Introduction

In the late 19th Century, James Otway, harbour engineer, wrote a paper for the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. His topic was the development of the Port and Harbour of Waterford. The entire paper is a fascinating glimpse into Waterford Port 1886. However, for this blog, I want to summarise his observations of the dredging works, the mudboats role and his recommendations on this vital maintenance operation of the port. Otway examined the challenges posed by silt accumulation, the efficiency of the mudboats, and potential improvements to the port’s infrastructure to ensure its long-term viability.

Dredging Requirements at Waterford Port

Otway noted that, compared to other ports of similar trade activity, the amount of dredging required at Waterford was relatively low. The maximum quantity dredged in a single year had been 120,000 tonnes, with the annual average generally falling below this figure. He acknowledged that dredging was sufficient for ordinary operations but highlighted the persistent difficulties and expense associated with removing and disposing dredged material. Unfortunately, he didn’t cover the extraction method. But from previous research, at least two bucket dredgers were operating in the 1890s – The Urbs Intacta and the Sicily. The earliest mention I found thus far of the lighter mudboats is 1839.

Urbs Intacta in drydock via Frank Cheevers from Michael Cheevers. Accessed from WMH

Issues with the Mudboats

He described the method of disposal as inefficient and open to abuse. The dredged material was transported in mudboats. These of course are lighters carrying approximately 40 tonnes each and deposited at designated locations along the river, above the high-water mark. Landowners were delighted to facilitate the process – raising the low-lying ground and helping to prevent flooding of their land. Unfortunately, Otway does not mention if there was any payment for the service to the landowner. Elsewhere, I have read that farmers treated the river mud as a fertiliser. Although we get no specifics of where the mud was removed, I would imagine any low-lying or marshy area of the harbour area or upriver was ideal.

Lighter at the riverbank in Waterford city. Note the narrow gangplank for access. Courtesy of Michael O’Sullivan WHG

However, he identified several issues with the mud removal process:

• Muboats had a crew of four men (three man crew was the norm on freight carrying lighters), relied on manual labour to transport the material ashore using hand barrows and wooden planks. This method was both labour-intensive and inefficient.
• There was a risk that crews would not deposit the material far enough inland, leaving it vulnerable to high tides and washing back into the river.
• The possibility of illicit dumping into the river, particularly under the cover of darkness, was a significant concern. If no one was watching, and giving the time it took to move cargo in lighters that depended on the tides, this must have been a major temptation.
• Two supervisors were assigned to oversee up to 15 unloading boats at various locations, making effective oversight impossible. (These of course were the “inspector of mudboats” as they were sometimes described in newspaper reports by the Harbour Commissioners. Occasionally this was shortened, rather demeaningly I think, to “mudboat checkers”)

Costs and Responsibilities

Otway provided an insight into the costs of dredging operations. Private contractors, referred to as “outside boats,” received 7 1/2d per ton for removing mud, while the Commissioners’ own boats were paid 6d per ton. The outside boats were independently owned and maintained, whereas the Commissioners’ boats were provided to willing crews. Any repairs were covered at no expense to them.

The Harbour Board had considered alternative dredging methods to improve efficiency and reduce costs. (Something for further research) However, the capital investment required had been a significant deterrent. One proposed solution involved transporting the dredged material out to sea, but the relatively small annual volume of silt made this option prohibitively expensive.

Potential Measures to Reduce Silt Accumulation

Rather than focusing solely on dredging, Otway suggested that modifications to the river’s natural flow could help reduce silt. He referenced a study conducted by his assistant, Mr. Mandeville, in 1883, which examined tidal currents over a 30-day period to understand sediment movement.

Otway stated that no significant silt deposits had formed in the central part of the river for at least 40 years. Historical records, such as the 1848 Admiralty chart, indicated that river depths had remained stable in this section, despite the absence of dredging.

Bilberry Rock on the left, looking upriver from Rice Bridge, photo courtesy of James Doherty

The Influence of Waterford’s Quay Layout

Otway attributed much of the port’s dredging requirements to the positioning of the quays. He argued that had they been constructed following a gentle concave curve, aligned with the river’s natural flow, the need for dredging would have been significantly reduced. What he was in effect saying was that it was built in the wrong place.

He did acknowledge that the hulks and long gangways that allowed shipping access to the quays were a success, however. He particularly cited the loading of cattle which they facilitated in a much more effective way than any deepwater quay.

A key geographical feature identified was Bilberry Rock, a cliff projecting into the river southwest of the city. Otway observed that the narrowing of the river at this point caused turbulence in the ebb tide, leading to eddies and backflow that contributed to silt deposition.

Recommendations for Port Improvement

To enhance Waterford Port’s efficiency and reduce dredging requirements, Otway proposed several measures:

• Widening the river at Bilberry Rock: He proposed in doing so to cut back the rock projection which would help streamline the tidal flow and reduce sedimentation along the quays.
• Narrowing the bight above Bilberry Rock: Creating a smoother concave curve which he belived would direct the ebb tide more effectively and minimise silt deposits.
• Extending the quays into deeper water: This would not only increase quay space but also decrease dredging requirements by shifting port activity to naturally deeper sections of the river.

Conclusion

Otway’s report in 1886 was a snapshot in time of the development of the city port. It also gives a glimpse into how he saw the need for efforts to expand and develop the port to accommodate larger ships and trade. I was drawn to it in particular because of the references to the work of the Mudboats. Lighters are a topic for which I have a longtime fascination. While dredging remained an essential operation, he believed that modifying the river’s flow and optimising quay layouts could significantly reduce the long-term need for sediment removal.

Otway was also involved in rail developments and was the designer of Kilmacthomas viaduct. Photo courtesy of Martin Whelan

His one-time apprentice William Friel would succeed him in the role. Friel was central to the introduction of the Portlairge in 1907 which saw the need for the mudboats finally disappear. I always thought her soubriquet was a pet name, or perhaps a slur by some. More likely it had its origins as a historic throwback to a more difficult and ardous time for dredging in the city.

Otway’s vision of a deepwater port would exercise the board in the next century, finally being fulfilled with a move to Belview in 1996. The need for the removal of silt has not been resolved, however. If anything it is multiplied, as we know to our cost at Cheekpoint…but that is a whole other story.

James Otway was an engineer who had a long association with Waterford projects and was employed by Waterford Harbour Commissioners from the late 1870s to possibly 1898. I can highly recommend reading the full report.  I certainly plan to draw on it again to share Otway’s thoughts on the harbour development.  If you can’t wait – the entire report can be accessed here