FLOOD DISASTER

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 80, 5 April 1938, Page 5

FLOOD DISASTER

THEORIES AS TO CAUSE

WITNESS'S CONTENTION

DUMPING OF SPOIL

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

WAIROA, April 4.

The inquests on the victims of the flood disaster at the single men's section of No. 4 camp in the Kopuawhara Valley on February 19 took a sensational turn this afternoon when a former employee of the Public Works Department at Kopuawhara ' gave evidence during which he stated that the tragedy was the result of the action of the Department in dumping spoil from a tunnel into the river, the effect of which was to dam up the water, which broke away as the result of torrential rain. Other witnesses also gave evidence regarding the dumping of spoil, but expressed opinions that this was not the cause of the tragedy. Sergeant John Mclntosh, of Hastings, conducted the inquests for the police and Mr. L. W. Willis, of Napier, represented- the Public Works Department.

Stanley Gordon Hutchinson, clerk, residing at Waikokopu, said he volunteered to give evidence as- he considered he could throw some light on the tragedy. He knew the stream which ran past No. 4 camp well, as he had worked at No. 5 camp with the PubMc Works .Department for about ten months. He knew that the Department had been dumping all spoil taken from No. 6 tunnel into the stream, about two miles above No. 4 camp site. In December, 1936, there was a small flood in the stream and the tip-head was' washed away. That was where the spoil was dumped into "the stream. Rails and sleepers were carried away and left in the bed of the stream. He considered that there must have been a considerable amount of spoil in the stream, as there had not been a flood since then. He visited this place about four and a half months ago. The spoil was consolidating, but he could not say how far it went out into the stream.

CONSEQUENCE OF DUMPING.

In the event of a flood he considered that the water would be dammed up, and he considered that to be the cause of the disaster. He thought the fact that spoil was going into the bed confined the stream considerably. The stream, \he thought, would have room to expand to a certain extent. ' , To the Coroner (Mr. ,E. V. Winter) witness said the spoil was , actually dumped into the stream.

Questioned by Mr. Willis, witness said it would be i about eight months since he worked for the, Public Works Department. He was put off because there was no light work lor him. He did not pretend to be,an expert on/ the question. He was only a layman. He was there in' the locality about three months before the disaster. There had been some discussion at Waikokopu about the disaster for some time, and his reason for giving the statement was that he had been asked by the police. He would say the spoil was not dumped into a disused bed but into the river—actually into the water.,. He denied that there was an unused corner on the river bed where the spoil was dumped. Witness said he worked at that particular site at.various times and said; he saw .some hundreds ofl truck loads of spoil dumped into the water. The spoil would be about 10 or 12 feet high. Some of the water went round the end of the dump and some of it seeped through. !

Mr. Willis: So far as you are concerned it, is ; all guesswork? ,

Witness: It is not guesswork. It is what I saw. If you put spoil into any stream it will block it to a certain extent. '.<■■■

FOREMAN'S OPINION.

Frederick Gordon Yeo, who was foreman.in charge of No. 4 camp, was the next witness called. He said he occupied a hut at the camp and had been living there for about 15 months. It commenced to rain about 10 a.m. on February 18 and continued until about 4 p.m. It started to rain again about 7 p.m. and continued raining "heavily all the evening. "He looked at the stream when he was going to his hut from the V.M.C.A. at about 9.30 p.m. The water in the stream had rise^i but he did not think it was dangerous.. It did not cause him any concern. He went to bed about 11.30, and it was then raining heavily. He was awakened between 3 and 3.15 o'clock the following morning by a man named Tracey, who told him that th,e stream was rising. ■ l

Witness got up straight away and went outside. It was then raining very heavily and the water was rising. He tried.to switch on the lights but they would not function. He went to the top of the camp with Tracey, who had gone to wake others. He met some men coming from the cookhouse, who told him there was no hope of getting out that way. He then told them to get on top of the whares.- The water was then up to his knees. He climbed to the top,of one of the huts, where there were four or five others and, while they were there, an electric light pole fell on__ to the chimney of the hut. He bound the pole to the chimney with wires and then the hut collapsed and left him clinging to the pole. The others went down with the hut. The water was still rising and about 20 minutes afterwards the pole was rooted out. He went along with it and was swept to the cookhouse. He scrambled on to the roof of the cookhouse and stayed there until the flood had subsided. He considered the camp site was a safe one. He would say it was 100 per cent, safe under. normal conditions.

To the Coroner witness said he could not say whether the dumping of spoil had anything to do with the disaster.

CAMP BELIEVED SAFE,

Te Ngaio, a survivor, said he thought the camp was quite safe. He had seen the stream higher than it was when he went to bed. He saw a number of heavy logs lying on the banks of the stream after the flood and he, did not think the rain that was falling when he went to bed would be sufficient to bring the logs down. Witness said he had worked at No. 6 tunnel and had se.en spoil dumped in the river-bed. The last time he saw the tunnel was about the end of August, and he did not think the spoil dumped in the river at that time would cause any damming. George Annersley, concrete inspector, said he had been employed at No. 6 tunnel since December 1, 1937, and worked during the afternoon of February 18 and from 4 o'clock until midnight. He knew that the Public Works Department had been dumping spoil moved from the tunnel into the stream, and on February 18 there was a fair amount'of spoil in it. The river was not narrowed by more than two or three feet during the time he was there, as the spoil was dumped along the bank of the stream and not out towards the centre He considered there would be a channel of at least 50 feet to allow the water to flow past. Witness added that in his opinion there would be no possibility of the stream banking up as the result of the spoil. He passed the tip at about 12.10 a.m. on February 19, and it was then raining very. hard. He

examined the tip and found the stream had risen, two or three feet. He was quite definite that the water was not obstructed in any way at that time.

DISAPPEARANCE OF TIP.

Michael Kelly said he had been working at No. 6 tunnel for about_ 15 months and was employed dumping spoil into the stream. He started work at 4 p.m. on February 18. It was raining hard. He thought there would be about a chain of spoil from the side of the river out towards the middle. There would be about another chain for the river to expand if necessary. He took particular notice of the tip when he knocked off at midnight and saw pa^ts of it falling away. He did not think of the likelihood of it being washed away. He saw the tip washed away about seven or eight months ago. The rain was then much- heavier. There was no chance'of that class of spoil banking the water up. The tip was gone at 3.30 in the morning. His opinion was that the disaster was caused by ia cloudburst between midnight and 3.30 a.m. The inquest was' adjourned till tomorrow.