Waikato Coastal Database

Ministry of Works Files – Waihou River and Thames

1. Identification information

Status
Complete
Data Collection Date
1930-1983
Summary
The Ministry of Works and Development was the principal organisation carrying out the physical, engineering and environmental investigations for many government departments before it was disbanded in the 1980s. Ministry of Works files therefore contain a wealth of environmental information about the condition of harbours, coastlines and waterways, both as they were originally, and as they were modified during settlement. To fully understand these files they need to be read in conjunction with information from other Government Organisations, in order to place the investigations into context. For example the development of the West Coast mobile sand dune problems and the subsequent attempts to stabilise them needs to be studied in conjunction with the Maori Affairs Department and the Department of Lands and Survey files. Both of these departments were involved in financing sand stabilisation projects. Eventually the work of sand dune conservation, (formerly done by the Agriculture Department and then by the Ministry of Works Soil Conservators (Water and Soil Division) after 1958), was passed on to the New Zealand Forest Service; who took control of nearly all exotic forest planting and management together with some erosion control functions where pine forests were involved. From 1958 onwards the Ministry of Works Water and Soil Division was the service provider for NWASCA (National Water and Soil Conservation Authority) and SC&RCC (Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council), which authorised the funding for the many soil conservation activities throughout the country. All projects submitted for funding to the Authority by the various Catchment Authorities were examined by members of the Ministry of Works Water and Soil Division to ensure they were soundly based, before funding was approved. Thus, as the adviser to other government departments and NWASCA, the Ministry of Works played a pivotal role in land development and conservation throughout its existence. These files as a result contain a wealth of historical information about; land development, flood control schemes and soil conservation in New Zealand. Because of their extensive engineering knowledge, the Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) reviewed various engineering structures such as wharf construction, reclamations and coastal aggregate mining licenses for the Marine Department and later the Ministry of Transport. Purpose: See data set abstract below
Content
12/1 Harbours and foreshores: Harbour and river works general 1926-1937. July 1930: Regulations for the reclamation of mudflats for agricultural and pastoral purposes passed and gazette May 1930. File 6/119/1/2. Hauraki Drainage Board 1945–1956. The file deals with the financing of the Waihou and Piako rivers flood control scheme by the Hauraki Drainage Board. There is no environmental information but the progress of the drainage could be traced through these financial records if necessary. File 47/16. The Waihou River. File starts December 1949. A Sand mining operation in the Waihou River immediately downstream of the Kopu Bridge led to scour of the west abutment, until sand removal from near the bridge was banned. Mining commenced of a bank of silica sand suitable for sand blasting several chains downstream from the bridge. The bridge operator thought that in some places the excavations were up to 40 ft (12 m) deep. A table of sand extraction for the Waikato River and Waihou for the period 1955-57 inclusive indicates a total volume of 300,000 yds3 (229,000 m3) By Firm: Waikato Sand Co. 41,628 yds3 31,829 m3 Roo Shipping Co. 155,331 117,766 Henrys Sand Ltd. 55,330 42,305 Foster Bros. 1,164 890 Winstone Ltd. 45,620 34,881 Royalties were paid to the Maori Department. A 1957 memo said that a total of 56,000 yds3 (42,818 m3) had been removed by 14 operators out of the Waihou River between the Kopu Bridge and Wharepoa. Also 2600 yds3 (1,988 m3) from a section 5 miles (8 km) either side of the Puke Bridge, royalties paid to the Ministry of Works. In May 1971 Parry Bros. Ltd. applied for a licence to remove sand from the Waihou River because the continuous easterly weather had prevented mining of the usual beach sources of Pakiri and Mangawhai. No further information of the outcome of this application. File 74/30/5/1/1 (pt 2). Hauraki Catchment Board Hydrology; Operational surveys. File contains a proposal for a thesis studying the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsula by Mr Reitema. There is no information on whether this study went ahead. 7/16 Harbour and Marine Works, Proposed improvements Thames Harbour, 1923-1923. 3 November 1923 a Mr Whiteside wrote to the chief engineer Public Works Wellington stating that the approved of £60,000 loan should not be advanced to the Thames Borough because there had not been any site investigation borings. What boring information that was available was from mining investigations and these indicated that the foundation material was unsuitable to build upon. 15 November 1923: Refers to Auckland file 12/133.The Chief Engineer (Wellington) requested a clarifying report. The Resident Engineer states that approval was only from the ratepayers vote. Government approval had not yet been given. The engineer also stated that he was doubtful that the harbour scheme improvements would prove successful because freight was more likely to be moved by rail with the early construction of the Pokeno-Paeroa railway link. 7 December 1923: the file ends with the Auckland District Engineer requesting a report on the proposed harbour development. 7/15 Harbour and Marine works, Sewer Outfall Thames Harbour 1923-1923. 19 February 1923: Refers to Auckland file 12/122. Auckland District Office forwarded plan of proposed sewer and requested information about the plan and asked for objections from a navigational point of view. The Resident Engineer replied that sewer would need navigational lights at night to warn fishermen. Sketch of area included and plan MD5631 in the letter. No copy of sketch or plan on file. 7/16 Harbour and Marine Works Thames Harbour Works (dredging and wharf) (1928 1942). 3 August 1928: E. F. Adams, Engineer to the Thames Harbour Board (THB), requested Resident Engineer, Paeroa for information on lights and width of opening span of the Hauraki (Kopu) Bridge and nature of the lighting at the mouth of the Piako River. Plan 1073 Paeroa gives details of the opening span of the bridge and also the lighting layout. 5 September 1928: Mr. Adams sends a note together with a chart of the Thames Port and environs. The chart is not in the file, presumably returned. 26th March 1929. The THB spent £66,223 and still had 26,000yd3 (19,880 m3) to finish dredging a channel 3,000 feet (915 m) long to give a mud run way to the sea. The THB was also going to sell plant to value of £13,180 to help cover the cost of needed dredging. 27th March 1929. A THB deputation met the Minister of Marine in Auckland. An engineer, Mr. Blair Mason wrote a report in 1920 as to the best design of port. This plan had been approved and constructed but THB needed further £4,000 to complete work. Proposed plant sale would more than offset the cost of the dredging according to the THB estimates. Meeting outcome that THB would write letter to Minister outlining case and he would apply to government for grant of £4,000 for finishing work. 17th April 1929: the Public Works Department (PWD) engineer in Chief asks the Chief engineer Auckland for a report of the value of the THB’s plant. (File M 3/6/21). The Auckland engineer's report suggested that the Board had overestimated the value of the plant. 25th June 1929: Paeroa Resident Engineer reported THB Engineer (Mr. Adams) had produced a 25 page typescript report with four plans outlining conditions at the Port. The file includes a copy of the 25 June report but no plans. A follow up report 21st August 1929, suggests that 40,000 yds3 (30,600m3) needed to be dredged from the port basin together with a further 20,000 yds3 (15,300 m3) from the channel to the Gulf. September 1929: PWD engineers Wellington wanted more information due to rumours of continuous silting. Engineer Paeroa noted a drop in Port traffic with onset of the slump and drop in passenger numbers with advent of the motor car and improved roads. 15 October 1929: Paeroa engineer's report evaluated the Port's dredge and considered that the PWD dredge (Waihou No. 1 dredge) could do the job better. Silting appears to have taken place in the turning basin from 1927-1929, 12 inch (0.3m) layer of silt deposited between the wharf and the north wall. Prior to 1928 fishing vessels could reach the wharf at low tide. By 1929, they could only get to the port entrance. THB officials still deny silting. Port was suffering competition from other wharves. Boats up to 200 ton trade directly to Paeroa and smaller vessels trade to Te Aroha. Vessels also use the Piako to Ngatea and Kerepehi. The Paeroa engineer estimated up to 200 yds3 (150 m3) per day silting could occur, and continue until the channel stabilised upstream. Report concludes with decreasing port revenues, is doubtful port works should be financed. 11th July 1930: Paeroa engineer reported possible dredging costs. Observed while the channel dredging figures matched the port engineer's, was a considerable difference in the harbour basin estimates, suggesting a silting problem overlooked by THB engineer. 12th August 1930: THB engineer disagrees with PWD engineer’s report on silting, stating that the differences in cost come from a difference in dredge costs rather than a difference in volumes of sediment to move. 10th September 1930: Report on soundings and bores taken in intended dredged channel to basin, and cost estimates. Channel 6 feet (1.8 m) deep at low water spring tide required. Channel width 100 feet (30.4 m) and 3620 feet (1,104 m) long; 2350 feet (716 m) outside the basin and 1270 feet (390 m) within the basin. Bores located using two theodolites and the position triangulated. A total of 79 bores and a greater number of soundings made. Bores made at low water using a 12'.6" (3.8 m) length if wiring conduit and at higher water levels a 17' (5.2 m) length of half inch (12 mm) galvanized pipe. No.3 bore met an obstruction at six feet (1.8 m) below MLWS (only bore to do so). In the shoreward 800 feet (244 m) occasional crusts of sand were encountered that were usually less than a foot (0.3 m) thick. The rest of the harbour bed was blue mud with a sprinkling of Pipis. Sediment influx a contentious issue between PWD engineer and the THB engineer. In 1928 the THB reported sedimentation "incomings” of 20,500 yd3 (15,700 m3) but in July 1930 PWD estimated sedimentation as 45,000 Yds3 (34,800 m3). In August 1930 the Board estimated total volume was 49,900 yds3 (38,150m3) includes 25% for slurry and thus gives 37500 yds3 (28,700 m3) solid material. From this the Board engineer concluded that incomings were 12,500 yds3 (9,550 m3). By contrast the PWD estimates 40,000 yds3 (30,600 m3) per year of new material coming into the port area. THB engineer (Adams) then calculated the total volume needed to be dredged as 100,000 yds3 (76,460 m3) less that which can disposed of outside the harbour, about 73,000 yds3 (55,816 m3) is in situ material with the rest being incoming sediments. 22 September 1930: PWD engineer sent the Paeroa engineer the THB plans and report asking for comments and assessing the feasibility of the THB’s proposals (file 12/133). 3rd October 1930: Paeroa engineer reports that the basic volumes involved are between 100,000 and 110,000 yds3 (76,460 - 84,100 m3). The estimates of cost to do the work vary greatly with the PWD costs being considerably higher. File 15/13/1 Quarry, Thames Harbour Board, opened 1932. Thames Harbour Board (THB) applied for access to beach area to extract sand for commercial purposes. Land taken by order in council May 1932. Plan P.W. 83532 and S.O. 26368, and revoked in 1936. Thames Star 24/3/36 criticised THB for not building port further up coast north of Tararu, due to severe silting at Thames. No reply from Board on file. July 1936 storm sunk dredge in harbour. Associated file references Wellington Public Works Department (PWD) file M4/3390. This could have been transferred to a Marine Department file later. Auckland PWD PW 22/167/7. Hamilton District Office File 6/132, Firth of Thames dredging, opened October 1948. 7/10/48 Letter Public Works Department (PWD) Wellington (M2/12/350) Two companies applied for licenses to dredge for shell in Firth of Thames. Zone 1 consisted of the area south of a line from the mouth of the Hauarahi Stream to Tapu. Zone 2 was the area north of the Hauarahi Stream to Orere Point from 1 mile offshore in a band 2 miles wide. 18/10/48 the PWD Engineer approved the proposal. End of file. Hamilton District Office File 6/125, Harbours: Thames Harbour, opened February 1923. This file incorporates all of Auckland file PW 12/133, which is not listed in National Archives. See also: Hamilton 6/143, Auckland 12/122 and Wellington PW M4/1387. February 1923: Letter from Wellington (PW M4/1387) requesting information on a proposed sewer outfall for Thames (plan Auckland Draughting Office ADO7396). Spare copy was recorded on Hamilton plan records. Sketch of the layout on Marine Department plan MD5631. Blair Mason Report 7 May 1919. Plans consulted: Sir John Coode 1879, Plan of Thames Harbour with report. Percy Smith and Horace Baker 1882, Chart of Thames Harbour. E. F. Adams 1919 Plans of Thames Harbour. Waihou River silt laden with material from the headwaters, and sludge from mining in the Ohinemuri catchment. 1879 and 1919 surveys shows that the river and estuary extensively shoaled. Kopu seawards the average decrease in depth was 6.5 feet (1.98 m) with greatest accumulation between Kopu and Opani Point. This is a deposit of approximately 3.5 million yds3 (2.7 million m3). From Opani Point for about 2 miles where the coast veers towards Thames (Shortland), the deposit is about 3.25 million yds3 (2.5 million m3). From this point seawards shoaling continues but becomes negligible at a depth of 30 feet (9.1 m). Comparison of soundings in the area tinted brown in plans A and B shows the mean decrease in depth over the 3930 acres (6.14 miles2 , 15.9 km2) works out at 1.62 feet (0.5 m) making the deposit approximately 9,000,000 yds3 (6,881,400 m3) or 1,465,800 yds3 (1,120,750 m3) per mile2 (2.6 km2). Note: volumes are to low tide level. The area tinted in blue on plan A (13 miles2 or 33.7 km2) has been drawn to enable comparison with Mr. E.F. Adams survey of 1919. The average depth is 1.64 feet (0.5 m) which is equivalent to a deposit of 22,000,000 yds3 (16,821,200 m3) or 1,690,000 yds3 (1,292,174 m3) per sqare mile (2.6 km2). It was noted that if the data were taken to high water the volumes would be increased. Blair Mason calculated the average deposition over the 13 square mile area would be 550,000 yds3 (420,530 m3). The Public Works Department estimates that sand, mud and silt volumes were 500,000 yds3 (382,300 m3) annually. Over the area of 88 square miles (228 km2) (the area coloured brown and blue) the mean decrease in depth is nearly 9.5 inches (240 mm), representing an average deposition rate of 1,300,000 yds3 (993,980 m3) annually. This last estimate was considered the least reliable because of possible differences in datums used for each survey. The Firth of Thames was considered a natural sedimentation site. Blair Mason concluded that most of the sediment came from the Waihou and that it would increase with continued land clearance and mining in the Ohinemuri catchment. Thus he concluded that the lower Waihou would not be a suitable site for a port. The Choice of port site: Sir John Coode (1879) favoured Kopu as a wharf site and suggested building guide walls to concentrate the flow to scour any silt and mud out of the lower channel. The increased silt load indicated that this site was no longer suitable according to Blair Mason. An option reviewed was to dredge the channel and deposit the material behind the guide walls as reclamation. The cost of the dredging led Blair Mason to favour a port at Thames rather than the lower Waihou. The scheme for development of the port at Thames: 1. Dredge a channel from the Firth to the port site to a depth of the vessels expected to use the port. 2. Use rubble to build an enclosure to keep out silt and protect vessels in port. 3. Use the area between the harbour wall and the land to deposit spoil. 4. The rubble walls could be extended to protect the land to be reclaimed and provide an outlet for Karaka Creek. 5. Extend wall along reclamation No.2 and make provision for the diversion of the Kauaeranga River and reclaim area. 6. Extend rubble wall along reclamation No. 3 using silt from river for reclamation. Blair Mason considered that the above work was not urgent. He considered that the urgent requirement was to open the port up to existing shipping and to have the improvements in the future. The report concludes with nine estimates for nine different approaches to develop the port. January 1923: THB Engineer (Adams) reported Board on proposed port improvements and supported recommendations of Mason. He presented two drawings: one showing a rubble wall to protect from silt and wave action, and the other for a channel with a 150 foot (46 m) bottom width with a depth of 6 feet (1.8 m) at low water, a swinging basin and berthage dredged to 9 feet (2.7m) deep at low water. The estimated cost was £60,000. The report is confined to port construction not the sedimentation issues of the Firth. February 1924: THB engineer writes to the District Engineer after a visit by PWD personnel to Thames on 30/01/1924. Letter contains plans for future port development and estimates of sedimentation rates around the southern Firth. The letter also provides a description of the conditions of the hills around Thames at this time. Adams notes that the hills around Thames have been bared of soil through mining and timber harvesting. He also notes that mining debris is now under reasonable control. He noted that the timber drives in the Kauaeranga have been greatly reduced and that the channel will now be able to reform to a natural shape without passing boulders down to the coast. March 1924: The PWD Engineer Auckland wrote to the Marine Engineer Wellington with the following comments. 1. In 1879 Sir John Coode investigated and reported on a scheme for developing a port at Thames. The plan was to make a port on the lower Waihou. As part of the investigation he did a marine survey of the whole of the Boards harbour limits. Sir John Coode's proposal was not adopted Burke Street wharf built instead. 2. May 1919 Blair Mason reported to the Board on a plan he had developed. This consisted of enclosing 110 acres (44.5 ha) and creating a turning basin connected with a dredged channel to deep water. Estimated cost £24,000. Not adopted. 3. Adams 1923 proposed a similar port development plan costing £60,000. Accompanying Adam's report is a plan (drawing No ADO7746). Public Works Wellington File No M3/6/21 August 1929: Marine Engineer PWD received another report by THB (Adams). Resident Engineer PWD Paeroa commented on the proposed dredging needed to complete the port development. He concluded that the final cost of dredging would be £3762.10.00 over and above the £60,000 already spent. Estimated that 40,000 Yds3 (30,600 m3) needed to be dredged (Adams’ estimate). File Paeroa 7/16 August 1930: Extended arguments about siltation estimates between the PWD and THB engineers. PWD estimates were invariably higher than those of the THB engineer. Wellington File 36/120 - May 1936: Dredge had to cut through a shingle bank under the mud while making the entrance channel. 5-6 July 1936: Severe storm sunk the dredge in the harbour. The rest of the file deals with the costs of the dredge repairs. Also deals with cost of a boat ramp at Ngarimu Bay. 7/1 Harbour and Marine Works Annual Reports 1931-1945. January 1932: Rice grass Spartina Townsendii. A brief summary of discovery and its uses. Notes on planting or sowing seed. Lists experts who understand the plant. It was considered that the plant could never become a problem because of its agricultural value for grazing and hay making. The report was compiled by Mr. W. H. Hayes, Glen Eden Auckland. A land owner proposed to reclaim 294 acres of mud flats in Manaia Harbour using Spartina. Notes reference Allen, H.H., 1929. Journal of Agriculture. Vol. XXXIX No.5. This article describes the growth pattern of Spartina planted in the Manawatu estuary. This is one of three reports on the plant. April 1936: Dredging Thames Harbour paid for by the Harbour Board. April 1937: Thames Harbour dredging continued until the dredge was sunk by the 1936 storm. 7/1 Harbour and Marine Works Annual Reports 1946-1969. April 1964: A proposal to reclaim mudflats in the Firth of Thames adjacent to the Douglas property using Spartina grass. There are no details as to if this project went ahead. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula, 1958-1970. In the 1950s the Lands and Survey Department was responsible for all Crown land and this included river and stream beds. Ministry of Works and the local Count Councils often used shingle from local streams for roading material. To simplify licensing these activities and Lands and Survey issued a blanket licence to Ministry of works to take shingle from all rivers and Streams. The Ministry of Works then issued permits to the County Councils and sent in a quarterly return to the Lands and Survey Department. Much of the contents of this file contains these returns from the different areas of the Coromandel Peninsula and the collated summaries sent to the Lands and Survey Department. August 1951: There several memos referring to illegal taking of sand and shingle from beaches. Associated files Paeroa 24/256, SH39/1/1 and SH72/25/2C/6 also Paeroa 24/1256 October to December 1960. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. Volume II 1970-1974. Note: This file contains 3 monthly returns of material taken from beaches and streams in the Coromandel Peninsula and sent to the Lands and Survey Department who was responsible for Crown Land. This summary does not include these returns and anyone wanting to know where and when material was taken will need to consult these files at Archives NZ. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. Volume III 1974-1976. May 1974: The Lands and Survey Department lost control of sand mining in rivers and beaches to the Mines Department. Control of sand removal now came under the Mines Act 1970. Ministry of Works now told that would have to apply to the Mines Department for a blanket approval to take sand and shingle from the catchments of the Peninsula. This was a continuation of the system run by the Lands and Survey Department. Ministry of Works then issued permits to remove material to local bodies and contractors. May 1974: Ministry of Works were told by the Mines Department that shingle removal from streams etc. was better dealt with under the Lands Act 1948 and that the Lands and Survey should control such licences. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. Volume IV 1977–1981. February 1977: The Ministry of Transport instigated a requirement that the local Catchment Authority would have to be involved in approval of any sand mining operations. June 1977: Ministry of Transport asked the Ministry of Works if there were any other beaches that were suitable for mining out of the public eye. March 1978: The Hauraki Catchment Board and Ministry of Works agree to work together on matters of coastal sand extraction. June 1978: The Thames Valley Gazette ran an article that reviewed present sand mining permits. Included was a report by R.W. Harris, on "Sand and Shingle Extraction from Coromandel Beaches and its Relation to Coastal Erosion" The report concludes that the existing licences should be declined.
Study Types
  • Literature Review
Categories
  • Consents and Structures
  • Social and Economic
  • Coastal Development and Public Spaces
  • Plants/Vegetation
  • Sediments
  • Shoreline Change
  • Bathymetry
  • Consents and Structures
  • Consents and Structures

2. Contact information

Commissioning Agencies
  • Ministry of Works
Contact Organisations
  • Environment Waikato

3. Spatial information

Geographic Coverage
Waihou River estuary and Thames area
Grid Coordinates
Locations
  • Name
    NZMG Easting
    0
    NZMG Northing
    0
    Location
    East Coast Inner FoT: Waihou River to Tararu Stream (including Kauranga River and Thames Township)
    East Coast
  • Name
    NZMG Easting
    0
    NZMG Northing
    0
    Location
    South Coast FoT: Waitakaruru River to Waihou River (including Piako River)
    East Coast
  • Name
    NZMG Easting
    0
    NZMG Northing
    0
    Location
    Waihou River
    East Coast
  • Name
    NZMG Easting
    NZMG Northing
    Location
    Firth of Thames
    East Coast

4. Data acquisition information

Collection Date
1930-1983
Methodology
Varied. This data gathered from physical files in 2013. Frequency of collection: Varied

5. Data quality information

Known Limitations
Gaps in collection: n/a Data quality: Varied

6. Distribution information

Format
Summary available here. Physical files available from NZ Archives. Digital Format: Occasional reports and images scanned by Regional Council.
Applications
Availability
none Sensitivity/Confidentiality: none

7. Status information

Data Status
Historical

9. Related files

No files have been attached to this dataset

Back to Top