Solution to sick city waterways lies with Christchurch residents

Last updated 21:33 24/10/2008

Relevant offers

When Christchurch residents turn their attention to water quality, it is a fair bet they will refer first to the debate over dairying, and its impact on the Canterbury Plains, writes The Press in an editorial.

But these same city dwellers have no cause for complacency. Over the past fortnight, The Press has published a series of articles on the state of health of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, two waterways that define the city's character. Those stories have made for disturbing reading. These two urban rivers should be jewels in the crown of Christchurch, a city which prides itself on its clean, green image. Instead they are, as an Environment Canterbury report found, severely degraded.

Evidence for this finding is readily visible. Both the Avon and the Heathcote are all too often used as a rubbish dump by those who are too mean-spirited to use proper methods of disposal. There have been well-publicised spills or unauthorised discharges of pollutants, such as the ink which turned part of the Heathcote blue earlier this year and the discharge of diesel, also into the Heathcote, in 2005. Duck faeces can be seen on the riverbanks and in the rivers. And, especially during wet weather, there have been sewage overflows, with five already into the Heathcote this year. Contaminated stormwater also seeps into the rivers from the roads and household downpipes.

The net effect can be measured in numerous ways. The number of trout nests detected on the Avon has dropped dramatically over the past two decades from 150 to 33. The amount of rubbish cleared out of the rivers by community-minded residents is staggering. Samples of water taken for analysis from the Avon and the Heathcote showed concerningly high levels of E.coli bacteria. And the Christchurch City Council has recently postponed its scheduled raft and canoe event on the Heathcote. These are, in short, not rivers that any right-minded person would want to swim in.

It is also worrying that there has been tension between ECan and the city council over water quality issues. ECan has made it clear that it wants strict standards applied to the improvement of the rivers, including a ban on effluent discharges and ensuring the waterways are of "contact recreation" quality. Clearly these are laudable goals, but the city council, with an eye on the ratepayer pocket, believes that the ECan standards are unrealistically high and would cost billions to achieve.

Part of the problem is that there is also dispute over the accuracy of water quality guidelines and standards. Critics claim, for example, that the pollution guidelines for zinc levels are not based on good science. Some greater clarity about water quality guidelines could be forthcoming. The Ministry for the Environment is reviewing standards, while ECan is assessing whether its own standards are attainable.

Ad Feedback

But while attention invariably focuses on agencies such as the ministry, ECan and the city council, ultimately the solution to our sick city waterways lies with Christchurch residents.

Most obviously, all residents and businesses must stop perceiving the rivers as a dumping place for household or industrial rubbish, and those who continue to do so must be prosecuted.

Residents must also weigh up how much they are prepared to pay through their rates to improve the quality of the Avon and the Heathcote. At present, the city council spends around $22 million on waterways and wetlands to meet operating and capital costs and some initiatives have been taken, such as buying land at Henderson Basin to absorb excess stormwater.

But even the city council acknowledges it will struggle to meet its own target of one sewage discharge in two years, while ECan says the state of the waterways has generally not changed in 15 years. If the city is serious about cleaning up the Avon and the Heathcote, more money must be spent.

The onus now lies with residents to make it clear during next year's long-term community plan process that they regard the quality of Christchurch's two rivers as a very high priority and say what rate burden they are willing to shoulder for this objective.

- © Fairfax NZ News

The Press Homepage

Sponsored links

Share this page

Email Facebook MySpace Digg StumbleUpon Delicious Reddit Linkedin Twitter

7 comments

Expand All

Oldest First

Annabelle #7 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Hello

I am a 11 year old from Avonhead school and I am doing a project on the Avon and Heathcote river and I have got some questions to ask. The fact that the rivers have been badly contaminated and used as arubbish dumps who will this affect?, will this be a bigger problem in the futuer? and how would you rate the quality of water?

Annabelle

Chris Laming #6 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Gee bogans (if they are 0.0000000000001%)must have incredibly large incomes to be able to buy all of those products to produce all of that rubbish... Or maybe there are a few more people in the city that are doing it than you let on..

Chris Laming #5 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Its sad to see that people are blinded by what they have heard, I am guessing over half of you do not even know how a farm operates, what they do for New Zealand, and they great lengths they go to protect the environment.

People tell you that farmers are polluting the environment with nitrates in aquafiers, yet on the lincoln university dairy farm, the nitrate levels of the aquifiers do not increase as they pass through the property, and it is highly stocked.

You comments abour tourism seem ironic. One of the greatest attractions for our tourists are the farmsides, do u think we would still have the same tourist numbers if the country was a large city? You may say that there will still be vast amounts of land to see without farmers around but this is very naive. Farmers are about the only people in this country stopping land being subdivided and taking away our clean green image.

In your regards to Fonterra or Fonterror as you so cleverly thought up, Fonterra is NZs largest company and is owned wholly by New Zealanders and is the only large company in New Zealand that is commited to protecting the environment. Before you try and argue that remark it is very true. New Zealanders should be embracing Fonterra and farming as it is the only industry that is pulling New Zealand through this recession.

New Zealand has farmed without subsidies for over 30 years and we compete against others who are subsidised yet we are still competitive. We should be proud of ourselves for that, not punish it. Farmers do not demand for subsidies back. They have learnt that this will never be possible with the strong dislike for NZ farmers, the distance between the rural and the urban public.

Dont be naive and believe New Zealand can survive without farming. Dont think that farmers are eveil and polluting. Get the right information before you make outrageous claims.

By the way I am not a farmer, nor do I work for Fonterra, or even in the primary industry, so therefore I feel my opinion is unbaised and believe me it is based on facts.

Joe the realest #4 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Oh here we go, love the farmers the country needs them, we are the backbone.... What about tourism, technology sectors and the many other great NZ industries? Get your head out of the 70's, I suppose you want subsidies back too do you? The Cleanstream's accord is a great example of how farmers and Fonterror are happy to talk the talk but won't walk the walk if it costs them a penny. Yes the city rivers are a disgrace and yes narrow minded individuals dump rubbish in them. A lot of the issue is infrastructure of the cities storm water and sewer overflow which is a real concern. This doesn't mean that each person should not take responsibility but it sure as heck doesn't get farmers off the hook for their profiteering and raping of the environment on a scale never seen before in New Zealand.

Chris #3 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

What a load of nonsense!

This article seems to be saying that everyone who lives in Christchurch is in the habit of dumping rubbish and industrial waste in the Avon and Heathcote.

I don't see any comparison at all between farmers who abuse high country rivers to maximise profit (no I'm not saying they all do it) and the actions of a few bogans (probably 0.0000000000001% of the population) who dump stuff in the city rivers.

Looks like a weak attempt to deflect attention away from reasonable concerns about the environmental effects of farming to me.

FJ #2 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Does anybody reading this article actually realise that CPW will increase the quality of canterbury waterways?

Chris Laming #1 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I think the headline says it all.

Any person that lives in CHCH should not have any opinion about how farmers operate their farming system or how much they are polluting river when this is happening. Basically its hypocritical, Im sure the nitrate levels in these rivers, the avon and the heathcote, are much higher than the recommended level for drinking and the level of most of our canterbury rivers.

I'll admit that this problem is not the fault of every CHCH citizen, but do you think that the nitrate polluted rivers are a result of every farmer?

So lay off farmers until you can keep your own rivers clean. Especially as these CHCH rivers are in more of the spotlight to our clean green image.

The problem also lies in over population, dense city living and blame on the rural population and no time for fixing the internal city problems, not just the fault of our farmers.

We must protect our farmers and not insult them, we need to develop ways for them to farm more sustainably but still economically, as they are the cornerstone of our country and the backbone of our economy. My point is that we need to work together through these environmental problems, not against each other. We are a nation, lets act like one.

Ad Feedback