Whose hydrants are these anyway?
Editorial
Stabroek News
December 29, 2003
On top of being burdened by equipment, manpower and operational deficiencies, the Guyana Fire Service (GFS) is now embroiled in a heated row over who has responsibility for the upkeep of fire hydrants.
It would appear to be obvious that since fire hydrants are such an integral part of the fire-fighting network that their maintenance should be the primary responsibility of the fire service. Anything else would diminish the capacity of the GFS in fighting fires as has probably been the case in the last two large conflagrations. Would any self-respecting fire service want maintenance of one the primary sources of water to be in the hands of anyone but fire-fighters? Yet, the GFS doesn't seem to be keen on taking on the responsibility for the hydrants. Chief Fire Officer, Carlyle Washington has insisted that the onus lies with the Guyana Water Inc (GWI) for the maintenance of the maltreated and unwanted hydrants. GWI for its part has said that it has sought legal advice on this matter and has been counselled that the Water and Sewerage Act No.5 did not impose a requirement on GWI to manage the hydrants. On the other hand, Section 12 of the Fire Service Act does ascribe a responsibility to the fire service to report to the Minister of Home Affairs on the condition of all fire-fighting apparatus including hydrants. It appears that in the changeover of management of the water service in the city from the Georgetown Sewerage and Water Commissioners to GWI the charge for hydrants was overlooked in the relevant legislation. Nevertheless, if the fire service had been checking these hydrants religiously it would have determined that many were out of commission and it would have been in order to sound deafening alarm bells at the ministries of home affairs and water.
There has been enough shilly-shallying over this matter. Suffice to say that in its last two major outings, the fire service has appeared to be woefully out of its league in suppressing large fires and has had to rapidly advance to the river for precious water. River water is fine but the hydrants have been installed precisely for the purpose of providing a readily accessible source of water for emergency needs and they should be put to use.
Once the hydrants are kept in order and properly maintained both the fire service and GWI would have to be wary of illegal extractions of water as has been a problem during some periods. With the water utility now under foreign-funded management contract with specific performance benchmarks and a premium on cost recovery and conservation, accounting for every gallon of water in the system is crucial. But that is a secondary issue. As of now, the public and business community have watched on in horror as billions of dollars worth of buildings and materials have gone up in smoke as a result of the Lombard and Water streets fires. What they are demanding is a properly tuned fire-fighting machine where all of the vital components including fire hydrants are in good working order.
It appears that there will be a meeting of the utilities with Water Minister Shaik Baksh when the issue of the hydrants will be broached. Hopefully, the minister could move to have legislative responsibility for the hydrants clearly entrusted to the fire service with GWI providing the necessary support.
There is yet another critical aspect of the fire-fighting system which can be remedied overnight but as of now remains enveloped in thick mists of ignorance and recriminations i.e. the communications system between the utilities. During the Disciplined Forces Commission hearing, Mr Washington made the startling allegation that crucial minutes were lost during the Hadfield Street fire in November because GWI employees were busy playing cards while the fire service was at the Shelter Belt appealing for higher water pressure. GWI has since said it has found no evidence to back up the fire service's claim. Aside from that and the fact that the fire service turned up at GWI too late for help during the Hadfield Street fire, it is apparent that the designated method of communications between the fire service and the other key players is primitive and needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. There has to be the equivalent of a hotline between the GFS and the water and electricity companies and joint services. The GFS offered up an appallingly lame scheme for contacting the utilities while GWI has said that in the aftermath of the devastating New Amsterdam fire last year that a new protocol was not finally worked out and key issues remained outstanding. This is all very disappointing as one would have expected that given the seriousness of the fire crisis and the damage wrought in New Amsterdam that all sides concerned would have expedited the matter. Now, two major fires later, the issue is still on the table.
As we have said before, the new protocol requires multiple modes of communication: landline, cell phone and radios and uninterrupted channels between top functionaries of the various utilities for instantaneous responses. The celerity of the reply is often the difference between one building or two buildings being demolished by fire. A lot rides on this protocol and the fire service and the utilities must understand this and act with dispatch.
In this holiday season we must not forget that the razing of the buildings didn't only incinerate wood and char the endless commercialism associated with Christmas. It ruined lives, cost jobs and left many dreams in tatters amidst the dying embers.