The PNCR seems bent on creating fear in the minds of Hope/Dochfour residents

Apr 19, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I wish to respond to the People’s National Congress Reform’s (PNCR) claims with regard to its recent statements on the construction of the Hope Canal. They are both misleading and inaccurate.

With regard to the PNCR’s claims that residents of Hope/Douchfour were not provided in writing, either to justify the need for the new canal, or to show how the Government will calculate the compensation for loss of homes, crops, livestock and farmlands, the Ministry of Agriculture had held numerous meetings with affected residents highlighting the need for the canal and how compensation would be calculated.

Residents were told that it was necessary to have this canal since it would assist in alleviating flooding in the Mahaica, Mahaicony and Abary areas. In addition, the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) were tasked with the responsibility of meeting with affected residents, assessing land, livestock and farmlands and preparing a compensation package. In fact, most residents have already received compensation from the Ministry with minor complaints.

It should be noted that proper feasibility studies were carried out by the consultants, which is captured in the design report. The PNCR should note that an intense review was carried out by both local and international experts inclusive of the Guyana Association of Professional Engineers (GAPE) who have studied carefully and examined the report in finalising the design for the new infrastructure.

In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture’s National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) and its consultants have considered all options inclusive of routing flows from Flagstaff to the downstream end of the Mahaica River in a comprehensive hydrological study of the East Demerara Water Conservancy (EDWC) flood plain. This was necessary in designing a new relief structure for a reservoir of this nature. All options for a new outlet of the EDWC with such a complex flow system were examined in arriving at the most applicable and economical solution to be implemented.

It seems as though the PNCR who is supporting the Mahaica/Flagstaff option has not considered the back water effect upstream and flooding of the MMA areas which would occur during periods of prolonged rainfall should the EDWC discharge water into the Mahaica Creek via the Flagstaff/Mahaica option. Further, the PNCR has not considered the large section of the MMA areas which are primarily farmlands which would be significantly affected as well as residents living in those areas. This option would indeed be devastating to crops, livestock and residents living in those areas. However, the Ministry of Agriculture’s NDIA takes cognizance of the fact that the PNCR agrees that there should be an additional outlet.

During feasibility studies carried out, other options were considered, two of which were mentioned in the draft design report; a deep foreshore option and a high sill discharge options which are both captured in the report.

The second option is the preferred option since it would provide a more reliable discharge in addressing the issue of siltation of the outfall with a much lower operation and maintenance cost.

The Ministry of Agriculture’s NDIA takes note that the letter to the editor by Mr. Charles Sohan dated February 1, 2010 quoted by the PNCR was not published on that day leading one to believe that Mr. Sohan’s assumptions are of a political nature rather than of constructive criticism. In addition, the PNCR seems to be very selective in extracting certain sections of the draft design report where it suits them without revealing what is really captured in the report.

With regard to the PNCR’s claims that the construction of the canal without careful evaluation being done is nothing short of arrogance, insensitivity and the complete disregard for accountability and transparency in the expenditure of state resources is but a fallacy. It is no secret that when the East Demerara Water Conservancy surpasses its safe operating level, water has to be released into the Mahaica and Mahaicony Creeks to ensure the integrity of the dams are maintained.

Further, the Hope Canal would safeguard the EDWC northern embankment from excessive water pressure during heavy and intense rainfall as well as to alleviate possible failures and overtopping.

In addition, the canal would provide flood control of the entire East Coast and the city of Georgetown. It is for this reason that an alternative outlet was contemplated which would bring relief to residents living in those areas.

On the account of the initial estimated cost, the estimated cost is not the final cost which will go into the tendering process.

However, it is to be noted that the estimated cost and final cost will not be significantly different as consultants will fine tune the design. Internationally, the same is being done when a design report is presented. Further, the estimated cost was arrived at from the data collected by the consultants.

In addition, Mr. Sohan’s assumptions are inaccurate when he states that “the proposed canal at Hope/Dochfour will not alleviate flood risks per se from the EDWC” when technical assessments of the East Demerara Water Conservancy (EDWC) and its flow system by both local and international experts indicate that the EDWC require an additional outlet in order to improve its safety standards in responding to extreme storm events. (In such an event, it will also aid as a counter-measure against flooding in the MMA areas).

Further, hydraulic modeling of the EDWC was carried out in 2004 which provided analytical output from which recommendations were derived in improving the flow and discharge system. Rainfall patterns and water level recordings have indicated that rainfall water accumulation along the North/East section of the conservancy takes a much longer period to discharge through the eastern relief structures, thus the need for a new outlet to the Atlantic.

The Shanks and Nabaclis areas were also considered but it was found that in there would be major disruption to economic activities as well as being costly to implement.

The PNCR needs to appreciate various drainage improvements in the EDWC over the years whereby internal channels have been reopened whilst others were constructed to improve cross conservancy flows to existing outlets and which will be complemented with the new relief at Hope/Dochfour.

These improvements have significantly improved the capacity of the EDWC to drain excess water during rainy periods and when it surpasses the safe operating level.

In addition, the Lama sluices were recently rehabilitated while environmental impact assessment is presently taking place at Cunha before rehabilitation commences. Also, the Kofi outlet is fully operational.

The Ministry of Agriculture wishes to inform the PNCR that significant progress has been made with regard to concluding arrangements with the World Bank through the Conservancy Adaptation Project (CAP) to begin studies within the EDWC.

In conclusion, it would seem that the PNCR is bent on creating fear in the minds of residents and farmers living in the Hope/Dochfour areas to fulfill their political ambitions rather than offering constructive criticism to support the construction of this outlet.

Omadatt Chandan

Corporate Secretary, NDIA

 

---

---