FLOOD PROTECTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20690, 12 April 1929, Page 12

FLOOD PROTECTION.

GOVERNMENT COMMISSION . URGED. MEETING OF WOODHAUGH RESIDENTS. -A- meeting of flood sufferers resident in the Woodhaugh and adjacent districts fvaß held in the Anglican Church, Leith Valley, last night, Mr G. P. Cuttriss presiding- over an attendance which was only fair. The meeting, Mr Cuttriss explained at the outset, had been called in response to numerous requests from residents in the district who had suffered as a result of the recent, flood, and he stated that they were not there to indulge in recriminations o- criticise undulv, but to discuss the question with a view to seeing what could be done. Touching -ou the question of relief, the speaker said that the response to the appear on behalf of the flood sufferers had been very praiseworthy, and the magnuicent service rendered by the voluntary relief workers was deserving of the highest commendation, and in striking contrast with the passivity of the Civic Committee appointed, by the City Council. The body of which he was chairman was desirous of co-operating with these workers, and, indeed,.with any body which had the question of flood relief at heart but he considered that a - balance sheet of the relief fund should be.published,,as it was essential that all. should know wh-at balance remained to compensate the people. Ho would like, however, to point out to those present that the Lcitli Flood Protection Committee and the Relief Committee were two entirely different bodies —one dealt with protection and the other i relief—although he had to admit that he considered that the methods of the latter organisation left something to be demred. Some totally unfair criticism had been Jevelled at the Flood Protection Committee, which, he wished to point out, had no desire to usurp the prerogatives of any other bodies. Referring to a letter from the Deputy Mayor which appeared in the Daily. Times, and which contained a reference to the claim forms being issued by the Leith Flood ■Protection Committee, Mr Cuttriss explained that the committee was acting under legal advice when it had had the terms printed, and, moreover, had been advised to have as many of these forms tilled in aa possible, as, in the event of compensation being granted, they would know exactly what they would claim. He urged those present to fill in the forme, winch had nothing whatever to do with the Belief Committee, which body, he behad taken a leaf out of his committee s ■ book, and was now issuing similar forms. It was most essential, continued Mr Cuttriss, that the:work of cleaning out the Leith—the bed of which had risen four feet and a-half, should be expedited as much ag possible, and aa a meeting they should urge that the debris should be removed from the channel as speedily as possible. Personally, he taougat that .the recent'flood constituted a serious reflection on ,tiu ability and t ,It present engineers, who should have made provision for any extra flow of water in the Leith by deepening its bed and raising its walls. In .regard ™ compensation, it had freely been stated that the Harbour Board was responsible for such damage as had occurred below horth street, and he believed that-the board realised its responsibility in this direction. _ As for the City Council, the fact t-iat it had spent so much time and money m the repairing and building of walls on the banks of the Leith indicated that itj too, ■ had a 1 certain sense of responsibility. “Advice will' be taken”, concluded Mr Cuttriss, “action will follow, and if redress is not obtained wu must move, to have the law amended, so that the Leith shall -be vested in one. body. —(Applause.) MrMinnock voiced a somewhat: caustic criticism of the Relief Committee and referred ironically to what he characterised as “ the eyewash and 1 side-track-ing of a self-appointed committee,” which elicited from a- member of the. audience a query as to who appointed the Leith Flood Protection Committee.' Mr Cuttriss replied that the committee wns appointed at a general meeting of sufferers from the flood. - Mr J. Brogan then moved—“ That the Prime bG aßkcd to appoint, as promised, an independent board of cn--gineers to report on the position.” ' Mr A. Gillies seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Air Gft R. Smith expressed the opinion that Mr Blair Mason, and hot the present engineer of the Harbour Board (Mr J. M, G. Wilkie) was responsible, for the construction of. the outlet of the Leith, which had proved to be onlj v half large enough.; . . 6 Mr G, Clark opposed any claim- for compensation, pointing.out.that any compensation received -and the litigation necessary for obtaining it' would come directly or indirectly out of the pockets the ratepayers. He considered, said Mr Clark, that the City Council, had treated the Leith \ alloy residents very ■well. • . , , from Mr Minnock a startled “What?” but Mr Clark went That this meeting thanks the City Council for what it has done tor Jjgit(i Valley, and commends it for its work m connection with the cleaning of the bed of the Leith, at present and in the past.

Someone exclaimed. “ Lord, help us! ” and Mr Clarks motion, lapsed-for want of A seconder.

Mr J. McDonald, who was present also addressed the meeting briefly. At the conclusion of the meeting the following committee was eleetedto watch the of the district in connection with flood protection matters:— Messrs H, Kirkwood, H. G. Berry, E, Clark, Tv. Stronacli. and J. Brogan.