RIVER HEATHCOTE

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20836, 21 April 1933, Page 9

RIVER HEATHCOTE

PROPOSED DIVERSION. MANY COMPLICATIONS. The proposed diversion of the lower portion of the river Heath - cote, by which the course of the river would be reduced from 145 chains to 54 chains, came before the meeting last night of the Christchurch Drainage Board as the outcome of a letter received from the City Engineer. The proposal was before the Technical Committee of the Metropolitan Relief Works Committee some time ago. The board decided to refer the matter to its Works Committee. The City Engineer (Mr A. K, Galbraith), under direction of Cr. J. W. Beanland, chairman of the Works Committee of the Christchurch City Council, wrote drawing the attention of the board to the negotiations for the proposed deviation of the river Heathcote. , "The City Land Surveyor," the letter stated, "has approached the various owners concerned and reports that they are prepared to give the proposal their favourable consideration. The largest property involved is the Kennaway Estate, the owners of which are proposing to build a levee round the Heathcote to prevent flooding, but are deferring doing so awaiting a decision as to whether this work will be proceeded with. "Probably you are aware that the matter was referred to your board as to the feasibility of the cut for obviating flooding* and an engineering survey was prepared by us to enable the project to be considered. The proposal in question will have to be submitted to the Marine Department as well as the Christchurch City Council and the Heathcote County Council. "The owners desire to know the final decision, and if it should be in the negative, they propose to go on with the work of the levee already mentioned." Riparian and Other Rights. The chairman of the board (Mr J. W. Beanland) said that the proposal was not as easy as it looked. If the river were diverted the board would be called upon to do a certain amount of drainage work in providing for the conveyance of drainage from the old steam wharf (or the tanks) to the new stream. The board's Works Committee should go thoroughly into the matter. Mr H. G. Livingstone asked if any responsible body had.reported on the result of the proposed diversion. He thought that the work, if carried out, would be a waste of money. The chairman: It is going to get the water away a little quicker. Mr Livingstone: Who has said that? Has any engineer told us that? The chairman: I think that is expected. Mr Livingstone: It has not been put before us, or the City Council. The engineer (Mr James Cullens) said that a lull report on the proposal had not been before the Technical Committee of the Metropolitan. Relief Works Committee. The chairman said that the proposal required a good deal of atten-. tion from the board's Works Committee. The secretary (Mr C. F. Champion) said that the proposal raised the . question regarding riparian rights and rights of drainage into the river, and he suggested that he should be given authority to consult the board's solicitors on the subject. It was decided to refer the matter to the board's Works Committee, which was authorised, if necessary, to consult the board's solicitor before bringing down its report.