### ODT Online Fri, 25 Nov 2011
South Dunedin flood zone
By Chris Morris
Cutting-edge computer modelling undertaken by the Dunedin City Council has highlighted the flooding threat to South Dunedin – and elsewhere in the city – fuelled by climate change and a rising sea level. The modelling formed part of work on 11 integrated catchment management plans, together covering most of Dunedin, developed by the council over the past three years. The plans would help shape future investment in the council’s water network, as well as other planning decisions, as part of the council’s Three Waters strategy for water, stormwater and wastewater networks up to 2060.
Read more
Related Posts:
13.4.10 Dunedin and climate change
13.4.10 DCC Media Release – Dunedin and climate change
14.12.09 If, IF, the modelling becomes reality
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
### ODT Online Wed, 30 Nov 2011
Fears over flood warnings on LIMS
By Chris Morris
Flood warnings attached to properties based on computer modelling of climate change and a one-in-100-year flood could unfairly devalue Dunedin homes, and expose the Dunedin City Council to a legal threat. That was the warning from Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull yesterday, as councillors considered a staff report detailing work on the council’s 11 integrated catchment management plans. The catchment plans covered most parts of Dunedin, and included information about the potential flooding risk in each area, identified by computer modelling of a variety of scenarios, including climate change, sea-level rise and a one-in-100-year flood.
Read more
You can see both sides of this problem – for present land/home owners suddenly having their neighbourhood designated as a risk area for floods (especially if/when they sell) but also for future land/house owners who would justly feel aggrieved if they did not have that available information in the LIM reports when buying.
In the end, I think Tony Avery is right in protecting the council from future legal risk. Dave Cull would naturally be more worried about immediate legal, and political, concerns from present owners in risk areas. In essence, it is easier for him to kick the problem down the road for a future council to deal with as far as future possible litigation is concerned.
If there is a problem of flooding in certain areas it has to be admitted to and you have to deal with it now. It’ll be interesting to see how the council manages this one.
Much of the trouble has come from the DCC overloading the city services without collecting enough money from developers to enlarge existing services. On top of that is the policy of a few years ago to divert Storm and Sewage Waters from Kaikorai Valley through the Caversham Tunnel into old and leaky main drains in the Caversham area. Before they did that these drains should have been replaced with large ones and some sort of pressure system to move the flow quickly so all the back ups are stopped. At present much leaks from cracks into the subsoil and is worse when high tide as well helps raise the water table. It’s not rocket science just common sense that a much older generation grew up with but doesn’t seem to be included with all the Degrees provided today !
Peter, is Tony Avery right ? I wonder about that. The DCC gave permission for many units to be built with ground level floors, quite a few of these below footpath and road level. With very heavy rain they are at risk of being flooded; some of those so affected have claimed on their own insurance when really it is the DCC planning department that should bear the responsibility as they gave permission for them to be built like that. There is a house built about five years ago in Forbury Road on a corner section near the beach, the people weren’t in it long before they had sandbags at doorways etc and then had what looks like a pumping system installed to stop the very low ground floor area flooding. One has to wonder who makes the regulations and how practical they are. The change suggested looks like the DCC is trying to get someone else to sort their muck-ups out.
Pat, outside What if? it would be good to compile an independent list of flood-prone/affected properties in South Dunedin – to see if it roughly corresponds with DCC information held. I wonder if DCC has ever asked the owners of such properties to meet as a group with the council ?
Probably know which house you’re referring to on Forbury Road, and if correct I did a site visit there not long after construction.
### ODT Online Fri, 2 Dec 2011
Latest flood warnings ‘ridiculous’
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council’s decision to add flood warnings based on computer modelling to Dunedin homes’ land information memorandums (LIMs) has been criticised as “ridiculous” by the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. REINZ Otago spokeswoman Elizabeth Nidd told the Otago Daily Times she believed the warnings were an attempt by the council to “dodge every bullet that might ever possibly come its way”.
Read more
Sorry for the delay Elizabeth, yes there have been some meetings with council staff and Andrew Noone. Andrew was very supportive however the chap in charge of the drainage etc was far from happy that we dare put him on the mat. The main problem seems to be that they haven’t provided the proper resources for the additional building since the main drain was put through and the huge additional load of both Sewage and Stormwater come through the Caversham Tunnel. The Drain that was being put in at the start of the Second World War has never been enlarged, it appears also to leak adding to the ground water problem; and of course all our money has gone on Vanity projects. Poor old Ratepayer, we put our money for the essentials and it is syphoned off for feel good projects like Art in the city, Happy Games that used to pay their way years ago, and other things that their woolly heads can think of to spend money that should be going to Core Services. What about having only Essentials done until our debt level is well down. Let those who want handouts go somewhere else for their pet projects.
pat
Thanks Pat, given the $700,000 bill pending for urgent work on North Dunedin pipes http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/189273/urgent-fix-key-water-artery – and given how long this problem has existed in South Dunedin, I hope Cr Noone will achieve higher priority in the Annual Plan(s) for spending to resolve the issues you have outlined. Has Cr Noone indicated when work – and what sort – is likely?
Pat, this appears to explain the reluctance to allow opening of the Caversham tunnel for cyclists. The costs for that seemed high to me since cyclists were not asking for a gold-plated highway. Looks like potential for embarrassing facts to come out, is the main reason so over-the-top quotes were [sought and?] presented as a reason. What a surprise…… TUI!
He’s well ahead with planning tanker water delivery to the Fubar……… [unconfirmed].
Elizabeth, Councillor Noone and a group came a few years ago to a street meeting to listen to concerns. Not much changed but a few houses got non returnable valves put in. Some weeks ago Councillor Noone came with a few staff members as there were concerns from a different set of ratepayers in the same area. He made sure our point was put but the impression received from senior Council staff was that they knew it all and we were talking through a hole in our hat. The suggestion to use a non returnable came from me as we used that type of thing on a property I was stationed at in Western Australia more than 55 years ago. This has had some benefit to the properties the Council installed them in but doesn’t fix the real cause and seems to have moved the problem further up the street as well. Never mind, the Councillors can spend more money than comes in on Happy Things while the core council work is left to deteriorate. A bit like Nero Fiddling while Rome Burns
pat
Pat, it does sound like some serious media action is required, as well as a demand put on Cr Noone, chair of Infrastructure Services Committee, to bring about (let him deal with council staff and or CEO) a full plan of work and associated budget for upgrade and replacement work in the area.
If DCC can ‘prettify’ King Edward St shopping centre and environs by stumping up with big dollars (amenity! revitalisation! – phooey) at the same time ignoring core services to residential property owners, then it’s high time to get onto Murray Kirkness at ODT for a chitchat about some (yes!) investigative and comparative reporting.
This sort of thing makes me seethe. Be prepared (if possible) to get a group together to lobby Council via Public Forums, and make a group submission as well as individual submissions (can use a common template, plus add individual comments) to the Draft Annual Plan / LTCCP – and get Cr Noone to provide you all with a set of ballparks to back the submissions. He’s quite capable of organising that for you. Also see Cr Lee Vandervis, to discuss.
The Fubar has large water tanks that are filled from the rooftop runoff (public comments on design – http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/forsyth-barr-lives-up-expectations-4338097 ). Shouldn’t need a water tanker. Oh, maybe during a dry spell.
Elizabeth, I haven’t the energy these days I’m afraid, age has caught up with me and I’m very slow getting things done. It has to be on the good days and they seem to be getting fewer and fewer. But you are right something has to be done or the next generation will be in the cart for the dump.
pat
Pat, fair enough – the people who are affected will need to coordinate matters amongst themselves forthwith. All I can do, since I don’t live in the area, is include mention in my submissions on the Draft Spatial Plan and the Draft Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). I will have a word to councillors shortly.
Well we at last have information on South Dunedin and the Beach. Let it roll on and abandon the South End of the City. But wait will it affect just the South End ? No. Look at the history of Dunedin, much of Dunedin is reclaimed land from behind the old Chief Post Office to the harbour, Logan Park or Lake Logan as it once was called as well as the Oval, a former swamp and tip, as well as Anderson Bay Road to the harbour. Magdala and Botha sts area used to be Chinese Market Gardens and even in the 1950s the water table used to be barely below ground level. Lose our beach sea protection and you may as well say goodbye to Dunedin. We would become worse than San Francisco. We have known about this problem for years but has the Council done anything of worth since the Domain Board was axed, NO! Spent money yes on many things that aren’t important to the city but feel good. Neglected our infrastructure drains, sewage etc and already overloaded old drains in South Dunedin by bringing Kaikorai Valley drains into our aged system that has been under pressure since 1960. When Oh When are we going to get a Council dedicated to the Basic Wellbeing of this City. The Americans suggested a channel from the beach to the harbour as it would make it self-dredging; it may also relieve the pressure on the beach. Get proactive like Oamaru, at least they aren’t afraid to put big rocks and concrete blocks to protect their shoreline!
You have to get around the media first. They are the first port of call for most voters. The media is not particularly interested in holding Crs Hudson and mates responsible for the city’s debt accountable. They will get re-elected. The priorties of this city will remain stadium and corporate rugby related as long as they are on council.
You can’t point to new drains and say “I was one of the prime movers in getting this done.” All anyone will see is a lack of problem and maybe a patch in the road seal. That’s the trouble with fixing infrastructure – given the attention span of the average voter, not enough will remember what it was like before things were fixed, so they’ll think you did nothing on council. And if – unlikely thought – you fix things ahead of time so they don’t break, it’s even worse. Some shiny things the voters wanted, they won’t be given because you’re spending all the money on necessities. Then it’s “We paid all this money in rates and what have you done to show for it? Where’s our shiny thing eh? I’m not voting for YOU again!”
Hype has a very good point here. It can be taken further. If we had succeeded in stopping the Stadium, we would all now be under the lash of the establishment P.R. machine for being the ‘moaning minnies’ who had prevented the ‘Stadium Vision’ from saving the City’s economy – And furthermore, if this dream had been allowed to happen, well then everything would have been OK with the Highlanders and ORFU too – Who have been solely dragged down by the shortcomings their current deficient stadium (AKA Carisbrook) blah blah blah.
Any politician who is driven by self interest rather than public interest knows perfectly well that, unless it forms part of their party political platform, there is absolutely no political capital in stopping anything bad from happening before it actually happens, for reasons outlined above. If you stop something bad from happening, then the bad consequences don’t happen either, and are thus invisible to the average voter – A bit like a properly functioning drain. In the ensuing discussion about what the outcomes might have been, the ‘Percy Positives’, who wanted to do the bad thing tend to have a natural advantage based on normal human perceptions when it comes to addressing the court of public opinion.
So, for example – Had the President of France ordered the invasion of Germany in 1936 at the very start of Hitler’s social deviancies and military build up in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, it is very likely that the Third Reich woud have been crushed at birth – With some bloodshed. However, the President concerned would now probably be remembered as the (evil) paranoiac who used an unjust treaty as an excuse to attack a virtually defenceless country that was starting to rebuild itself, and at the cost of thousands of lives – rather than the farsighted leader who had stopped WWII, the Final Solution and the deaths of some 50 million people from actually happening.
Stadium councillors Paul Hudson and Syd Brown – and yes you too Colin Weatherall and Andrew Noone – are going to have a tougher time of it at the next election.
I see your point Hype and Rob about letting time take its course for the bad to unfold for all to see, but if the anti stadium side had put an early end to this debacle we’d all be better off now. Well may we have been accused of being ‘moaning minnies’ and anti ‘progress’ for Dunedin, but personally I wouldn’t care being slighted by some of these creeps.
Still, it gives me great satisfaction, as no doubt a lot of people on the anti stadium side may now feel, that our warnings have come to pass and we have been proved right as to what a dud this stadium has proved to be. David Davies’ comment about ‘thin bookings’ for the stadium this year was at least frank, but you would think that something brand new and ‘innovative’ would want to be used by sport and concert promoters and we’d be having a more promising start for the stadium. But, no.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard that some of the well known proponents have at times got abuse and dirty looks on the streets of Dunedin. (One guy told me that he called a now former councillor a ‘f…ing freak’.) One person, I understand has been observed as not taking customary walks in their neighbourhood because of the reaction of the people who live there. Personally, I wouldn’t verbally abuse someone in the street, but I can fully understand this reaction. What goes around, comes around.
In the early days, when the stadium was seen as such a great thing, and us ‘naysayers’ were being abused, Bev got some abuse from a few gutless anonymous phone callers because she was a well known figure on the anti stadium side. Interestingly, she doesn’t get any hostility now. The stadium proponents will just have to wear any ongoing hostility for their part in perpetrating this financial debacle. We want justice done.