DUMPED SPOIL

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20466, 5 April 1938, Page 8

DUMPED SPOIL

KOPUAWHARA TRAGEDY DISREGARDED BY OORONER ENGINEER'S EVIDENCE (By Telegraph —Press Association) WAIROA, Tuesday The inquests on the Kopuawhara victims were continued before Mr V E. Winter to-day. The evidence'to be called was to comprise in the main that of experts, the first witness being Edward Walpole McEnms. engineer in charge of the railway construction works at Kopuawhara. During the engineer s evidence the coroner stated that so far as he was concerned the dumping of soil from the tunnel had nothing to do with the disaster. McEnnis said the camp known as Ao. i was in existence before he went there. It was established in 1930. I he camp was situated on level ground about I*2 or 13ft. above normal water level. He had never heard of the stream breaking over the banks before. What were looked upon as serious floods in the past would not mean more than about 4ft. rise in the river, river. Heavy Scouring Been McEnnis continued that during February 18 rain was intermittent, being heavier during the evening. He saw the stream about 4 p.m. It was dirty with a slight rise. He awakened about 3 a.m. The rain was then very heavy. " hen he saw the stream in the evening it did not give cause for concern. He was first advised of the tragedy about 7.30 in the morning and he sent two assistant engineers to report. Conditions on the upper watershed on investigation bore evidence of heavy scouring, heavy slips and scouring occurring throughout the watershed. He estimated that 200,000 yards of material had scoured away. Heavy logs of timber were scattered over the banks of the stream, some of the logs being 30ft. in length and 3ft. in diameter. There was heavy silting from No. 3 camp downwards and lighter silting further up. He had never seen driftwood beyond two inches in diameter come down in the floods previously. Tie did not know any parts of the river where obstruction could occur. "Safe and Well Chosen” Witness said he heard it said that the dumping of spoil from No. 6 tunnel might have caused the disaster. The highwater mark near the tunnel after the flood disclosed a rise of 9 feet. It was higher further down. If the water wanted to it could have gone up another chain. The water would not have impounded even then. He considered the camp was a safe one and well chosen. He had never had any complaints about it. Beyond saying that there was phenomenal rainfall he could not say what caused the flood. To Mr Willis, witness said the work of boring the tunnel had been pro ree ling about 18 months. When the boring was started the spoil was dumped on the boulder bed of the stream but not in the water. When they started dumping the distance from the road to the running water at the corner where the spoil was dumped was approximately 100 feet. The spoil was dumped to a height of nine feet. At this stage the coroner said he would like It to be known that he wes satisfied that the dumping of spoil had nothing whatevor to do with the disaster. YEBTERDAY’B EVIDENOE FORMER WORKMAN’S THEORY WAIROA, Monday "I consider that the cause of the flood was water being blocked as a result of spoil being dumped into the stream,’’ said Stanley Gordon Hutchinson. clerk, formerly employed by the Public Works Department at Kopuawhara giving evidence on the drowning disaster at the continuation of the inquest to-day. He appeared as a voluntary witness. “I remember a heavy flood at Christmas, 1936." witness added. At that time the tiphead was washed away. “I think that practically all the spoil dumped during the last 14 months since that flood would have been there up to the time of the last flood. About four and a-half months ago spoil was still being put there. Tt was consolidating. “I consider that the consolidated spoil was later released under the full pressure of the flood waters. It would down to No. 5 camp first, where it would have plenty of room to expand, and then to No. 4 camp.” Mr. Willis: You say spoil was actually .dumped Into the stream? Witness: Yes. Mr. Willis questioned witness about ids employment with the department and said. “You were dismissed for some reason?” Witness: Yes. "Not an Expert” I think you made endeavours to get back, did you not? And they were unsuccessful ?—Yes. Do you pretend to be an expert on this subject?—No. Do you think you know as much about it as the engineers do?—No. Do you think you had as much opportunity for observing this dump as the men had?—l was up there about four months ago. Well, you \v«*Hld know no more than any of the department employees —Quite so. Mr. Willis produced a plan showing that the stream had ample clearance for the flow of water, and that after a rise of four feet it would leave a width of 200 ft. over which the water could How. “Can you explain,” Mr. Willis asked, “how 21.400 cusecs. discharging half a mile above the tunnel, and falling 52ft. in the distance in question. could be obstructed by spoil?” Witness: No, I cannot. Mr. Willis: Yours was pure guesswork. was it not? Witness: No. I have seen the place In face of the facts and figures, do you still persist that this was the cause of the flooding of the camp?— 1 do. Do you not think the blockage would be greater a chain below the spoil, where the stream narrowed ? No. The hearing was adjourned, -