CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO WAINUI DAM
Mr Bayliss, contractor for the construction of the Wainuiomata dam, having asked the City Council to compensate him for losses caused by damage through floodwater, had his application considered at Monday’s meeting of the Public Works Committee. Mr Bayliss again attended to explain his position.
Mr Baird, City Engineer, had reported on the contractor’s claim, referring the Council to condition No. 7 in the contract, which stated that the contractor would be held responsible for any injury to the work during its construction or during the period of its maintenance. Nothing had been done by himself as Engineer to alter that stipulation.
Mr Bayliss had written a further letter, just received, stating that floodwater had again washed away the backing of the dam on Sunday night. He asked that the Council should provide some other outlet besides the tunnel for the floodwater, as it was useless to fill in behind the wall until an additional outlet for water was made.
The Engineer said that, as to this second letter, it rested with the contractor to provide any necessary outlet for the floodwater during the progress of the work. While building the dam, the contractor put a flume through it to carry off the floodwater, but, finding that no floodwater came at that time, he thought he could do without it and removed the flume. Soon after that was done, a flood came and washed away the backing of the dam before it was faced and finished with stone as a permanent overflow.
Since the recent visit of Councillors to the dam, the contractor had cut a sluice across the permanent bank, but that additional outlet seemed not to be sufficient because it was not large enough. The Mayor said the contractor’s contention now was that it would be impossible to complete the work without some additional outlet.
The Engineer said it was for the contractor to provide that further outlet if it were necessary. Councillor Danks enquired as to the grating being sufficient to stop logs from going down the tunnel. The Engineer replied that the contractor had removed some bars from the grate, and a log got down, though it might have gone over the top.
Councillor A. W. Brown (in the chair) said the contractor claimed £380 to cover his losses, and the Committee had to lay down some decision. Councillor Danks moved that the contractor be called in to hear what he had to say.
Mr Bayliss was admitted and stated that the water rose in the dam at 10 o’clock on Sunday night, and soon after midnight, it overflowed and washed away the earthen backing of the dam, which was again nearly finished when this further flood occurred. A race had been cut through the projecting rock, at the Engineer’s suggestion, but this and the other outlets were not sufficient to carry off this floodwater. Having done all he could, he now asked the Council to provide an additional outlet for stormwater, as he could not complete the dam without it.
The Chairman said the Council did not intend to acknowledge any obligation to do that.
Mr Bayliss: That is the position the Council will have to see to because it is laid down in the specification that this tunnel is to be provided by the contractor to carry off the water, and that tunnel has been made under the Engineer’s superintendence.
Councillor Danks: Did you remove any bars from the grating?
Mr Bayliss: A log entering the tunnel was the cause of damage in the first instance. The grating has never been fixed, and I have not removed it.
The Engineer: Did not you remove several bars from the grating?
Mr Bayliss: Yes, but it was proved that the log which went down must have gone over the top, as it could not have got through where the bars were out. There was no hood over the top of the bars.
Councillor Wilson: Was that top grating to be provided originally?
Mr Bayliss: Yes.
The Engineer: No, only if found necessary.
The Mayor: Are we likely, Mr Bayliss, to have to go to law, suppose the Council declines to recognise this claim?
Mr Bayliss: I cannot afford to suffer the loss of all this. I don’t know about going to law, but I cannot suffer this loss.
Councillor Petherick: How long are you over your contract time?
Mr Bayliss: Six weeks or two months.
The Mayor: If the contract had been completed within five months, there would have been no loss.
The Engineer: His contract time expired on the 17th August.
Mr Bayliss: This damage shows the tunnel was not sufficient to carry off the amount of water that comes down until something else is provided. It is only putting in the backing to have it washed away. The contract says there is a tunnel provided to carry off the water, and that the contractor has to cut a race to carry the stream into the tunnel.
The Engineer: What did you put a flume into the dam for?
Mr Bayliss: To keep the men dry while working at the bottom.
The Mayor moved, “That Mr Bayliss’s claim be not recognised.” This was agreed to unanimously.
Mr Bayliss had also sent a letter asking the Council to clear away a slip of earth from the tramway to enable him to get earth up to the dam. Councillor Mackenzie moved, “That this demand be not recognised.” This motion was agreed to unanimously.
Tags: Newspaper Waterworks
