PREVENTION OF FLOOD

Evening Star, Issue 20140, 3 April 1929, Page 6

PREVENTION OF FLOOD

assessment of restoration ANOTHER DEPUTATION TO COUNCIL Several requests from the Albany Street Flood Committee were placed before the deputy-mayor (Mr J. S. Douglas), Cr J. Wilson, and Mr G. A. Lewin, and Messrs H. E. Moller and W. J. Barclsley (chairman and secretary of the Otago Harbour Board) yesterday afternoon. “ This is hardly the time to 'philosophise about the situation or to criticise,” said Mr G. P. Cuttriss. ‘‘We are faced with the aftermath of the flood and a possibility of a recurrence, and these questions loom largely at the present moment. We owe a duty to the sufferers, and it behoves us to take steps to prevent further floods.” The services of the committee in assessing the damage, with a view to restoration, were offered the City Council and the Harbour Board. Magnificent relief work had been done under the extraordinary conditions. The committee wanted to know if the deputy-mayor had appointed assessors. The question of responsibility should not obtrude at this juncture, but there was a moral responsibility. Through no fault of their own and without being given a warning which would have allowed precautions to be taken, householders had suffered. The committee further asked that the relief depot should not be closed, as further cases were being revealed. The highest commendation had to be given to tbo engineers and the staffs for the earnest way they were tackling the job of repairing the damage, and that was taken as an indication that both local bodies intended to expedite the work of flood prevention. The committee asked for an assurance that everything humanly possible would be done at the earliest moment to prevent a recurrence of the flood. The tunnel scheme for the diversion of the Leith was submitted for the consideration of the engineers. A further suggestion made was that the Government should ho asked for a subsidy on the relief funds collected.

“ Are you not raising a lot of points you brought before mo the other day?” asked Mr Douglas. Mr Cutlriss: 1 think not. Mr Douglas; I think so. You are bringing up problems for the engineers and°not for laymen like us to deal with.

An independent commission to consider the claims was also sought by the committee.

Special consideration for the Pelichet Bay residents, who had been flooded throe times, was appealed for by Mr Williamson. By reclaiming the foreshore the Harbour Board had converted the district into a pond at flood times. “ Do not judge a man’s intelligence by Ids habitat, and give everybody in the district a fair hearing.” he said. “We know what it amounts to, and that the citizens will have to loot the hill. The residents appreciated the way the council had tackled the debris and cleaning-up problems. “We are doing our best. J hat answer, said Mr Douglas, could be made to all the questions. With the concurrence of the chairman of the Tl\ orks Committee a minute on the flood questions would he submitted to the City Council on Wednesday night, lu the city engineer the council had the best engineer in New Zealand His work had been criticised, but Mr Alexandei was working for the future expansion of Dunedin. So was Mr TWlkm. Neither of the engineers could bo blamed for the flood Mr Williamson: They arc not to blame. , ~ ~ “ But the public are blaming them, said Mr Douglas. The two engineers were working hand in hand on a flood prevention scheme. He outlined the present work of the furniture and building assessors, and asked it more could he done. Mr Williamson : No. The City Council would probably make a grant, said Mr Douglas. He knew people bad been mined, and the City Council felt for its brother citiThe Harbour Board had carried out its works for the improvement of the harbour, said Mr Model*, the boaid was guided by-its engineers. A final scheme for prevention of flood would be brought down, ft was a vital question to the board, which owned large areas of land on the foreshore. The Leith Canal had hocn reported on_hy the greatest civil engineer in New Zealand (the late Mr Blair Mason), and also by Air Furkert. Mr Williamson; Did not Mr Furkert differ from Mr Blair Mason. Air ALollcr: He made suggestions m one or two directions. The exceptional rainfall was a problem, and be only wished that the deputation was in the board’s place. The members would then understand the board’s position. If it were possible to prevent flooding from the Leith, the Harbour Board would not spare the money necessary. With eleven inches of rain to be met. au expenditure of £'1,000,000 would be needed, _ and he doubted if that sum would give Dunedin safety. U was altogether a nasty job. “ We realise that,” -said Air Williamson.

Mr Douglas intimated that it would probably be more than a month before the engineer’s report was brought down. It would nob be the fault of the council if the situation was not coped with successfully. “ We have to thank yon for the courteous reception.” said Mr Cuttriss. “Our purpose is not for self-aggran-disement. We have no personal interest in coining before you. and we regret the necessity. We realise the difficulties confronting you, and we sympathise with the engineers in their problems. We have come not to criticise, hut io help. Several regrettable features have crept in, but when everything is over we will know each other better and realise that we have been both working in the interests of the community.”