Last week I began an explanation why I believe damage to Jamaica's infrastructure during Tropical Storm Gustav seems disproportionate to the amount of rain which fell. In that art-icle, 'The Wages of Deforestation', I argued that the human activity of cutting down trees promotes 'river-come-down' with attendant flooding and destruction. Whether the deforestation is for 'development', that is, for housing or agriculture or roads, or for subsistence activity like firewood or charcoal burning, the effect is the same.

I also mentioned the negative impact of mining, particularly where mining companies fail to restore mined-out lands, and regulators fail to compel them to do so. And I want to continue the argument this week by mentioning sand and aggregate mining in the riverine environment. One issue is that much of the mining which takes place in rivers is illegal, that is, takes place without the permission of the Government's mining agency.

Illegal sand and aggregate mining is so prevalent in Jamaica that even an incompetent enforcement officer could not fail to detect it.

Illegal sand mining

I am thinking of the Rio Pedro from Zion Hill bridge towards Glengoffe, or the Rio Minho in the Sevens area, or along the Harbour View to Bull Bay main road, for example. It is so easy to discover illegal sand mining that I have to conclude that the authorities have no interest in detecting and prosecuting it; or that they have an interest in allowing it to flourish, for the sale of sand and aggregate is big business, and 'big money does run behind it'.

It is been reported to me that the collapse of the bridge by Harbour View is in part due to illegal sand mining taking place in the riverbed under the bridge. If this is so, should not the government agency responsible for enforcing the Mining and Quarries Act be held partially responsible for the cost of replacing it? Is this not the sort of accountability in government we want to see?

Last week I received two phone calls from persons suggesting that I use the Access to Information Act to obtain copies of the inspection reports over the last few years for the collapsed Harbour View bridge. Their argument was that such a collapse could not have happened without being foreseen, and that it would be interesting to look at the reports of the inspectors from the government agency responsible for regularly inspecting bridges to see what their observations were and what they recommended. If they reported that the bridge was being undermined by illegal sand mining or whatever, and nothing was done about it, does that not create liability?

Sagging

My informants tell me that other bridges may be at risk. I am told that the bridge over the Rio Minho on the May Pen bypass appears to be sagging. Has this bridge been recently inspected? Is it really sagging? If so, are we going to wait for it to collapse before we take action? Minister Mike Henry may have an interest in this bridge, and I wonder if I could appeal to him to check it out?

Now that the Bog Walk gorge is closed, traffic moving to Ocho Rios from Kingston must travel either through Sligoville or Barry. I am advised that truck operators dislike the Sligoville road because it is narrow and steep, and that almost all trucks, whether 14 tons or 40 tons or 55 tons, go through Barry. That means they have to pass over the bridge at Guanaboa Vale, which is rated to carry no more than three tons! My sources tell me that there is a quite visible crack in that bridge.

What do the bridge inspection reports show? Should trucks be allowed to use this road as an alternative to the Bog Walk gorge?

A little bit of rain can do an awful lot of damage to bridges already waiting to fall.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist, an environmentalist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.