Boards’ Work To Prevent Kairaki Erosion Upheld

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30278, 2 November 1963, Page 13

Boards’ Work To Prevent Kairaki Erosion Upheld

The letter should be handed to the press and given the fullest publicity “in defence of our fair name,” said Mr T. W. Preston, at a meeting of the North Canterbury Catchment Board yesterday after a letter dealing with protection work at Kairaki had been received from the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council. Mr A. T. Bell said the letter bore out the fact that the board had been correct in its policy over Kairaki throughout the years. There bad been a lot of “mudslinging” at the board about what it should have done or not have done, but the letter showed the board had not fallen down on the job. The letter said that after the Secretary of Marine was informed that the Soil Con-

servation Council would not subsidise work at Kairaki, the Minister of Marine (Mr Gerard) asked the Minister of Works (Mr Goosman) to request the council to give further consideration to protecting the boat club and the reserve at Kairaki. Paints emphasised by the ' Minister of Maripe were that if the mouth of the Waimakariri river migrated further north, the catchment board would have to do something about it; that the board had a legal responsibility to protect the land; and that the people affected were willing to contribute to the cost. After reconsidering the matter, the council found no grounds to alter its previous decision except that it would be prepared to subsidise work of a minor nature to protect land downstream of Saltwater creek, the letter said. “Expensive Work” In a letter to Mr Gerard enclosed, Mr Goosman said it was true that if the mouth of the river migrated much further to the north, expensive work possibly costing up to £50,000 might have to be undertaken. However, such work might not be on the same lines as that which would have to be done to protect the domain. It would be unjust at this stage to commit ratepayers in the Waimakariri rating district to a work which might not be needed for a long time, if at all

“The maximum rate yield of the area affected by the present erosion would only be between £lOO and £2OO a year. In spite of the efforts of those interested to pay it will be quite impossible for them to finance, even with a generous subsidy, the sort of work that would be necessary,” Mr Goosman said. “This summer the Catchment Board proposes to armour the bank upstream of Saltwater creek. It is possible. though no guarantee can be given, that this will

have a beneficial effect on the domain length. If this proves to be so, it should be possible to break up the wave attack, which is the cause of the erosion now in progress, by some small groynes and light riprap. If this is so, a reasonable degree of protection will be possible with a cost the beneficiaries can afford.

“The Soil Conservation Council has agreed to subsidise limited work of this type at £2 for £l, but would not consider spending any money here until the effect of the proposed work above Saltwater creek has been observed and evaluated.” The Minister’s letter said the primary object of the council was to use its funds on works that would increase production. It could not consider accepting a commitment of many thousands of pounds to protect recreational facilities.

The Conservation Council’s letter said this went somewhat further than the board’s present policy of undertaking no work downstream of Saltwater creek other than what might be necessary to stabilise the mouth. “However, in view of the demand for protection of the domain, some relaxation may be desirable and it is understood your board would not be averse to undertaking limited work of the nature envisaged by the Minister.

“All that would probably be necessary would be a board river work of the sort contemplated by your chief engineer. Circumstances

might alter the case, but it would be desirable to do nothing until the effect of the riprap above Saltwater creek has been evaluated,” said the letter.