more authoritati'i opinion than that of a lavmnn befin negativing a scheme the utility of whieiis not in doubt. Cr. Hopson favored thr cutwaters to see how they would nc* and if they should not be'satisfactory then the weir could be constructed' The logic of this line of reasoning is somewhat baffling. Cr. Talc said that !l.e weir would be constructed when (he riding finances would bear the cost It would appear, therefore, that the only argument against the adoption of I lie weir scheme is that of its probable cost and it appears to us that these councillors are assuming that the work '.vill cost two or three times as much as ll'e engineers estimate. We should \\\ {( . m know upon what grounds thev base th"> assumption. The engineers state Ihe work can be satisfactorily done for £250. Mr. Brows considers it will cost £6OO to aohieve the Cojcct, and apparently Mr. Brown's easual opinion li.is greater weight with the Council than the professional estimate of the engineers. Why, we would ask. in a matter of such vital interest, were no sleos taken fo have another niuninn on (he two schemes obtained? Yar\\ „ft.ho two firms consulted sulunilled a different scheme, and although (he Con-nil was divided on the question, the majority refused to call in uninterested expert opinion, and decided on the eut- | water nroposal. To our mind, this haste is ouile unseemly, for surely it were belter to be absolutely certain of the utility of either scheme before nrocvlto nut any into effect. We sincerely hope the Council will stay i!s ' bind in this mnlter. and thoroughly ! discuss the nrnnnsal with those i<""i!lt' ' iT-s.m.wihle for (he work before imiec.\l- ' iii'r Willi a scheme which, while if m i.,',t ' be, proved to be ultimately, all that" is ' claimed for it, haa still to Receive urg-

fessional endorsement. We certainly think the opinion of the Govcrnmi;'.it engineers should be obtained on the proposals, the respective merits of whi<; : i, in the circumstances, have not received the consideration the importance of th.. work necessitates. The fact that the Railway Department is morally liable to l.e-ir a portion of the cost of any sell niic that prevents the present scouring in I lie bed of the river, and affords greater security to the railway bridge, has n.it received the prominence it should from The Council. If necessary a spe.-i.il meeting of the Council should be cnlied to (>enl with the matter, and we lion*, whatever scheme is decided on, it will he no temporary expedient, but a permanent corrective.