Special Govt flood subsidies sought

Press, 18 April 1980, Page 4

Special Govt flood subsidies sought

Special Government subsidies should be sought to help relieve city flooding problems, a Christchurch Drainage Board meeting said yesterday. The move was prompted by the Local Authorities Loans Board’s latest deferment of approval for sanctioning a 52.68 M Woolston Cut construction loan. The project is seen as central to Heathcote River drainage improvements. A deputation will try to see the Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon) and the Minister of Works and Development (Mr W. L. Young) about the broader problems.

That was decided at a special board meeting on a 6-5 vote. An amendment to the motion of Mr J, F. Davidson would have sought a narrower approach, to the Loans (Board chairman, on the Woolston Cut issue. That was lost on a 6-5 vote. Board members said they should work closely with the Ministry of Works to remove objections to the project, which the Ministry had said was not economic. The board’s chief engineer (Mr P. J. McWilliam) said the flood relief channel’s assessed benefits over a 50year design life could be $2,461,000, Economic benefits designed by the Government for- subsidised water and soil projects were not meant for jobs such as the Woolston j Cut. some board members' said, since that job would, not require a subsidy, The| board simply wanted to, raise a loan; no Government finance was involved. Mr McWilliam said the Government required a 15 per cent annual return on invested capital for subsidy work, “and the benefits over the design period certainly do not reach anywhere near

such a return, nor were they ! ever expected to do so.” Ip a report to the Loans; Board, the Ministry of( Works had admitted that; construction of the channel was probably the least cos-1 tly way to reduce flooding in the lower Heathcote, Mr: McWilliam said. ' A suggestion that stop-' banks could be built and| properties bought to protect homes from flooding was,' “not as straightforward” as’ it sounded, he said. [ The board’s deputy chair-1 man (Mr C. H. Russell) said. the buying of flood-prone| properties would set a precedent for other board areas. “That would also require' loan money, a lot of it," he said. Mr J. de C. Hanafin said it w T as strange for the Loans Board to approve a land purchase loan for the Wool-i ston Cut in 1970, then balk! at the project itself. I Board members agreed; that the channel was central: to any past proposal fori Heathcote drainage improve-' ments. Some members said! they could understand the! Ministry of Works being j hesitant about the financing! of the cut in isolation from j other catchment improvements. Mr Davidson said the (river was not able to cope | with so much water draining linto it, and things would geti [worse as development, such! as housing, continued in its catchment. “If we want complete relief in Christchurch, it has to be paid’for," he said. The board had “thrown out” costly engineering proposals associated with the cut. Over the years, Mr Davidson has supported — in particular 1 —- some sort of floodgates and pumping station in the Estuary to ’ aid flood relief. Mr Russell said it was not

-'true that other suggestions (had been thrown out. i; “We realise other works (have got to follow (the :|cut).” he said, but because j of financial restrictions[those works could not ba /done for many years. . _ ■: One board members said 'the situation at Woolston [was not urgent. Mr I. G. B. /Wilson, the finance com* . mittee’s chairman, said ths ,'cut would be mainly "a cosmetic thing." I The job would be “carried [out in due course by the; board, even if just to justify [its existence,” Mr Wilsonsaid. The Loans Board was “in touch with the economy ; ! of the country” when it made' i its latest deferment decision. J Mr Russell said it was ( still not clear whether the Loans Board had been cor-; : rect in using the subsidy cri-l iteria to delay the loan sane* [tion. | Mr T. B. Whelan said if (could take the board's, [officers up to six months to! [collect information sought [by the Ministry of Works. i Most board members /wanted the Loans Board to ; reconsider its decision much! [sooner, at its May meeting, i Mr M. L. Dobson asked whether the Loans Board, would accept a costlier scheme proposal that would benefit more of the catch*; ment. ! I Board members did “not I have to look far” to see the source of the Ministry’s atti-’i tude, said Mr H. W, Thomp-', son. Mr Davidson and others! had consistently criticised the Woolston Cut project as not providing enough relief. “AH these matters raise j doubts. We would have been better off if there had been a lot less talk,” he said. Board members 1 said they did not want to see the' jobdone out of rates if the Gov* J emment refused a loan sane-: tion.