Canterbury mayors say their ratepayers are already paying for earthquake recovery, roading, water and storm water infrastructure, so a shiny new Christchurch stadium is way down the priority list.
The Christchurch city council says today's flooding would have been much worse had it not been for post-earthquake upgrades to the storm water system.
Some Christchurch community groups say a programme to rebuild the city's wastewater and storm water systems to a pre-earthquake equivalent isn't good enough.
The majority of Christchurch’s stormwater has historically been discharged untreated directly into urban surface waterways. These receiving waterways have become adversely affected by the contaminants carried in the stormwater, particularly sediment and heavy metals. An event-based contaminant load model was developed to identify the distribution and magnitude of contaminant loads entering the waterway, as well as to assess the reduction in TSS and heavy metal loads that can be achieved by various stormwater management options. The GIS-Excel based model estimates contaminant loads from an individual storm event based on different contributing impervious surfaces and key rainfall characteristics (rainfall intensity, duration, pH and antecedent dry days). It then calculates contaminant reduction loads that could be achieved through source reduction (e.g. green roofs, repainting) as well as from treatment (e.g. raingardens, wet ponds) applied to different surfaces within the catchment. This model differs from other annual load models as it is event-based and accounts for storm characteristics in its calculation of contaminant loads. Christchurch is a valuable case setting due the unique opportunity for retrofitting improved stormwater management in the post-earthquake rebuild. It is anticipated that this modelling approach could later be adapted for use in other urban settings outside of Christchurch.
Lincoln University was commissioned by the Avon-Otakaro Network (AvON) to estimate the value of the benefits of a ‘recreation reserve’ or ‘river park’ in the Avon River Residential Red Zone (ARRRZ). This research has demonstrated significant public desire and support for the development of a recreation reserve in the Avon River Residential Red Zone. Support is strongest for a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision, such as walking, cycling and water-based sporting and leisure activities. The research also showed support for a reserve that promotes and enables community interaction and wellbeing, and is evident in respondents’ desires for community gardens, regular festivals and markets, and the physical linking of the CBD with eastern suburbs through a green corridor. There is less support for children’s playgrounds, sports fields or open grassed areas, all of which could be considered as more typical of an urban park development. Benefits (willing to pay) to Christchurch residents (excluding tourists) of a recreation reserve could be as high as $35 million each year. Savings to public health costs could be as high as $50.3 million each year. The incorporation or restoration of various ecosystems services, including water quality improvements, flood mitigation and storm water management could yield a further $8.8 million ($19, 600) per hectare/year at 450 ha). Combined annual benefits of a recreational reserve in the ARRRZ are approximately $94.1 million per annum but this figure does not include potentially significant benefits from, for example, tourism, property equity gains in areas adjacent to the reserve, or the effects of economic rejuvenation in the East. Although we were not able to provide costing estimates for park attributes, this study does make available the value of benefits, which can be used as a guide to the scope of expenditure on development of each park attribute.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand’s South Island induced widespread liquefaction phenomena across the Christchurch urban area on four occasions (4 Sept 2010; 22 Feb; 13 June; 23 Dec 2011), that resulted in widespread ejection of silt and fine sand. This impacted transport networks as well as infiltrated and contaminated the damaged storm water system, making rapid clean-up an immediate post-earthquake priority. In some places the ejecta was contaminated by raw sewage and was readily remobilised in dry windy conditions, creating a long-term health risk to the population. Thousands of residential properties were inundated with liquefaction ejecta, however residents typically lacked the capacity (time or resources) to clean-up without external assistance. The liquefaction silt clean-up response was co-ordinated by the Christchurch City Council and executed by a network of contractors and volunteer groups, including the ‘Farmy-Army’ and the ‘Student-Army’. The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately 2 months for each of the 3 main liquefaction inducing earthquakes; despite each event producing different volumes of ejecta. Preliminary cost estimates indicate total clean-up costs will be over NZ$25 million. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill since the beginning of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. The liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine grained sediment in urban areas.