Richard Borg's counter reply to my letter of October 25 tempted me to write once more to clarify certain points.

Let me start by saying that, although he described very well what a water catchment area is, he gave me the impression that he does not recognise one on seeing it. For if it were not so, why did he state that "if this particular field lay in the way of the water coming down from the Wardija area, on its way to the sea, so did the areas where the existing police station and all the other buildings in Main Street..."

Of course, the police station and the adjacent buildings were built on the water course. That is why the existing large tunnel, which passes under Main Street, the police station and the other buildings, was constructed, to allow the rain water through it and avoid flooding.

Once the rain water course was changed it started to disperse into the field in question before finding its way into the sea through the tunnel.

As a result this field became a natural water catchment area. That is why, ever since the field was converted into a playground surrounded by walls, the police station area has been suffering from heavy flooding.

Mr Borg has only to ask the people who witnessed the September floods!

Those who had their cars carried down the road and damaged; those who had their houses flooded; those who had already built on the north side of the field and spent days pumping out the flood water. Then he would really know what is most beneficial for the St Paul's Bay permanent community!

My suggestion therefore remains that of reverting the playground to its former state to serve again as a water catchment area. This is feasible, practical and real. What are Mr Borg's suggestions to relieve the floods?

In the meantime may I conclude by putting forward the one important question. If the application PA 01671/03 is approved and the playing field is built up, who would be held responsible for any future damage caused by the flooding?