Selwyn rating compromise lesser of evils

Press, 27 January 1988, Page 17

Selwyn rating compromise lesser of evils

By

ANABRIGHT HAY

Photographs: David Alexander

Some relief may be in store for the North Canterbury Board’s continuing headache over the Selwyn River and its rating, classification and maintenance.

Future management options for the river’s district, where some landowners thnk they are paying too much when they receive little or no benefit, are being considered in a staff report that will go to the board early this year. “What we are promoting is not the ideal, but a compromise in some ways the lesser of a number of evils,” says Bob Reid, the board’s rivers and drainage engineer. Ratepayers have had harsh words over the river’s management over the years. Mick Walker, the Ellesmere County chairman, says any option short of clearing the river in problem stretches will be a compromise, although he understands financial constraints and the legacy of past mismanagement.

He says complaints have mainly come from people who think their part of the river has not been improved in spite of their payments. “They see the rates going up and yet see nothing more done for them,” he says. Bob Reid says it would not have surprised him if people had complained more than they have.

“However, the proportion of benefit received by ratepayers is not black and white, and I estimate there are only about eight ratepayers’ properties receiving no benefits at all from Catchment Board work.” He can understand criticism that problems were not ironed out years ago by the board. “But I think there is an appreciation of the complexity of the situation.” Debate has been sparked again following an announcement last year of the Government’s intention to cut subsidies to the Catchment Board for soil and water works, from 50 per cent to a maximum of 35 per cent. If works on the Selwyn River are to be continued at the present rate this would require an increase from ratepayers from 15 per cent to 26 per cent.

That would make it a matter of spreading the dollars more thinly and deciding on priorities if a similar level of maintenance is continued without substantial rate increases, says Mr Reid. Problems along the Selwyn are worse than those facing other Canterbury rivers because the river’s rating classifications are based on the perceived benefits of a works scheme that was never completed. The ill-fated 1947 scheme for protection works was abandoned in 1952, when it was already over cost.

At that stage, work had all been downstream of the Ellesmere Bridge. People above and below that point have continued to be rated as though the scheme had been completed.

Changes in land use, subdivision and the scheme concept since 1947 have all led to irregularities in the rating classification.

Richard Johnson, the Catchment Board chairman, says conflicts have arisen from the different requirements of ratepayers in different areas.

Mr Reid thinks a rating classification should reflect the ratio of benefit between each area in the rating district, with payments set accordingly. The Selwyn rating district is divided into five rating classes, two of which pay 80 per cent of the total rate (classes A and C).

The rating area extends up the confluence of the Hawkins River, on each side of the river, and includes the Irwell River. There is also a wedge between the Selwyn and the Hororata Rivers which extends to just above the Bealey Ford. In 1986-87, 360 properties paid Selwyn River rates: 25 paid more than $5OO, 10 paid more than $750 and three paid more than $lOOO. Total rates levied increased by 50 per cent in 1987-88, a major increase was caused mainly by a need for erosion protection following damage in 1986 floods. In 1986, the Selwyn overflowed towards the Irwell River’s drainage basin five times, twice causing closure of State Highway One for more than 24 hours.

Once, flooding closed the Main Trunk Railway line.. Mick Walker wonders whether landowners would be prepared to face further rate increases: “They might have to pay higher rates, but some feel they are paying too much already.”

No significant works have been carried out above the State Highway One bridge (Main South Road), and little or no benefit has been received by ratepayers above State Highway One, or in the Irwell district. Works carried out downstream of the Main South Road are funded by the rating area. They include maintenance of river channels, erosion protection and stopbank maintenance. In 1987-88, total spending provided for has been $126,650. Total rates to be collected are $72,000. The balance of funding comes from the Government, with grants of $50,500 and rents of $3OO. A shortfall is met by a rundown in the account balance to $3700. No regular river maintenance work has been done upstream of State Highway One. Part of the river channel in this section is congested with trees and vegetation which impede flood t flows and cause shingle islands to build up, Mr Reid says. This has led to flood overflows from the south bank in the section from the Hororata River confluence to Hunters Road and into the Irwell River at relatively low river flows.

Mr Reid says if the river channel is cleared and maintained as a “clear fairway,” overflows would still occur in this natural overflow area, but only in significant floods. Complete flood protection is very expensive, Mr Reid says, and there have been only about five really large floods at the Selwyn River in the last 25 years. Flood warning systems and the Civil Defence network are other flood protection measures in force in the area. About 70 per cent of spending along the Selwyn is for work to protect against erosion, either berm edge erosion, or erosion threatening the stopbanks. Berm edge erosion protection tries to maintain an acceptable river alignment, protect productive land and retain a margin between the active river channel and the stopbanks. Mr Reid thinks the district should have been reclassified back in the 1950 s but says it is never too late. “At present the works which are done only give benefit to

those properties in Class A downstream of State Highway One, and a minor benefit to the other classes downstream of State Highway One.” He said history has placed constraints on changes that could be made since some works already started have to be maintained to avoid expensive damage. Before classifications can be reviewed, future works and their benefits have to be identified. Eight theoretical options have been drawn up by Canterbury Board staff. They range from upgrading the river capacity, at a cost of up to $l5 million, to abandoning the entire rating district. Options were presented to ratepayers at three meetings — in Springston South, Irwell and Dunsandel, late last year. A questionnaire was distributed at the meetings, asking people what option they think is the best for the Selwyn’s future. Oakleigh Osborne, the Catchment Board’s Ellesmere County representative, says the name of the game now is open dialogue, and

the people who pay call the tune. Of those who have returned questionnaires, most prefer the option of maintaining the fairway downstream of the Hororata River, says Mr Reid. This option would provide erosion protection for stopbanks only but would provide a cost incentive to people wanting to do other protection work.

The cost of this option is between $BO,OOO and $120,000 per year and would provide uniform maintenance in a rating area similar to the present one. It was the option promoted by Catchment Board staff at the meetings. Mr Reid says that to do work only upstream from State Highway One, even if only charging those receiving benefit, would be negative and retrogressive. The situation in that area will deteriorate if nothing is done. “This option will put things on a much better footing even though some who have been getting the lion’s share of the benefit under the present system may be worse off,” he says..