Cost to combat coastal erosion at Bluecliffs ‘eye-watering’
Coastal Bluecliffs residents remain in limbo after a meeting revealed the massive costs required to save their properties from eventually falling into the water.
It remains undecided on what, if anything, will be done to slow or halt erosion to the bank the houses sit on, and who would pay.
The residents of the Southland village discussed possible options for the future of their community with authorities at a meeting in late March.
This was in response to storms accelerating coastal erosion to the bank the Bluecliffs properties are on, putting some of the homes at risk.
The Waiau River runs parallel to the back sections of the 18 cribs and houses and a gravel bar separates the river from the sea.
The rivermouth, where it enters the sea, is near the village, putting houses at risk when the sea and river pound into the Bluecliffs bank in severe conditions.
Two pieces of work were directed under a state of emergency for the area, declared by Southland District mayor Rob Scott.
The first was an unsuccessful attempt to create a new rivermouth away from the Bluecliffs houses, by digging a channel through the bar between the river and sea, and the second was the removal of material at the old Bluecliffs dump site.
Two reports were tabled at the meeting, one by Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) assessing the bar opening, and one by Tonkin + Taylor on the erosion and mitigation options for the area.
The reports outline short, medium and longer-term options. These included doing nothing and observing, relocating the houses to the landward boundary of the sections [away from the bank edge, relocating the houses to new properties, or occupying the sections with mobile homes that could be carried or towed away.
A range of physical protections were listed, including installing a rock or concrete block wall to protect against erosion at a cost of between $5 million and $10 million.
Another of the numerous options was using groynes and an armoured channel to create a permanent centrally located river mouth, thus limiting the likelihood of flood related erosion at the properties. However, this option was considered impracticable in terms of construction, would cost between $20m and $100m and was unlikely to gain consents, the Tonkin + Taylor report says.
Scott said the options needed to be explored in conjunction with the Bluecliffs residents, but no decisions had yet been made.
The costs involved for the higher-end solutions were eye-watering and it was unclear who would pay and whether consents would be granted, he said.
The “million-dollar question” was where the funding would come from.
“One of the options we talked about at the meeting was doing nothing and I don’t think there was any appetite for that.
“Whatever options are decided on have to be sustainable and affordable. At this stage no options are off the table.”
Bluecliffs resident Rolf Liechti, whose home was most at risk of falling into the water, said he and the other residents were in limbo.
He could move his house further away from the bank edge, but didn’t want to go to that expense if a solution to the ongoing erosion was coming, he said.
“The reason it’s there is because it’s in a beautiful place, with a beautiful view.”
Authorities would again meet with residents later this month.