Untitled

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 281, 30 April 1914, Page 4

THE HARBOR. The correspondent signing himself "An Old Shareholder of the Mt. Egmont Freezing Co." returns to the attack >n this issue with regard to the Moturoa harbor. On this occasion our correspondent makes further statements l which are calculated to mislead, though this may not be wilful,, for there is evidence that he has been rather misled himself, and possesses a rather hazy idea as to the difference between th? fairway and the deep-water cut. Incidentally he lias deserted the main issue—the question of the proposed new freezing works, which lie uses merely as a heading for his letter—in favor of an attempt to decry the harbor and cry "stinking fish" so far as New Plymouth is concerned. In his first letter, our correspondent referred to the deptii of the fairway and approach, quoting figures from the Nautical Almanacs of 1912 and 1913 to prove his contention that in this period the depth of the ap proach had decreased. We made 't clear that although according to the plan of work little was being done to the approach, the depth, far from decreasing, had increased, quoting in support of this information from the Nautical Almanac for 1914. Now our correspondent has gravitated from the approach to the deep-water berth, and incidentally has made it clear that when he spoke of tho Nautical Almanac of, 1912 he meant that of 1913, corrected by the Harbor Board to June, 1912. That is sufficiently misleading. In discussing the depth of the inner harbor, our correspondent says:— "If you will kindly refer to the clmrt published in the Nautical Almanac for 1913 (and corrected by the Harbor Board to the date of June, 1012) you will see that the soundings given along the wharf are 33ft., and that an area outside this, presumably what you Tefer to as the cut, has been dredged to 33ft, 33ft, 23ft, 33ft, 33ft, 24ft, 33ft, and so on, varying from 23ft to 25ft as you work out seaward. Then if you will kindly refer to the chart contained in the Almanac published this year (marked corrected by the Harbor Board to date /of June, 1913) you will see that the soundings given alongside the wharf are 15ft, 27ft, 27ft, 26ft, 29ft, 27ft, and the remark on the chart regarding the area outside, is that this area has been dredged to 23ft. and 25ft., proceeding seaward." 1

We make 110 attempt to deny this When the dredging of the deep-water berth was first commenced, the sand was dredged away flush with the wharf and outwards. Hence the depths shown, correct to June, 1912, of 33ft along the wharf. If our correspondent stops to think he will realise that a sandbank cut and then left will silt down a little. This is exactly what has happened. This silting, as he points out, is merely alongside the wharf. A boat moored alongside would not strike this silting by a distance of some feet, even if it were left there, which it will not be. The dredge Paritutu is too big to dredge there with the buckets, but the dredge Thomas King, which is undergoing repairs, will be used as soon as possible. It will naturally be necessary to ma'<e periodical dredgings for .some time with the small dredge alongside the wharf until the sandbank finds a level. There will in a very short time be a doenwater berth 33ft deep, subject to periodic dredging alougsido (he wharf. This will not interfere with the berthing of ships. According to the Harbor Board's chart, which is later and more reliable than the small one in the Almanac, the silting has been six feet in three years, not six feet in the one year, as inferred by our correspondent. But its rcmoviU presents 110 difficulty whatever. There is only one other point which requires to be answered. Our correspondent says that in the 1913 chart an area outside the wharf is shown at front 22 to 33 feet, and in 1914 the same area is shown as being dredged to 23 and 25 fee'.. This is not quite correct. In 1913 the chart reads as regards one portion of the inner cut, "being dredged," and further out, 4 "This area has be™ dredged to 23 and 2,5 feet." In 1914 it reads: "Being dredged 33ft," and further out. "This area has been dredged to 23 and 25ft." This chart, be it noted, is only corrected to June, 1013. We trust this explanation will convince our correspondent that good progress iB being made with the dredging of the harbor, and that there is not the slightest ground for the fear he has raised that the port wiil be unable to berth Home liners when the proposed co-operative freezing works are ready to commence operations.