THE OUTER HARBOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2308, 29 September 1908, Page 2

THE OUTER HARBOR.

ESLIE REYNOLDS’ REPORT.

CRITICISED BY AJlt. MARCH ANT.

At the meeting of the Gisborne Harbor Board yesterday afternoon, the following letter was received from Air. F. AV. Marchant ,in reply-to the criticism of his outer harbor scheme by Mr. Leslie Reynolds:— “Tho latest report on a proposed outer harbor for Gisborne obtained by your Board from Air. Reynolds requires a low words from me in tbc way of reply and defence. In formulating my scheme for an outer harbor for your district, I made enquiries from those whom I considered likely to be sound judges as to tlie outside expenditure on such a scheme your Board could possibly finance. I was informed that about £300,000 would would probably bo the outside limit, and in dealing with tlio question 1 bore that opinion always in mind. For the amount I estimated, 1 could give your district a most useful and •convenient commercial harbor, which would be sufficient for its trade ior 100 years to come, given necessary extensions for wharfage, etc., as the expansion of trade required them. My scheme also sjllowcd lor the construction of an outer anchorage harbor, if required in years to come, by the prolongation of the first arm, and a sheltering wall extending from that again outside the breakwater I proposed, in the scheme submitted. “AVhen one reflects that the very large shipping business of Lyttelton is carried on in a harbor of 106 acres, about half of which area only has deep water, -.it is evident at once that the harbor I proposed at Gisborne, having a-sheltered area of 156 acres, 77 acres of which were over 25ft m depth, must bo amply sufficient for generations to come. “Your district is not a gram-grow-ing one, as is Canterbury, and although your imports and exports are highly valuable, still your population will not require the same tonnage of, shipping,to serve it as would tliesiw»Te number of people here. I point this out to show that you will not require a large area in a harbor there, at all events in this century. “Any harbor built in Poverty Bay must always remain. ' a commercial one alone, and not one of refuge, as 1 cannot conceive a much more dangerous place for a vessel to seek shelter than in a harbor situated in the north-eastern''side of Poverty I3ay in a south-easterly storm, which is the only direction from which a heavy sea can run.

“In this respect Gisborne would be in only the same case as the other artificial harbors in the Dominion, as they, and some of the natural ones besides, cannot be entered safely during heavy on-shore storms. “In all these respects tho harbor now proposed byJVlr. Reynolds leaves practical common-sense matters unconsidered. Tho area of water lie proposes to enclose is unnecesary and wasteful, and its cost prohibitive. He proposes to arrange it so as to diminish range in it when the sea is coming from a south-westerly direction. No range will ever come into the harbor from there, as tlio ‘fetch’ is not long enough for anything bub a surface chop to arise, which doesn’t hurt the shipping. -- The only quarter from which range can run as from the south-east—the open sea—as is invariably the case. This my scheme dealt with as fully as any other could do. “Mr. Reynolds considers the cost of stone in the breakwater at 4s a ton. This is an excessive cost- and is unsupported by experience. I quoted in my report places where the stone cost only 3s a ten and less, and it should be put in the Gisborne breakwater for about 2s 6d. 1 Lave collected tho cost of several rubble stone breakwaters, British and Australian, in addition to those I know of here, and am certain of my statements. “Lately I fired a mine of between 3 and 4 tons of gunpowder,- which yielded 30,001) tons of rubble stone at a cost- of about 4d 'a ton for driving of galleries, gunpowder, and all expenses in the quarry. The same could he done at AVailiirere by experienced men. If tlie. stone was broken down by the single shot process, as is frequently done, of course the expense would be much increased. “Concerning this AVailiirere stone, there is good, bad, and indifferent there. 1 The good is first-class, JjiffWcr than the Greymoutli stone. It would, however, be quite easy to find poor stone if the best part of the formation was not selected.

.“AH- Reynolds thinks that- 3 to 1 sliould-be the slope of the breakwater on the sea. side. I know o:F breakwaters in this country and in Australia where the slope of blocks of the size that would be used varies from 1-1 to Ito2to 1. In allowing 2,j to 1 for tlie sea slope 1 was on the right side, more particularly as the heavy sea strikes only a glancing blow at the arms of the breakwater in my scheme, -which is a very important matter,. If these breakwaters are set at right angles to the direction from which storms come a much stronger structure has to bo built.

■ “Mr Reynolds advocates the use of a Titan for depositing the nibble. 1 •discussed the question of staging- in my report. Neither a Titan nor staging would he necessary. “Large breakwaters of rubble stone are built in Australia without either Titan or staging, and we can do the same here.”

Mr. Clark asked what was meant by a commercial harbor, and the Chairman said it meant not a mere harbor of refuge. Mr. Reynolds, in a letter to the Board, recommended that a good bore bo put- into tlio Waihirere quarry, no as to test the stone and experiment as to whether the rock could be quarried in heavy blocks. Mr Lysnar moved that tile Overseer go to the quarry and test roc]is. The Board should take steps to acquire a quarry site. The motion was carried.

It was nearly 5 o’clock when the Board had disposed of its ordinary business, and the discussion, of the outer harbor question was again adjourned.