Dear Editor,
In a Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) statement released to the media and reported by SN on October 12 on the Hope Canal project, the association has compellingly argued that the Government of Guyana (GoG) should not pursue construction of the Hope Canal until flood mitigation strategies have been developed.
Attempts have been made elsewhere to discredit the GHRA as politically anti-government and a front cloaked as a human rights body because of its criticism of GoG for proceeding with construction of this project, but the evidence supports its claim that the proposed Hope Canal does indeed present formidable technical problems and would be expensive to build.
The disastrous East Demerara coastland flood of 2005 which was exacerbated by overtopping from the East Demerara Water Conservancy (EDWC) revealed that that existing EDWC flood relief structures were inadequate to deal with very heavy rainfall, and hence the need for additional outlets. Two Dutch engineers under UNDP sponsorship suggested additional outlets to the Atlantic Ocean but further detailed studies were needed to support their observation.
In 2008 the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) financed a study for the relief of floodwater from the EDWC through a canal located in the Dochfour/Hope area. This was not a feasibility study as some would make us believe, since the terms of reference were limited for the study to take into consideration a fixed set of parameters. In June 2009 a report, ‘Engineer-ing Design of EDWC Northern Relief Structure’ was released by the consultants. On page 58, Section 8 of the chapter on conclusions and recommendations, the consultants submitted two options. The recommended option with a long deep foreshore outfall channel discharged a greater volume of water than the second option over a given time. No explanation has been given by the MoA as to why the second option was adopted, although it was less effective in relieving floodwater over a 24-hr period. Further, there have been conflicting statements about a Flagstaff/ Mahaica routed canal as one of the options. This was never a recommended option by the consultants but a suggested worthy alternative which needed further investigation.
The engineering design for the Hope Canal and its appurtenances is not complete nor were bids issued and received for the works. Therefore a realistic costing of the project cannot be ascertained at this juncture, and only guesstimates regarding project costs could and are being made.
A World Bank assisted study of the EDWC and coastal areas should have been undertaken some three years ago under the Conservancy Adaptation Study. This project was intended to indicate to the MoA alternative methods for flood mitigation strategies which should be adopted with respect to EDWC and improvements to drainage and irrigation of front lands. Perhaps Minister Persaud could shed some light as to why the study has been pigeon-holed and not yet implemented.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Sohan
