MIRAMAR FLOODS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 83, 4 October 1929, Page 7

MIRAMAR FLOODS

NO ONE TO BLAME

COMMITTEE'S FINDING

LOGS IN THE DKAIN

. The report,of the Works Committee -regarding the recent flooding of the 'iUiramar Valley as a result of the .'Mocking of the outlet tunnel by pine -logs, branches, and rubbish, was made to tho City Council last' evening. The .committee found that no blame could be attributed to any member of the staff of the City Council. The report stated that the committee had met on 16th and 23rd September, and had heard the evidence of sixteen witnesses, and continued:— After carefully considering the evidence given, the committee arrived at. the following decision:— ;■" 1. The blockage was caused by at least three large logs being caught in the drainage tunnel, and in consequence a.quantity of debris accumulated which otherwise would have passed through. . 2. There is no evidence to show how these logs reached .the channel, or subsequently the tunnel. ■!3. The contractor who felled certain. trees alongside the channel appears to have taken, reasonable precautions to stack the- trees aud branches neatly at the site selected by tho council's of- ; ficer. Some of these trees and branches were occasionally disturbed by unknown persons, but the contractor, again at the . xequest of the council's officer, restacked the logs and branches well away from the channel. ' 4; The drains and tunnel were thoroughly cleaned.up.at the end of May, "after the contractor had finished cutting •down-.the trees. „ .5, The evidence disclosed the fact "that the channel was more frequently ; cleaned out during the city council's control than it was under that of the Miramar Borough Council. • V 6. The committee finds, that "no blame can be attributed to any member of the staff of the "Wellington City Council.' i ■■ NO CHARGE SUBSTANTIATED. Councillor .Forsyth asked whether the very serious charge that had been made: against a council officer' or officers had been withdrawn absolutely. Councillor Wright, chairman of tho Works Committee, replied that - no uharge was substantiated which reflected upon any one of the council's officers. Statements were made by . certain persons that one officer had been warned, but took no notice. However, ; though the committee endeavoured to find out what officer was warned, no witness would give a name, and the only conclusion .that the committee could come to was that the charge was a mythical one. As far as the committee could judge, no member of the council staff had been, warned. DISAGREEMENT WITH FINDING. Councillor jB. Semple said that he wished, to dissociate himself from the report 'He was satisfied that the flooding would have been avoided had the trees felled by $ie contractor been cleared away from the close proximity of the drain, as the specifications clearly required. None\ of the limbs or branches was carted away by the contractor, but when the damage waa done the carting was-done by the council. ■■■■■■... Several witnesses had stated that .they.had seen logs lying about tho drain, and he had been told by responsible citizens—and so had_the committee—that an officer of the council had been warned, but those persons refused to give a name because they did not want to see him victimised. There was no evidence whether the logs and branches had been rolled into the ditch by children or by adults, but the fact remained that the clause requiring the contractor, to remove the logs and burn.the brambles had never been observed, though when the flooding- was over, the council had carted what remained away at tho city's expense. Councillor Forsyth:. "And.vrho was to cart them away?" : Oqiincillor Semple: "Tho contractor. I blania the overseer for not seeing that that ejliiUße of the contract was not carried out." Councillor Foray th: "That is the man you'refer-to?" Councillor Semple: "Yes. I dissent from the report." Councillor' W. H. Bennett said that the only item anybody could be blamed about was that tho branches had not been removed immediately .they had been cut down. If the material had got into the tunnel when wood was removed for firewood by the residents, the contractor could not be blamed. Councillor R. M'Keen said that there was no doubt that the officers had been slack regarding the removal of the branches. He could not agree with the report. Councillor C. H. Chapman said _he agreed with Councillor Bennett that they should be moderate in their language, but nobody had been otherwise than moderate. On the ground of economy a man had been discharged whose duty it was to keep the channel clear. He regarded the Teport as white-wash-ing the council officers. SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAEED. Councillor T. C. A. Hislop said that •if a large private body had been in charge of . that district no blockage would have occurred. Surely when the rainy season was approaching it would be proper to see that the drain was • kept clear. He thought the council should acknowledge that it was a thing that could have been avoided by efiicieney, and it wasn't Councillor Wright,, in reply to several of <the points made, said that, there was no white-washing about the report; it was a fair verdict on the evidence that was before the committee. It had to be kept in mind that unauthorised persons had also felled trees and thore was no evidence whether the logs which had caused the trouble had been felled by the contractor or by some private person or persons. The evidence showoa that the logs felled by the contractor had been stacked-according to the contract, and the evidence regarding the branches was that they were too green to burn. Councillor Chapman had said that people had' lost furni.ture. Who were those people? He had not-been able to find anyone who had lost furniture,- and he could find no people, with the exception of one witness, who said that they had suffered loss: No claims had been made on the-, council in respect of loss. The drains, according to the evidence given, were ' better looked after than ever they were in the days of the Miramar Borough Council. It was not a white-washing-re-port in any sense; it was the only report which the committee could bring down from the evidence -which was placed before it.

The report was adopted, Councillors Semple and M'Keen asking that a note should be taken of their dissent.