The formal report of the committee that was chaired by Guyana Sugar Corporation (GUYSUCO) Director of Agricultural Services, Dr. Harold Davis, Jr., was officially released Monday.

The report pointed out that in many areas the more than $151M contract given to B&K Construction to rehabilitate the conservancy was not executed in accordance with the general conditions, technical specifications, method statement or bill of quantities.

Luncheon said Cabinet has not concluded its consideration of the report, noting that it obtained late this past week a number of the technical submissions that the committee used to determine its findings and recommendations.

"The investigative team had to do a lot of soil study, field tests...to base their judgement, findings and recommendations", Luncheon, also Head of the Presidential Secretariat, told reporters.

He said that given the substantial amount of the "extremely technical documents", it would take some time for these to be studied by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Drainage and Irrigation Board.

Once these Government agencies go through these documents, they would report to the Office of the President, he said.

"It would not be until those reports have been submitted and those reports examined that the Government's position would be made and the Government's position would be provided to the public", Luncheon said.

In its report, the committee indicated that the entire Annandale to Cane Grove dam appears to be in a critical condition and requires urgent attention.

The committee found that the conditions in the vicinity of the damaged area led it to conclude that the breach was as a result of excessive seepage, which led to piping.

In the wee hours of November 3 last year, the rehabilitated conservancy dam at Flagstaff was breached leaving some 400 residents of Cane Grove under some four feet of water.

Visiting the area at the time President Bharrat Jagdeo had promised that those responsible would have to pay.

The committee found that no dam assessment was carried out to determine whether it was feasible to undertake the dam construction.

The team found that the Bill of Quantities made provision for clearing the area of the conservancy dam of all vegetation and stripping of the topsoil. The committee said this concept was incomprehensible, as the dam is more than 100 years old and well consolidated.

It found too that the technical specifications for the project were apparently copied from a sea defence contract, as the specifications in relation to the earthworks are inappropriate to the contract and more suitable to sea defence construction.

Further, the committee found that important aspects in the contract relating to the correct quality of material, method of construction and stability of slopes which are necessary to ensure the soundness of the dam, were not strictly adhered to.

According to sources, this was because Mr. Ravi Naraine's representatives or assistants had previous experience in earthen dam construction for a conservancy.

Naraine is Chief Executive Officer of the National Drainage and Irrigation Board (NDIB).

The probe team found that there was no laboratory testing of fill material to ensure its suitability for dam construction and that the engineer's assistant inspected the material visually to determine its suitability.

The committee found that the quality of fill material used to form the dam was poor, being constructed with pegasse clay material, in which deep cracks developed in the dry weather.

In its report the committee highlighted that the site had additional instability created by the deepened borrow trenches on both its upstream and downstream sides and a reduced seepage path due to the decreased base width of the dam.

In investigating the cause of the breach, the committee found that the reduced seepage path combined with the extraneous material incorporated in the dam increased the risk of piping and this resulted in the increased permeability in the dam.

The team has concluded that the decision to execute the remedial works to the dam was done with extreme haste and without sufficient analysis of the possible implications, according to sources.

The committee wrote into its conclusion that given the reduction of agricultural cultivation in the areas served by the conservancy, increasing the storage levels by raising the dam may not have been necessary.

It noted that the personnel involved in design and supervision had no prior experience in dam construction for a conservancy and that there were insufficient supervisory personnel to adequately cover all the operations being carried out by the contractor.

The committee in its conclusions has said that a new borrow trench created on the landward side of the breached area has created further instability of the dam.

Members of the committee chaired by Davis were Chief River and Sea Defence Officer, Mr. George Howard, Director of Caribbean Engineering and Management Consultants, Mr. Raymond Latchmansingh, Mr. Paul Sarran of the Mahaica/Mahaicony/Abary Agricultural Development Authority and Colonel John Lewis of the Guyana Defence Force.