Loan wanted for channel

Press, 1 April 1980, Page 6

Loan wanted for channel

The Christchurch Drainage Board is having trouble selling its Woolston Cut flood <!ontrol channel project to the Local Authorities Loans Board. It will get another chance in May. The $2.6 million Heathcote River channel, planned since the 19605, could still be turned down on economic grounds. So far, it has been deferred twice after reports to the Loans Board by the Ministry of Works and Development The District Commissioner of Works (Mr • P. F. Reynolds) said- last evening that a loan sanction could not be justified under, a recent Government decision against subsidy for water . and soil investments that did- not show a return of at I least -15 per centf t ' ; 'S '•/... “When money is short, should we as a responsible GQyernmsnt department advocate' loan money, for. something that catchment auth«

orities would not be allowed to do?” Mr Reynolds asked. Drainage Board officers will seek more information from Mr Reynolds about their loan proposal. - Mr Reynolds said his office would tell the board about specific drawbacks to the channel, including the small number of properties that it would protect. - It is a , fairly complex situation,” Mr Reynolds said. ‘The number of houses is just one of a lot of things.” There were about five pages of “discussion” in the Ministry of Works, report ..to the Loans Board; he said. ; / Mr Reynolds said the channel did not begin to reach the .15 per cent investment return mark... "It in nd way approaches 16 per.cent: i-or even.s per cent”/ C ‘ . - '• ' The chairman of the Drainage Board (Mr M. R. Carter) said ,the Ipan woqld be ’considered -by the. construction anil treatment works commit-’

tee this month. The board would “have a good look at the whole proposal,” including the possibility of working from revenue. "The Loans Board had never raised the economics question before.” Properties needed for the channel were bought under previous Loans Board sanctions. The land has been designated since 1967, and the channel has always been seen as essential to any other flood works in the river catchment. * According to a Drainage Board report last, year, the only big objection to, the proposal has come from the Ministry of Works'and Development. \ . z, Projected flood level re-, ductions because of the channel would-be significant by Christchurch standards. The channel was a necessary first step in any river improvement scheme, according to a report by the board. River levels could be

lowered along 20 per cent of the Heathcote’s length during a 50-year flood; levels could be lowered between 3cm and Bcm.

During a five-year flood, there would be water in 12 houses without the channel, but with the channel, there would be no water in any house. In a 10-year flood, 21 houses would have water water without the channel, and none with it. In a 50year flood, there would be water in more than 108 houses without the channel, but in only 24 houses with it. In a 100-year flood without the channel flood waters would cover skm of streets to a depth of between 60cm and Im. That would restrict or Drevent access to more than 200 properties. With the channel, the water depth would be reduced to between 30cm and 60cm, according to Drainage Board estimatesj