An emergency call log reveals that rescuers were instructed to wait for over an hour before attempting to save a man and his dogs stranded in a flooded Canterbury river, unless a “catastrophic” event occurred.
The man became trapped in his ute in the Waimakariri River near West Melton, just north of Christchurch, with water rising around the bonnet at approximately 12.30pm on Saturday.
The first call to emergency services was made at 12.34pm.
A Coastguard jetboat and Fire and Emergency NZ (FENZ) raft team eventually rescued him nearly two-and-a-half hours later, around 2.50pm.
The log indicated that the FENZ raft crew was prepared on the riverbank shortly after 2pm, but was instructed not to deploy “unless urgent life preservation required” and to wait for the Coastguard.
The Coastguard was notified about an hour after the initial emergency call.
By the time their volunteers arrived, the vehicle was reportedly “sinking,” according to the log.
“FENZ swift water entering water up stream and Coast Guard entering water from down stream.”
The vehicle was positioned near the bank, and the final rescue operation was completed in less than 10 minutes.
Police defended their coordination of the rescue, describing it as efficient and risk-conscious.
‘More dangerous to operate’
A source, identified as a trained responder familiar with the situation, described the delay as “odd” to RNZ.
“It was a pretty simple rescue but then because police are managing it they won’t let us do anything. The river came up and made it more dangerous to operate.”
Coastguard North Canterbury was informed “just after 1.30pm,” according to an online post.
“This was our first official swift water rescue response, and the crew were really chuffed to be able to carry it out successfully. It was a great opportunity to put our training into practice,” said North Canterbury vice president Logan Pryce online.
Pryce later learned of the delay and stated that while the Coastguard had been “pushing hard” for police, FENZ, and civil defense to utilize their capabilities, they were not involved in the police decision-making on that day.
“We would rather be let know about a situation early and be sent home because it is resolved before we get there, than… have to work harder to help resolve the situation.”
Police maintained that the rescue “was completed efficiently and without incident”.
The driver of the ute “remained under continuous observation by staff on the riverbank”.
“At no point did his condition deteriorate or the level of risk increase.”
Police indicated they were informed that a complete and ready FENZ swift water team wasn’t immediately available, while the Coastguard could reach the site in 45 minutes.
“Given the river conditions and the value of a jet-powered vessel in high flows, police proceeded with Coastguard as the most appropriate partner agency,” police told RNZ.
‘Unable to deploy unless catastrophic change’
Following the 111 call at 12.34pm, the FENZ call log noted: “Toyota ute is half submerged in the water.”
“Occupant is sitting on top of the ute with his 2 dogs about 20m from the riverbank. River is in flood. Ute appears stable at the mo’… Nil injuries … River in flood and has a heavy flow.”
“Occupant on ute too far away to communicate clearly with.”
Volunteer fire crews were deployed, as the riverbank was only minutes away, and police and ambulance services were swiftly alerted.
By 1.12pm, the crews had positioned themselves downstream with throw bags when they were informed that “sounds like they [police] are happy to approve whichever response is going to be the quickest between Coastguard, Westpac and FENZ swift water rescue”.
Police stated they dispatched an officer to the scene immediately to ensure the man’s safety.
At 1.13pm, the log recorded: “Water rescue approved”. Shortly thereafter, this approval was sent to FENZ’s National Commanders’ Group for authorization, which was completed around 45 minutes after the initial call.
At 1.48pm, FENZ was attempting to verify the Coastguard’s arrival time, but Coastguard reported being alerted at approximately 1.40pm.
The water-trained firefighter team arrived at the riverbank at 1.53pm, but 11 minutes later received instructions to wait.
A FENZ assistant district commander, who was not present at the scene, referenced a decision by the police search and rescue (SAR) coordinator, who was also absent, stating:
“Details passed re SAR decision for swift water rescue to not deploy unless urgent life preservation required.”
“He requests that as soon as Coast Guard are on scene we are to be advised and FENZ water rescue to be stood down.”
A minute later, the Rolleston fire crew notified from the riverbank: “SWRT [swift water rescue] set up in place – unable to deploy unless catastrophic change in situation This is from police coms [sic].”
RNZ inquired with police and FENZ regarding what might have constituted “catastrophic,” but they did not address this in their statements nor provided an interview.
The source speculated that a catastrophic scenario might involve a large log floating towards the ute, which would necessitate urgent action from the swift water team.
“That would put the rescuers in a worse position.”
‘Doing it right, gets the job done’
Ultimately, the FENZ team waited 35 minutes until the Coastguard arrived at 2.40pm, and together they completed the rescue shortly thereafter.
“Male and 2 dogs back on shore,” noted the log at 2.51pm.
Online comments on the Coastguard’s site praised the collaboration: “So awesome to see you guys out with FENZ as well. It’s been a hard and challenging road but you’ve proven that doing it once, doing it right, gets the job done.”
When asked why the FENZ water team didn’t immediately intervene, they provided a brief statement: “The police were the lead agency and, as such, it’s appropriate that your inquiry is directed to police.”
“Fire and Emergency New Zealand responded and were available as an asset to the incident controller.”
Coastguard spokesperson Kimberley Waters mentioned that the national operations center received the call from police and began mobilizing.
“So we have no idea at what point a call was made before that.”
Pryce noted that North Canterbury volunteers had spent years acquiring a boat and vehicle and training to technician level. However, Waters did not believe the delay was related to the volunteers’ eagerness to be used.
“The process is always police making a decision as to who they want to respond in any given SAR situation so in this situation our swift water rescue is skilled and qualified,” Waters told RNZ.
Police described the operation as a coordinated effort that ensured the man’s safe rescue while managing risk for all involved.
“Decisions were made collaboratively, based on real-time assessments, available capability, and the paramount priority of responder and public safety,” stated operations manager for Canterbury Inspector Bryan Buck.
They considered deploying a helicopter but ultimately chose not to.
