CONTROL OF THE ESTUARY

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27407, 21 July 1954, Page 10

CONTROL OF THE ESTUARY

“Vital Importance” To Drainage ATTITUDE OF BOARD “It is obvious to all that the Estuary of the Avon and Heathcote rivers is vitally important to the drainage of Christchurch, • and in considering the board’s attitude to its future control, the committee is of the definite opinion that nothing should be done by any authority whatsoever which will impair its effectiveness as the outlet of the drainage from the greater part of the board’s district,” said the report of the policy committee to the Christchurch Drainage Board last evening. The Estuary was within the Christchurch drainage district but the board’s interests in it were limited by the provisions of the Christchurch Drainage Act, said the report. Anything the board did in the Estuary must be for the better drainage of the district. The board could not be involved in any large dredging project for the purpose of providing an aquatic playground for Christchurch. Its dredging proposals had to be confined to improving low-tide run-off which was necessary to restore the low-tide level of the lower reaches of the rivers. “The committee feels that the board should not assume the mahtle of the controlling authority of the Estuary, but does consider that should any other authority with interests in the Estuary desire to embark upon any proposals which may affect its hydraulic characteristics it should be incumbent upon that authority first to satisfy the board that such proposals do not injuriously affect the drainage or alter flood conditions in any part of the board’s district.” Board’s Discussion Mr R. C. Neville submitted that the City Council should have control of the Estuary. He moved that the board would support any application by the City Council to the Minister of Marine but would not agree to any proposal which might affect the purpose of the board without prior agreement. If that was hot acceptable. to the City Council, the council should be asked to support any application the board made to the Minister for assuming control of the Estuary. Mr F. L. Price seconded the motion. Mr G. A. G. Connal said he objected to the board making any move to as-

sume control of the Estuary. The dredge, to be constructed git a cost of £20,000, would be inadequate for dredging the Estuary. He moved as an amendment that the second part of Mr Neville’s motion be deleted. "We are only interested in the Estuary for drainage, and we have to be protected if the “work is within our scope,” said Mr W. P. Glue. He could not see the Estuary being a perfect place, because of what the board would do to make a better outlet for drainage and for the disposal of effluent. The board was not set up to» provide an aquatic playground. “What is going to happen? Is it to be a no-man’s land?” asked the chairman (Mr E. H. S. Hamilton). “I don’t know,” replied Mr Glue. The functions of the board were clearly defined, said Mr H. P. Smith. Drainage could be carried through the Estuary. Beyond that, the board was not responsible, except for the nature and quality of the effluent. Nobody should be carried away by a statement of a city councillor that the Estuary was the board’s responsibility. The Estuary belonged to the ratepayers of Christchurch, replied Mr Neville. If the City Council would not agree to control it, he would continue to press that toe board should take control. Mr Neville then moved the first part of his motion, which was seconded by Mr Connal, and carried.