Control of Estuary

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27795, 21 October 1955, Page 12

Control of Estuary

The Christchurch Drainage Board is wise to accept responsibility for the Estuary, which has been an unwanted orphan since the Lyttelton Harbour Board decided to renounce its control. The Drainage Board’s earlier reluctance to take control was astonishing, because it is the one authority under the present system of local government which has a definite and direct interest in the tidal pooh “ Aquatic “ playgrounds ”, reclamations, and the diversion of currents to rebuild Sumner beach have been proposed. Though these are projects worth investigation by those interested, they are still no more than proposals. On the other hand, the Drainage Board does in fact use the Estuary as the outfall of its land drainage and sewerage systems. Though development of the Estuary may be desirable, the people of Christchurch

demand first that it should be improved and that the pollution caused by its use as the city’s ultimate open drain should be reduced or eliminated; and improvements should obviously conform to the Drainage Board’s plans. No-one will expect the board to spend the ratepayers’ money on anything but drainage works; but the board must ensure that an “ aquatic play- “ ground ” does not interfere with the efficiency of its essential work. It should be pleased to be able to bring this vital link in its system directly under its control. It may easily happen that land reclamation may be the most economical, perhaps even most profitable, way of disposing of spoil from dredging; but that would be purely an incidental benefit. Similarly, the board would be expected to make its improvements fit as well as possible into any beautifying scheme. In agreeing to assume control, the Drainage Board made two conditions: First; work on the spit at the entrance to the Estuary should be “primarily the responsibility of the “ local authority ”, presumably the City Council. This is fair enough, provided the board retains sufficient control of the entrance to ensure the efficient flow of tidal water in and out of the Estuary. Second, the board is to be dissociated from any responsibility for tidal and river stop-banks. Again, the board apparently said more than it meant, because the prevention of flooding is one of its duties; and this may require protective works in future. The board obviously did not intend, nor had it power, to escape its liabilities. Other local authorities should be happy to let the board do its own job, which will, of itself, make the Estaavy mere attractive.