The possibility of raising the height of the East Coast Conservancy Dam was investigated in 1968, but was deemed inadvisable on account of the poor sub-soil foundation of the structure.

Malcolm Alli, an engineer who worked on sealing the 1968 breach in the dam, said yesterday in response to written questions put by this newspaper, that the Georgetown Water Commissioners at that time had requested that the feasibility of raising the dam be examined. "Our calculations and soil investigations," he wrote, "revealed this was not possible due to poor sub-soil foundation."

He went on to say that before raising the dam, its base would have had to be increased; however, this would have risked the possibility of further breaches.

The authorities at the time further investigated relocating the dam, he continued, but the cost of this would have been prohibitive on account of its pegasse foundation, its base width and length, and the expense which would have been incurred in transporting materials to the site.

Explaining the reason for the earlier breach, Alli said that it had been caused by water seeping through the dam. Although this had been reported to the commissioners, they had been slow to react. "A high operating water level in the reservoir," he wrote, "we believe precipitated the breach."

The Georgetown Water Commissioners, a private body, was at that time responsible for the reservoir as well as the maintenance of the conservancy dam. The Hydraulics Division represented the government at its board meetings.

According to Alli, the 1968 breach was sealed by driving steel sheet piles to firm ground, behind which a new dam was constructed. Bookers Sugar Estates, he said, assisted with work on sealing the breach by providing some equipment and personnel.

The engineer informed this newspaper that the dam itself had been poorly constructed, since it varied in width and height. The vegetation on its slopes had been intended to prevent soil erosion during rainfall, and were it to be removed, it would subject the dam "to seepage of water and subsequent failure." He expressed the view that if it was the case that there were suspect areas in the dam, as had been recently reported, these could have been easily corrected. It did not require the removal of vegetation or raising the dam any higher.