PANJIM: The controversy regarding the construction of a concrete wall at Vainguinim Beach refuses to subside. Following the decision taken by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to drop the show-cause notice (SCN) it had issued to a hotel for the construction of a concrete wall on Vainguinim Beach, damning revelations have come to light, in the form of the written objections by one of the four GCZMA expert members.
Incidentally, two other GCZMA expert members that conducted the inspection that had led to the GCZMA issuing the SCN in April, had informed the Authority that they don’t want to be associated with GCZMA’s order to drop the SCN. Their inspection report is mentioned in the four-point written objection filed by expert member Flaviano Miranda, which was later rejected by the GCZMA.
“The liner wall as constructed is acting like a seawall. It is bound to alter hydrodynamic conditions on interaction with predominant waves and cause scouring at the down-drift end. The impact is visible on the site with massive erosion along the eastern side during cyclone Tauktae and the current monsoon season. The authority must direct demolition of the linear wall as constructed and restoration of the environmental damage,” said Miranda in his letter to the GCZMA.
Vainguinim Valley Residents Association (VVRA) on Friday demanded that the GCZMA reconsiders the opinion, findings and recommendations of the dissenting expert members.
“We find it appalling that three of the four experts do not agree with the order and one of them has filed a written objection clearly stating the facts of the matter and asked for the wall to be demolished to save the environment,” said the VVRA after examining the replies of the dissenting expert members.
In the other part of the objections, Miranda also pointed out that the final inspection conducted by the North Goa Additional Collector is incomplete and not in accordance with the terms of reference that had been framed by the GCZMA.
“The gadaga/retaining wall is not shown. The dimensions of the linear wall are not furnished. The height of the wall is not discernible from the plan. The extent of its projection must be ascertained as this portion would prima facie be unauthorised,” said Miranda.