SECURITY RISK ARGUMENT UNCONVINCING
Roger Lam of the Water Supplies Department (WSD) will have to try a little harder (South China Morning Post, February 10) if he is to convince anyone with his explanation for the 'improvements' to the Mount Davis service reservoir.
He maintains that the 40-year-old service road was dilapidated and needed to be replaced.
Whether or not it is dilapidated is subjective, but there is no question that it was not suitable for its current use. Is the WSD, therefore, intending some other uses which have not been disclosed?
Mr Lam mentions security of the fresh water reservoir. He does not mention that this is an enclosed reservoir and access to the roof has been possible for most of the last 30 or more years. What has changed now which makes access to this grassed area a security risk, especially when access is still permitted to other similar reservoirs?
He mentions vandalism and damage to the old fencing. The only vandalism (which I do not endorse) has been to regain access for recreational purposes after the WSD locked the gates. Had the gates been left open then I suggest that there would not have been any damage. The last time access was discussed with the WSD the rather lame excuse was to do with the safety of users but, since that time, railings have been erected and the slope repaired.
The WSD should give its consumers what they want, namely, access to this area of flat land for recreational purposes.
There has been little effort to prevent it over the last 30 odd years, so why prevent it now?