Untitled

Press, 20 July 1988, Page 17

The cause of the current controversy over the Heathcote is a report which was released earlier this year. Known as the C.P.A.G. report (Catchment Planning Advisory Group) it contains three options for dealing with the river and its flooding problems. The advisory group was set up in 1986. The year before, the Christchurch Drainage Board had proposed spending $6 million of ratepayers’ money on flood-control measures for the Heathcote. It met with such strong public protest, the board decided to set up a group to try to agree on an acceptable plan. This group comprised people from the Drainage and North Canterbury Catchment Boards; the Heathcote, City, Waimairi, Paparua and United councils; and the Ministry of Works and Development. In March of this year it released its report, recommending an $830,000 scheme. This proposes works such as a major retention basin at Wigram East, raising six houses in Beckenham, and minor river widening in Beckenham and St Martins.

It suggests maps to warn people of flood-prone areas be published, and minimum floor and section levels for certain areas be set. Natural retention basins in the Hendersons Road area and Cashmere-Worsleys Valley will be retained, and local soakage and retention schemes encouraged. Moving in line with the “user-pays” philosophy, the possibility of charging developers a levy to help deal with flooding problems they cause further down the river, will also be looked at. As this scheme would allow the river’s flood levels to increase, however. Drainage Board officers proposed two alternatives — schemes 1A and 5A — which are included in the C.P.A.G. report as appendices. They go further than the $830,000 scheme by proposing considerably more river widening and, in scheme IA, two further retention basins. At a cost of $1.4 million, scheme VA would maintain the flood level as it is now. For $3.2 million, scheme 1A would reduce the level. These alternatives would both reduce flood damage more than the C.P.A.G. recommendation, but are much more expensive and would have a greater impact on the riverside environment.