The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1921. AN IMPRACTICABLE PROPOSAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 July 1921, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1921. AN IMPRACTICABLE PROPOSAL.

We would direct the attention of readers to-a letter appearing elsewhere on harbor improvements. 'The writer (Mr. D. K. Morrison) 'is evidently one of those estimable but misguided gentlemen who desire the whole question of harbor construction to be reopened at this late hour in the day, and the presept scheme jettisoned in favor of an “outer” harbor, the main feature of which is a wall between Mikotahi and Moturoa Islands. We declared the other day that this agitation' was mischievous and futile. It is mischievous because the board and the district have adopted a e’ertain plan and have been working to it for some years, and because it tends to hamper the board in their work at a time when they have their hands full, and have more than their share of worries, and also to unsettle the minds of the public, who, accepting the advice of the consulting engineers and ' the board, voted for a big loan to give effect to it. The agitation is futile because it can only result in a waste of time and energy. Now let us hear Mr. Morrison. He says our contentions are “a little be- • wildering sometimes”. We should ! have liked him to be a little more explicit and shown in what manner we are “bewildering”. He says the question asked by seafarers is, “Why did not the board fill in the gap between the two islands instead of spending an enormous sum of money in putting a wall through what would otherwise be a fine harbor?” and he proceeds to ask us if we have ever studied the effect of filling in the small «gap between Mikotahi and the shore. There may or may not be something in the question raised by seafarers, but the essential point is that our predecessors in their wisdom did build the breakwater some distance away, and there it stands to-day. It is an accomplished fact, and the most has to be made of it. Its existence absolutely destroys the possibility of making an outer harbor, or even building a wall between Mikotahi and Mo- ’ turpa. The erection of a wall be- ( tween IMikotahi and the root of the breakwater is not comparable with the building of a wall bo- , tween the two islands. The wall ( was built in shallow—not in deep ( water, at comparatively small expense. It diverted the course , of the sand, certainly, for the rea- , son that the sand drift will aT , ways follow the coast line. To ( build the wall between the two ,

islands would entail, first of all, a considerable expenditure, hundreds of thousands of pounds 1 probably. It would certainly deflect the course of the sand and break the force of the sea; but—apd this is what Mr. Morrison and his friends fail to appreciate—it would at the. same time undermine and probably destroy the root of the breakwater itself. For this reason: The area between the present breakwater and the wall between the two islands would be V-shaped. The sea would enter the mouth of the V and the whole weight of the sea would be concentrated within the apex of the V. There would be no spending beach, and the water, especially in time of sea disturbance, would rush in, scour out the sand already there, and in time undermine the foot of the breakwater, and the seas would rush over the wharf and cause a greater displacement of water in the harbor than ever. This is Mr. Blair Mason’s view, which seems perfectly sound to the lay mind. For it is an axiom accepted by marine authorities that, the spending beach must always be bigger than the inlet. The reverse, in a most acute form, would be the case .if Mr. Morrison’s ideas were carried out. Mr. Blair Mason’s scheme, however, achieves all that our correspondent desires, and a great deal more. It provides for the wall to be built from Moturoa to the breakwater. The sand now drifting around the end of the breakwater in its thousands of tons annually will be thereby trapped, ,’t’he sand will in the course of time make 68 acres of hew land, and the side of the present breakwater will be available for wharves for coastal shipping. Whilst the sand is being ■thus trapped little or none will find its way around the breakwater, and sand-dredging during that time will thus be reduced to a minimum. It is a great pity the board cannot proceed with this wall, because it is the key to the whole scheme. In a sihort time the trapped sand would form a beach upon which the seas would expend their energy, and render the breakwater available for berthage for coastal vessels. But we realise that the board’s hands are tied meantime. We are convinced it would be a mistake to re-open the question -of harbor construction. The policy has been definitely settled, and no possible ' good can be served in making proposals the impracticability of which has been conclusively demonstrated years ago. As we have said, if the breakwater were not there it would be a different matter. Should it be thought that the proposed enclosed harbor area (some 300 acres) is too small to cope with the future trade of the port, then have the eastern mole built nearer the town, and enclosing whatever area is deemed advisable. To think of abandoning the whole of the present work —for that is what the carrying out of the wild-eat scheme of an “outer harbor” would involve—is unthinkable, and its advocates could profitably turn their attention to something more useful and practicable. We do hope, however, that, conditions will soon improve, so that harbor improvements can be proceeded "with more ' expeditiously,- and the muchneeded extra berthage provided within a reasonable time. To turn overseas boats away, as has happened of late, because of the lack of berthage is against the interests of the port and the district .