The Ohau River has long been regarded as a moveable feast, a watercourse known for its ever-changing character, especially when flowing across an alluvial flood plain to sea. It has been a notable feature of the Horowhenua coastal and natural flood plain, which used to emerge from the Tararua mountain range, meander north with the streams of the Manawatu River and then flow into the low-lying basin where Waipunahau or Lake Horowhenua now lies. Lake Waiwiri (often referred to as Papaitonga) was once a lagoon at the mouth of the Ohau River.9 As advancing dunes trapped the lakes against the marine terrace the Ohau River changed course to spill south from the ranges and flow in the
8 All proposal information supplied by Mr Edward O'Conner of Palmerston North, former engineer of the 1971 M anawatu Catchment Board staged plans. Based on personal communication July -August 2007 and O'Conner's original project plans. 9 Lucas Associates, 1997, Kuku Ohau, Situation and Opportunities in the Lower River: Preliminary Notes, 2.
C H A P T E R S I X
D
c;>
C7
o K.� C-'f*".-�r'\ Figure 6.1: Hand-drawn images by Mr Edward O'Conner.
The images indicate proposals for the Ohau River diversion plans from the 1940S to 197I. Drawings kindly supplied by Mr Edward O'Conner, Palmerston North
1 74 H EI W H E N UA O RA
corridor to sea, the route that it follows today.lO The Ohau and Otaki Rivers and the large streams between them deposited large quantities of gravel from the Tararua Range onto their flood plains.ll
It would appear that no one in the local community was quite prepared for the reality of excavating the diversion or 'cut' created by the motor driven scrapers. The project commenced in the winter of
1972
to avoid the strong west and north-westerly winds. The sand was damp for easier operation of heavy machinery. Great care was taken as the cut deepened to ensure that the Kapuni gas pipeline was not hit. The gas line was struck once on the true right of the cut and work ceased until the gas pipeline inspector carefully checked it, rewrapped it, and applied two coats of bitumen liquid. Such work had to dry before soil and sands were carefully filled over the pipe. O'Conner commented that,The explosion would have been massive if the scraper blade had nicked a hole in the pipe. There were some very "white" contractor plant operators that day!' 12
Soon after commencing work that winter, a series of successive and devastating floods hindered the works. The disruptions dismayed and confused Maori shareholders over their ongoing tribal fishing, trespass issues and property rights. In file correspondence and meetings held between the Manawatu Catchment Board and the Ngati Tukorehe Tribal Committee, there were calls to compensate the tribe over loss of farm income, loss ofland or the loss of access to the area for fishing. These concerns were eventually clarified and cleared, with no change to tribal shareholders remaining the original title owners of the diversion channel.13
By 1997 however, it was obvious that the river remnant was no longer a river. In altering the flows and removing the plant and animal life that had once existed in the area, the river meander became a severely nitrified lagoon. In the early days of discussion over environmental decline, invited specialists, regional council representatives and iwi and hapu participants all met at the meander site. Rehabilitation for the 'loop'would only come about when all entities acknowledged how flood protection alterations and agricultural practice had combined to accelerate the waterway's deteriorated and contaminated state.
10 ibid, 2.
II Frances Duguid, 1990, 'Botany of Northern Horowhenua Lowlands, North Island, New Zealand', New ZealandJourna1 of Botany, Vol 28, ]83.
12 Personal communication with Mr Edward O'Conner, former engineer of the 1971 Manawatu Catchment Board's staged plans for the Ohau River.
13 Edward O'Conner, 1972, Letter to the Secretary of the Manawatu Catchment Board, Ohau River Scheme Report on Ngati Tukorehe Tribal Property, 20 June 1972, 2. File 91], Horizons Regional Council Archive, Palmerston North.
The tribe actually had the right to fence across the river diversion upstream and downstream of the cut, as the river was n o
C H A P T E R S I X
(0 .
I.
B. LOOK-I"' '::::' t>O'N N CI-IANN.S \", ( t>c WN.'SI� 't: A M 0>'
1 e:> 'I=>
Sc.o�R \-Io\...e )
S�=W I N c:. S Gc> �'G ?O C.�E.l <s... 4�ocvE.S HAY'=" �e EN �= � M'E:t> 'e,( sc.,R. I>..� 'i:.1C: I EE.\\4 .Figures 6.2: Selected images of flood damage, May 1972.
File 9/3 Manawatu Catchment Board Ohau River Scheme, Stage One Contract No 115, Damage to Contract Area Caused by Flood- Sunday 14th May 1972.
Horizons Regional Council Archives, Palmerston North
1 76
250 500 150 1km
Figure 6.3: Site location map, 1997-1998.
H EI WH E N UA O RA
KE\ ecological situation & opportunities in the Im·\cr ri\er
�::::. Ohau Rn-er dlVerSKm THE SITE , . Ohau River meander slfIce cut off
Reproduced with permission from Lucas Associates, Christchurch
In referring to the commissioned Lucas Associates' report, this offered an integrated management strategy with options for rehabilitating the residual 'loop'waters.The preferred option aimed to divert cleaner Kuku Stream water into the remnant. Another option was to physically remove the accumulated nutrients in the sediment on the riverbed. When the opportunity to clean out the effiuent by dragline was first discussed, it was potentially too risky for both human and land health. With so many stored nutrients and carbon in the diversion bed, which would continue to pollute the water body for decades, where could the toxic sludge be disposed of safely? Other remedial tasks for the former river included planting extensive riparian areas along the banks of the loop with native trees, grasses and reeds, where the emerging forest and vegetation would then trap nutrients from farm run off. The report requested that permanent fences be erected to retire the slopes of the lagoon. Reforested zones would eventually provide shelter for stock. These practices in time would also allow for a healthier lagoon ecosystem to develop and flourish.14
By increasing the freshwater inflows into the lagoon or river remnant from the Kuku Stream15 into the upper loop area, this proposal aimed to inhibit saline intrusions on
14 Lucas Associates, 1997, Kuku - Ohau, Situation and Opportunities in the Lower River: Preliminary Notes, 17.
15 In June 2007 1ilhamata I ncorporation applied for a Resource Consent to install a culvert in the Kuku Stream stopbank and divert 0.1 cumecs from the stream into the former Ohau River 'loop'. The main purpose of the diversion is to improve the water quality in the old meander and thus improve fish habitat. The project is strongly supported by Horizons Regional Council.
C HA P T E R SIX
Figures 6.4: Kuku Stream diversion aerial images, 1997-1998.
Reproduced with kind permission of Lucas Associates, Christchurch
1 77
the tide and keep them downstream from possibly ruining grazing pasture. Other recommendations sought to divert high quality spring water flowing along the toe of the sand dunes upstream, into the top of the 'loop'. In modifYing designs for potential floodgates at the outlet to the 'loop', this opportunity allowed for better fish passage and spawning on incoming and outgoing tides. There were suggestions to mount a floodgate on short rollers, on a level controlled trigger or with radio-controlled trip. The later two propositions would trip the floodgate to close if there was any risk of immanent flooding.16
As the river remnant encompassed areas that had been recalled or stated as ancestrally sacred, changes to Tahamata farming and council practices were integral to protect the sanctity of associated areas. Figure
6.5
from the Lucas Associates' report offered opportunities for a healthier recreational site for fishing or for launching watercraft. In reality such a proposal required further thought, as there were issues in dealing respectfully with the adjacent sacred areas and some dunes areas that could not be interfered with. Any extensive revegetating would have to be done for the benefit of indigenous biodiversity, rather than recreational use (as pictured) with kaitiaki exercising caution for the adjacent areas marked by tI kouka. Even though areas along the river meander were renowned for their mullet other areas were not so commonplace for fishing activities.1 78 H EI WH E N UA O RA
Figure 6.5: Riparian ideas, before and after, I997-I998. Reproduced with kind permission of Lucas Associates, Christchurch
In the early stages of encouraging positive environmental change to fragmented areas, Horizons Regional Council did not want to amend the former water engineering works, or allow more fresh water flow back into the 'loop'. Most activity and finances for their Ohau Manakau Scheme fund maintained flood control measures for areas fragmented by the series of stop banks, the mechanical digging of stream systems, the chemical weed eradication on water and riparian areas, and the gravel extraction from river berms for erosion and water flow control. These regional authority interventions are costly and in many ways, short sighted to the needs of the whole reach of the river from the mountains to the sea. Changes in perspective should consider the whole of the Ohau River catchment, including the land that the main waterway courses through, the volumes of sediment, sand, gravel and silt that the river shifts, the associated springs and streams, and the river's interrelated ground fed dune wetlands and other subsurface waterwaysY
When Horizons Regional Council resolved its position to allow some water flow via a re-designed culvert from the Ohau River back into the loop in
I998,
this appeased some of the depleted oxygen matters that had been generated when the Ohau River Scheme diverted the river. The council remained reticent however, to allow greater volumes of 17 Since beginning this research project, thinking has shifted to where the Ohau Manakau River Scheme now notes how thecommunity of farmers, iwi and hapu representatives and all residents along the river must work together for the overall betterment of the river catchment.
C HA P T E R S I X 1 79
water into the remaining 'loop'. Convenors of Ohau Manakau River Scheme ultimately wanted to maintain flood protection mechanisms as administrated by their engineers.18 Despite many inter-authority meetings and hui at that time, it was still clear that local and national government agencies were not meeting resident Maori expectations for effective environmental, cultural heritage or landscape protection, especially when multiple entities under many laws tended to speak past each other over issues.
The wider environmental protection strategy attempted to combat the damage caused by vehicles, inappropriate rubbish disposal or people's general disregard of the sensitive, natural estuarine area within the tribe's coastline of cultural significance. When another area was cleared in the adjacent dunes to the river beach, this encouraged people to leave their cars in the car park made available and to walk, rather than drive along the river's edge to sea. As the beach environs remain hapu property under the auspices of Ta hamata Incorporation, kaitiaki began to strategically place large driftwood logs in the dune systems or across the tracks to limit the damage made by trail bikes, four-wheel farm bikes or four wheel drive vehicles to sensitive dune grass areas and bird nesting areas in season. There was concurrent planting of pingao, coastal iris and harakeke by local kaitiaki19 however rabbits largely displaced the efforts made when they burrowed for the potting mix and ate the tender roots of plants.
What emerged from this action research process grounded in a kaupapa and tikanga Maori epistemology of knowledge development, suggests that the restoration of fragmented ecological systems in a cultural landscape of narrative and significance, is interdependently related to the healing of a community. When local kaitaiki emphasised protective mechanisms based on former customary information and experience about cultural and spiritual areas in landscape at the coast, they forged the safeguards required to protect them against inappropriate use and development. Other kaumatua accounts also relayed a range of experiences with natural resources and the river and beach environs. They recalled how fresh fish, eel and whitebait were plentiful in the dune lakes, in the Ohau River, and that different shellfish, patiki or flounder could be found in the backwashes of the blind creek. Flounder were also found in ephemeral wetlands, adjacent to Te Hakari lakes south of the current Tahamata pine forest. Shoals of whitebait went up the Te Hakari Stream from the Ohau River on spring tides. Sacks of thick eels were gathered from Te Hakari
18 This programme of activity is now part of Horizons Regional Council One Plan. In 2006, the culvert still restricted a greater volume of tidal inflow that was required to better oxygenate the remnant waterway, hence in June 2006 Tahamata made moves to divert Kuku Stream waters into the former river meander.
1 80 H E I W H E N UA O RA
Figures 6.6: Logs have often been positioned and repositioned to block trail bikes and four-wheel drive vehicular access. While these logs restrict access, new ways are often sawed through logs left by tides on the Ohau River beach region. Access for food gathering is not discouraged. Reckless and unnecessary access to the dunes that destroys bird-nesting areas, impacts on shellfish biodiversity or other ecologically sensitive areas, are restricted for cultural and common sense reasons, 4 November 2006.
Photograph by Huhana Smith
wetland. The whole area was regarded as a significant mahinga kai or food gathering area, literally 'the feast'.2o
Despite these elders' anecdotes that they and the 'old people' before them had always observed protocols for the beach area,21 the river beach and coastal environ was fast becoming a waste disposal site for a range of domestic and garden rubbish. Fires were even lit on occasions to destroy dumping evidence. As happened one weekend in
2000
a local shed was cleaned out and all refuse including old mattresses, paint cans, broken crockery, paper, plastics, glass panes, glass bottles and other assorted domestic rubbish, was transported to the river beach to burn. An incredulous local kayaker watched from a hidden vantage as the perpetrators went about their business. When they left, thinking the fire had been sufficiently put out, the wind picked up and the flames spread into the dune marram and other coastal grasses. The kayaker put the fire out for the sake of the 20 These combined recollections were collated with Mr Gary Wehipeihana (1943-2006), Mr Horace (Cooky) Lawton, Mrs JanePoetsch and Mrs Ruhia (Buddy) Martin at the wananga harakeke, 18 March 2005.
C H A P T E R SIX 1 8 1
Figure 6.7: Blocking vehicular access encourages more environmentally responsible and respectful use of the beach environs, 4 November 2006.
Figure 6.8: Remnant pingao in sensitive dune systems, 9 August 2005.
Photograph by Huhana Smith
Photograph by Huhana Smith
farming incorporation's adjacent pine forest. There were other witnesses and phone alerts were made. In taking a trip down the beach the next morning, the detritus was carefully shovelled up and taken away to the tip. Tahamata Incorporation would later recommend that the sign be moved to its better site at the entrance to the beach in April 2001, to
ensure that everyone (including local residents) could read it before entering the area. The bilingual sign encouraged visitors to behave responsibly and it did not exclude access to the beach environs as hapu lands. It simply sought all peoples' respect of the natural and cultural precinct they were entering.
It was therefore timely that an informative and quality sign was created for the entrance to Kuku Beach. The sign was erected as an encouraging conservation guide for both local people and visitors. I t was based on affiliated ancestors' association and kaumatua recall about the special nature of coastal place. It encouraged local residents and visitors alike to contemplate how past generations lived. It aspired to engender from visitors a sense of respect for local Kuku histories, their interactions and identities22 as the local mana whenua of the area. The bilingual sign, completed and erected in January 2001 was placed
22 New Zealand H istoric Places Trust, 2004, Heritage Management Guidelines for Resource Management Practitioners, Wellington, 2.
182 H EI WH E NUA O RA
at an initial locale alongside Kuku Beach Road. It encouraged all visitors and the local community to respect the tribal area as special and revered, to take personal responsibility of the region, and to use their ommonsense for the cultural and natural environs they were entering. The sign highlighted the misuse of the river environs and appealed to local residents, iwi and hapii affiliates and other peoples' better judgement, before they dumped inorganic or domestic refuse on the river beach.
Figure 6.9: Images of Beach Sign23, January 200!.
Local relations, elders and marae committee members at the newly erected sign for beach. From left to right, Mrs Yvonne Wehipeihana Wilson, Mrs Ruhia Martin, Ms Huhana S mith (in hat), Mrs Apia Heke, Te Huaki 0 Te Rangi Kamariera, Mrs Fiona Kamariera, Mr Sean Ogden, Mrs Pauline Moffat with her
father Mr Harold Rowland (1915-2001), Mr Witana Kamariera, Mr Philip Putu, Carla (Unaiki) Johns and her grandmother Mrs Maire Johns. Children in front of sign are Suitsinaan and Isaac Heke,January 200!.
Photograph by Susan Forbes
C H A P T E R S I X 1 83
Figure 6.10: The sign was moved to the site near the entrance to river beach area, April 200!.
Local kaitiaki enlivened the area with niho taniwha24 arrangements of sand, plants, mulch and stones to
make the sign more visible and attractive to visitors, March 2004.
Photograph by Huhana Smith
In cutting rivers and transforming cultural landscape, relationships are compromised
The Ohau River Scheme excavated the diversion between two natural bends in the river.