RIVER CONTROL.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 179, 30 August 1929, Page 6

RIVER CONTROL.

(To tlie Editor). Sir, — The chainnan of tlie Rivers Board makes much of the preponderance of engineers hehind his scheme. Messrs Thompson, Laing Afason and C. D. Kennedy in 1911 allowed for ^ two spillways at the Pines as overflows. Afessrs Furkert, Fulton and Hay, 1919, say thev reluctantly had to abalidon the idea of an overflow at .or about tbe Piues, on account of valuable land only. . Afr G. Nelson's- 1921 scheme provided for total diversion from the Pines. Afr H. R. Climie recommended total diversion from the Pines. Now we come to the last three engineers — Alr Baker, appointed by the Afinister and Engineer-in-Cliief, because of his experience in river matters and unbiassed as far as Hawke's Bay rivers were concerned. Afr Vickermau, a Government nominee, and Alr J. D. Holmes, of Afessrs R. AV. Holmes and Son — all leading engineers in river matters. They reconimended the total diversion of the Ngaruroro n'Ver in the vicinity of tlie Pines. I tliink you must ackuowledge that tlie preponjlerance of engineering rejects Afr Hay's scheme and confirms tlie E scheme. Further, Afr Baker being selected by bis chief should ha've the backing by liis departmen-t and tlie head of it, the Alinister of Public Works. Afr Arickerman, also heing a Government department's recommendation, should also have their support. The cliairman is first hot and then cold. First, the advantage of Afr Hay's scheme was that it could be done in patches, whereas the E scheme would require to be done as one. At the report of the meeting of the Hastings Borough Council he said they should not go on with any patchwork. The E scheme is a complete, straight-oiit proposal for final settlement of this river question. As for Afr Hay.' s . scheme. these engineers say that the aggradation in the river would hasten the time when the Ngaruroro might have to he wholly diverted via tlie overflow channel — a possibility which the scheme must contemplate. When this oceurs, ' what" about tivo rivers joining? AA'liat about two separate moutlis? Alr Hay provides for only 56,000 cusecs to remain 111 tlie present river to tbe sea, which leaves 124.000 cusecs to go down his overflow and join the Tutaekuri at one mouth. AVhich is the river. the 124,000 or the 56.000? AVe understand there is to be a hank between tlie railwav and beach, half-way between AVaitangi and the AArnshout, also spillways 011 tlie western side to allow the water to flow towards Clive. Is this hank after the style he suggested in the "G" Tutaekuri scheme? In that scheme, to keep the two rivers separate. one of 1SO,000 cusecs and one of 100,000 cusecs. and to keep separate months, he had a bank of 40,000 cubio yards at Is, costing £200. A"e gods, does anyone know anytliing about tlie forces of water? A shingle bank would be wasbcd away in the first little tricklc. I hope he has sometliing more solid in the present scliemc to suhstantiate his theory. A lot of capital is made out of the fact that the two rivers are to join and go to tlie sea. This is happenlng in all the liig rivers of tbe world,, but within our ken wo liave tbe AA'airoa, tbe Tutaekuri, Alangaone at Dartmoor, AAbniau, tbe two branclies of Tuki Tuki, below Waipawa, tlie Alannwatu and Pohangina, and so 011, and as Alr Hay savs, tbe peak of tbe fiood in our two rivers may not occur at tlie same- time. Tlien there can, in liis opinion, be no danger from tbe two rivers joining. This is al§o confirmed by his joining the bulk of the Ngaruroro to the Tutaekuri. — I fim etc .

"AJAX."

Hastings. Aug. 29, 1929.