SAGAS OF THE EARLY DAYS by WINDSOR LANG.
Courtesy of TROVE Northern Star, Saturday 22 February 1947
Sand – Problem in Construction of Richmond Bar
COMMUNICATION between the Northern Rivers and the outside world in the years immediately following settlement on those rivers was dependent almost entirely upon the ocean-going boats. A rather ineffective overland line of communication undoubtedly did exist, but considering that the river mouths were almost locked by sand bars, it is scarcely to be wondered that the need for improvement to the rivers’ entrances became a constantly recurring topic for discussion between the settlers and the ships’ misters. However, in those years of grace, the speakers’ voices had little chance of reaching the ears of administrative authority. It was not until 1842 that a measure of representative government was granted to N.S.W. Victoria was not separated from N.S.W. until 1850, and Queensland remained a part of N.S.W. until 1839. The constitution giving N.S.W. responsible government did not come until 1855.
In his “Australian Pioneers and Reminiscences,” Nehemiah Baftley wrote:-“Australia was young in 1842. Even Sydney was juvenile. As for Port Phillip. New Zealand, and Moreton Bay, they were simply babies.” Again, one reads in Arthur W. Jose’s “History of Australia”: “For 20 years or more after the granting of the Constitutions, Australians were chiefly occupied in learning to use their new powers.”
Consideration of the foregoing contemporary history should lead us to appreciate the fact that, much as the presence of sand-bars agitated the minds of the river settlers, it had little significance for apprentice legislature trying to grapple with continent-wide affairs, some of them presenting problems unprecedented in their nature. Indeed, it must have given the settlers in the area great satisfaction when a departmental survey was made of the Clarence and the Richmond bars, which survey led to the issuing of the “Moriarty Report” in 1856.
As a result of recommendations contained therein, the Clarence River breakwater was commenced about 1862. The recommendations pertaining to the Richmond were “shelved,” and Richmond River bar conditions remained bad for nearly 30 years longer.
Sir Thomas Ewing spent years in trying to bludgeon the authorities into taking some kind of remedial action. The fight was kept up by the later representatives-Robert Pyers and John Perry.
Mr. Arthur Cousins says that the “C. and R. Examiner” of January 27, 1863 published this extract from the Maitland “Mercury”: “The Legislative Assembly turned down by 17 votes to seven a motion to supply a steam-tug to the Richmond River.”
For years the Legislative Assembly continued adamant on this point, and it was not until some years after her arrival on the river in 1876 that the “Francis Hixon,” belonging to T. Fenwick’s tug-boat service, was subsidised by the government-nearly a decade after the first proprietary tug-boat service had been established on the river.
The clearing of the tributaries by the timber-men during their cedar betting operations had improved the natural scour of the mainstream-especially in flood time and the river entrance was improved as a consequence. But nothing was done in the way of systematic dredging until Sir John Coode’s scheme for the provision of a breakwater at the mouth of the Richmond was ratified in 1882.
Before work had been commenced on the construction of the breakwaters an endeavor was made to improve the existing entrance. In 1883-1884 the first dredge on the Richmond River – the small ladder dredge “Archimedes”-made unsuccessful attempts to improve the existing crossing at the heads. So she was employed to cut a new channel to the west.
By the “80’s” the advance in agricultural settlement, the unceasing efforts of the district representatives in parliament, and the voices of parties, living in Sydney, with material interests in the district, had each called clamantly for improved river-entrance conditions, so that a more efficient and expeditious boat Service could be established.
Recommendations for improvement to Richmond River entrance submitted in 1882 by Sir John Coode resulted. Implementation of his plans was delayed for some time whilst investigations were being made regarding the location of a site for the establishment of a quarry capable of yielding a sufficiency of stone suitable for breaks water construction.
Eventually such a site was located at Riley’s Hill. A quarry adequately supplied with stone-removing equipment was opened up. A spacious dock was constructed. Roomy punts, capable of carrying big loads took up their positions alongside the quarry wharves. Before long a busy industrial community sprang up at Riley’s Hill. Almost simultaneously quarries were opened up at East Ballina near Pilot Point-stone from these latter quarries being utilised in the early constructional, work of North Wall.
When the punts were laden with massive blue-metal boulders-out sizes in spawls – they were taken in tow by stout government tug-boats, and transported to the crane-wharf which had been erected at a place close to where the south wall was to be started. At times when any of these tugs had to discontinue work whilst undergoing overhaul, one of Fenwick’s tug-boats under took the work.
The Ballina office of the Harbours and Rivers branch of the Department of Public Works, under the charge of Mr. Thomas Keele, became the Centre that directed and controlled the activities of an army of workers. At a later date Mr. A. E. Burrows succeeded Mr. Keele. Mr. J. Wappett was the foreman in charge of the construction work, which was under way in 1889.
Sir John Coode’s plan had provided for the extension of the south wall far beyond the wall on the north; in fact Sir John asserted that no real need existed for the construction of even a portion of the north wall. However, when the blue-prints were being prepared by the departmental draughtsmen in Sydney, Sir Frederick Darley provided for the construction of north wall as it stands today. This, was so than an improved tour of the new channel would be assured.
Since the walls have been constructed I have heard several criticise the departure from Sir John Coode’s plan. Subsequent bar troubles have been attributed to this. These criticisms did not come from constructional engineers, but their sponsors, at least, had other qualifications that would entitle them to pose as critics.
Training walls were built along the northern fore-shore of the river at Ballina, and continued to the mouth of North Creek. These lined the bank of North Creek for a distance from its mouth, and on the southern side from the western lip of Mobbs’ Bay, along the riverway to the bay’s eastern lip, almost screening off Mobbs’ Bay. The purpose of these was to control the scouring effect of the river waters, when a new and straighter channel had been made.
About 50 years ago a canal was cut from North Creek, via Fishery Creek, to the main stream west of the town. This was to provide a safe, and navigable, passage-way for the cane-boats needed for service along North Creek, but the waters making detour by way of the canal improved the flow in the main stream waters, whilst at the time reducing the flow through the natural mouth of the creek, in the light of subsequent development of the sand spits near the mouth of Worth Creek-whilst I in no way profess to engineering knowledge-it would seem to me that had stone causeway been constructed over North Creek in place of the bridge at East Ballina, the effect would have been beneficial.
As construction work proceeded, tramway lines were laid along the crown of the south wall, and a light locomotive engine drawing a train of stone-laden trucks was used for the growing stone wall. Commencing near the crane wharf situated at the foot of Martin Street to the south of the post office, tramway rails were laid along the town of the northern training wall, across the East Ballina bridge and to crown of North Wall. Along this second tramway another locomotive conveyed truck loads of stone from Riley’s Hill. Hand in hand with this construction work an attack as launched upon the sand-bar at the entrance. One of the government tugs was utilised for this work. More than one method was tried before anything like success was attained in the matter of effectively removing the indurated sand.
(To be continued).