Day 37 after the end of the urgent interdict hearing. We are still awaiting the Judge’s decision.
The developers have now fenced off the remnant of the original course of the Liesbeek River and have started proceeding to infill it. The image above is devastation and devastating.
Internationally, there is a movement to recognise the rights of rivers as part of an Earth Justice Movement. In fact, New Zealand went as far as enacting a treaty in 2017 that recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person with fundamental rights. In the same year, an Indian court recognized the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers as “living entities” with fundamental rights, also allowing designated humans to represent the rivers in court.
But here in South Africa, the Liesbeek River is being buried, slowly, suffocated, murdered. What human can represent the Liesbeek? Certainly not former Minister Lindiwe Sisulu whose tenure as Minister of Water and Sanitation ended with her lifting the suspension of the Water Use License secured by the LLPT for their development, thereby opening the door to the infill of the Liesbeek.
While the Liesbeek River’s course has been much altered over time, the last remnant of an enormously significant and life-giving river is now being slowly buried and turned into a swale. (What is a swale? See here). The reason is simply to enable the bulk and massing required of the development to achieve its target of 9% return on investment.
The LLPT’s baseline HIA recommended that both the original river course (to the west of the site) and the 1952 canalised portion (to the east of the site) be rehabilitated to improve ecological function. However, the developers rejected this choice and found a heritage expert who chose to agree with their view that all you needed to do was to de-concretise the canal and recreate an artificial river to the east of the River Club. That opened the floodgates (sic) to enact the monstrous burying of the original river remnant.
In our view, the reason had nothing to do with biodiversity enhancement, as claimed, but with the fact that an existing river would require a 30m buffer zone in which no construction could be placed. By burying the river, the redevelopment could therefore add bulk to its footprint.
The developers created the notion that the existing river course was worthless, by calling it “degraded” and a “storm water gutter”. That enabled their biodiversity expert to then characterise the river’s burial under 5 metres of soil and vegetation as “rehabilitation of the river”.
But, there are numerous problems in doing this.
Firstly, from a heritage perspective, the last remnant of the original Liesbeek River course is extremely important for the authenticity of the proposed national Khoi and San Liberation trail. As noted, “The Khoisan Legacy Project has identified the Liesbeek River as a significant linear space in the history of the Khoisan peoples because it was the first frontier and from where their people were excluded from the rights in land. Care should be taken in terms of authenticity to ensure that this frontier refers to the old route followed by the Liesbeek.”
Once this old route is buried, there is no original river course to celebrate.
Secondly, the burial of a river runs contrary to the City’s Stormwater management policies. The developer’s proposal failed to meet the requirements for best management practice (BMP) and was therefore opposed by the City’s Catchment, Stormwater and River Management (CSRM) department. They noted that “the River holds an important filtration function while filling will also adversely impact and change the existing ecology around the river.” CRSM went on to point out that “the River holds important historical and cultural significance” and therefore they did not support the filling of the Liesbeek River.
Further, the City’s Environmental Management Division noted that the infilling of the river was “highly inappropriate” given the riverine area being one of the City’s high faunal sensitivity riverine Conservation Areas. They argued it will diminish the City’s flood resilience, adversely impact on our climate resilience and negatively affect wetland habitat available for numerous bird and other species. They concluded that “The infilling of a natural river channel cannot be considered positive from an environmental perspective” and that the claim to rehabilitate was a misnomer “because it’s impossible to mitigate the loss of a natural habitat such as the Liesbeek River.”
As we know, the City’s own experts were ignored by their planners and the Mayor in their enthusiasm to see this development approved.
But experience elsewhere in the world suggests we will rue the day such a foolish decision was made.
The City of Paris recently reversed a decision taken 110 years ago when the Bièvre River was sealed and buried. Then, it was said the river was polluted, a sewer, and authorities decided to pave it over. Sound familiar? Today, with record high temperatures, authorities have realised the importance of urban waterways moderating urban heat. Bodies of water help to cool down the surrounding areas, absorbing heat from the air and removing energy when water particles evaporate, therefore lowering the ground-level temperature. Facing the challenges of climate change, Paris authorities have decided to unbury their river.
Paris is not the only city to do so, joining Auckland, Manchester and New York who have likewise undone poor planning decisions of the past, by resurfacing buried rivers for better ecological practice.
Thus, while subjugating nature for human benefit is something we should be increasingly recognising as unsustainable, that recognition appears unimportant to our City decision-makers. As unimportant as it seems to Amazon, who are benefiting from this disastrous piece of environmental butchery. No wonder Jeff Bezos thinks nothing of dismantling public infrastructure to serve his most superficial whims - by asking the city of Rotterdam to dismantle its historic Koningshaven Bridge so that his gigantic superyacht 40m tall can pass through the waterways linked to the Nieuwe Maas river. It’s one more example of how Amazon’s founder thinks nothing of using a river for his private benefit, expecting special treatment and public subsidy.
As stated in the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) supplementary heritage report of 2017, the Riverine Corridor of the Liesbeek River, its original course and its subsequent canalization is of outstanding cultural significance. It is also an important component of our climate change resilience.
Burying the river is an insane action, motivated by greed. As Chief Krotoa of the First Indigenous Nation of Southern Africa said at the Heritage Appeal Tribunal visit to the River Club in 2018, “[D]on’t touch our rivers, rather clean them up, don’t touch our sacred land, rather add more sacredness to it, by bringing the world together to this place, the birthplace of the San, the birthplace of the nation, the birthplace of humanity.”
We hope Judge Goliath will hear Chief Krotoa’s words.
As always, please help us fund these legal costs by contributing at our fundraising site.
Visit our website and follow the Liesbeek Action Campaign on twitter: @LiesbeekAction.
Make the Liesbeek Matter!