The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1929. THE LEITH.

Evening Star, Issue 20133, 25 March 1929, Page 8

The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1929. THE LEITH.

Dunixti the same week in which the Dunedin floods occurred the usual meetings of the City Council and the Harbour Board were held. To the general public, and particularly the sufferers by the Hooding of the Leith, the references to tho flood must leave a feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction. The Harbour Board members received without comment in the course of a routine report that certain progress had been made in raising the walls of the Leith Canal. At the City Council meeting a certain amount of information of secondary consequence was given by Cr Wilson, who incidentally stated that the damage to the corporation on this occasion was less than in 1923, despite the disappearance of bridges which were, anyhow, ripe for renewal. But there is tho very important question of damage to citizens’ property. This has been immensely greater than on tbc previous occasion in the very extended area into which the Leith waters penetrated. The response to calls for relief has boon prompt. In respect of one particular list it may be said that tbc receipt of charity must amount to a rubbing of salt into a raw wound. Doles after a disaster arc small solace for the neglect of measures which were indicated by previous experiences, particularly that o l ' six years ago. The corporation has given effect to but a tiny fraction of the list of works then recommended by its then engineer. There is a spice of irony in the fact that the corporation during the weekend reaped a monetary harvest from the transport of sightseers to the devastation arising, at least in part, from dereliction of duty in tho matter of flood prevention. In the meantime it is interesting to note that the medium of the public meeting is to bo employed by those who have suffered.

There is no lack of data concerning the risk which has been courted for years past. In the first place there is the alteration being effected in the nature of the catchment area of the Leith, contributed to by the City Corporation, the effect of which is greatly to increase the rate of run-off from the feeders. This merely intensifies the proved inadequacy of the artificial waterway provided in the final reaches. Reporting in 1916 the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, taking the Leith discharge at Union street at Christmas, 1911, as 4,000 cubic feet per second, said that this flow could not be regarded as the maximum .to be expected, and that no portion of the channel, as constructed, was largo enough for safety if high tide coincided with a quite likely flood discharge. The concluding portion of Mr Furkert’s report is of particular 'interest: “In requesting further security, the Drainage Board were acting to the best of their belief in the interests of the ratepayers, and, the City Corporation being satisfied that the danger anticipated is non-existent, should he prepared to give an undertaking to the Drainage Board that they (the city) would be responsible for any damage due to non-fulfilment of work asked far by the board. As in a few months the board go out of existence, and the City Council assume its •function, there could be no objection to this, and the board could retire from office with the knowledge that they have thoroughly investigated the matter and placed their opinion and protest on record.” The Drainage Board’s opinion was based on the advice of its engineer. The loss of his services on the absorption pf the board by the City Council is a change which has subsequently been lamented by citizens, who certainly have not benefited by the change.