Dear Editor,
Please refer to a letter which appeared in the Stabroek News of April 19, 2009 headlined ‘The city needs a plan of action quickly to deal with flooding’ by Charles Sohan. The writer made some important points in his letter. However, certain critical ones were omitted.
First, we have to say that we are faced with real and serious challenges in our effort to manage our responsibility to the citizens of Georgetown. This is precisely why we are happy that Commissioner Mr Keith Burrowes is assisting us, through the process of the Commission of Inquiry, to come up with a new model to improve service delivery.
However, it is common knowledge that Georgetown is 4 ft below the normal tide and an additional 2ft at spring tide. That coupled with the fact that many of the canals used in the early days of the development of the city as holding facilities for storm water, were filled in for various reasons, makes Georgetown vulnerable to overtopping. Nevertheless, there are many more problems which continue to plague effective drainage in Georgetown.
One very noticeable one is the culture of littering by some residents who appear not to be particularly concerned about the state of the environment. We have talked about this in previous public statements.
Littering is not an insignificant problem for two reasons: (i) it influences the diversion of substantial funds from other services to solid waste management and (ii) it affects the way the city is developing. This leads to a wider point: this bad habit of littering, on the part of some, has a very serious stranglehold on our shallow coffers and consequently our capacity to deliver quality service to citizens.
Many people believe that we have been using this as an excuse, but it is real. The council alone could not solve this problem. It requires a national stakeholders’ approach. Part of the problem is the cumbersomeness of the judicial process in dealing with these cases. Some years ago, the Mayor suggested a municipal court to address this and other offences with greater dispatch. There was also a suggestion to introduce the ticket system to help enforce compliance with the city’s by-laws. Nothing happened.
In spite of that, we are spending about 1 million dollars a day to collect and dispose of garbage. Yet citizens continue to dump the rubbish onto parapets and into our canals.
The city’s network of canals and sluices is already under immense pressure from the shifting patterns of rainfall, the unusual amount of rainfall and the many other environmental problems resulting from climate change.
In addition, many citizens are opting to concrete their yards instead of the natural landscape of grass lawns, decorative plants and shrubs. As a result, storm water runs off into already burdened street drains and canals. Despite our pleadings to check with our engineers and technical building personnel, many contractors and property owners indulge in poor storage of materials. As a result, sand, stones and other building materials and waste end up in the drains. Then there is the problem of squatting on the embankment and verges of canals and waterways in the city. Some time ago, representatives from the Ministries of Housing and Water and Human Services and Social Security and the municipality engaged in a stakeholders’ meeting to initiate action to relocate squatters. There were many challenges and many of the squatters expressed a reluctance to move. Perhaps we need to reexamine this situation with a view to relocating them.
According to reports from our engineers, 80% of the garbage in our canals is dumped there by squatters. Again, these squatters do not have proper sanitary facilities; many of them have outhouses/pit latrines just over these canals.
The bodily waste is disposed in these waterways. This gives rise to aggressive aquatic growth and other negative environmental consequences. The problem is how we provide disposal and other services without legitimizing their occupation of these reserves. Then again, if we continue not to provide these services their activities would continue to harm the environment and the well-being of residents in those communities.
Then there is the problem of the electrical power supply to our pumps. It is unreliable. It is all well and good to say that the council should buy generators. But where would the money come from? Also, there are other problems attached to the use of private generators like security, location, technical staff, spares and emissions. The most troubling one is the emissions. In this period of climate change do we really want to push the idea of numerous generators or work towards a steady and reliable power supply from the national grid?
Yours faithfully,
Royston King
Public Relations Officer
Mayor and City Council
