Johnstone on ORC report : ‘The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin’ (July 2016)

█ The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016 [read online]
Otago Regional Council
ISBN: 978-0-908324-35-4
Report writers:
Michael Goldsmith, ORC Natural Hazards Manager
Sharon Hornblow, ORC Natural Hazards Analyst
Reviewed by: Gavin Palmer, ORC Director Engineering, Hazards and Science
External review by: David Barrell, Simon Cox, GNS Science, Dunedin

—

Received from Neil Johnstone
Sun, 29 Aug 2016 at 8:17 p.m.

Message: Misinformation on the causes of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood have abounded since the event. As if the victimised residents haven’t suffered enough from others’ inactions (before and during the event), they are now being subjected to a hazards discovery process whose vigour appears to be exceeded only by its own recklessness. Following are a commentary of the hazards approach adopted by the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and a summary of my investigations into the flood event that I commenced after the publication of Dunedin City Council’s first flood report back in November 2015.

You can download Neil Johnstone’s report or read it below (formatted slightly differently to suit the WordPress template).

█ Download: A REVIEW OF ORC REPORT THE NATURAL HAZARDS OF SOUTH DUNEDIN (1) (PDF, 587 KB)

—

AN APPRAISAL OF RECENT REPORTING OF SOUTH DUNEDIN HAZARDS

N.P JOHNSTONE, BEng (Civil), MIPENZ

1. Introduction

There is some irony that DCC and ORC should be planning “drop in” sessions for residents in respect of South Dunedin hazard issues during September 2016, some 15 months after the major flood. The prime cause of flooding in June 2015 was DCC’s failure to maintain its infrastructure (not just mudtanks), and its failure to operate its pump stations to their intended capacities. The subsequent spread of misconceptions (i.e. groundwater levels, rainfall significance etc) surrounding the flood causes was at least partly due to inaccurate ORC analyses and reporting.

Repetitive and new doubtful information emanating from ORC via its latest report has been noted. Presentations and an over-simplistic video production have been observed. A footnote covering these observations is included at the end of this appraisal.

Long-delayed DCC reports on causes of the South Dunedin flooding have already been strongly criticised by the author. Specifically discredited are misrepresentations of sea level, groundwater and rainfall ranking. Accepted now by DCC as factors (somewhat grudgingly, and depending on the audience) are mudtank blockage and Portobello Road pump station failures (plural); still to be fully acknowledged are the failures at Musselburgh Pumping Station.

Attention is now turned to significant parts of hazard reports produced by the Otago Regional Council and utilised by DCC.

2. Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 (ORC, published October 2015)

This report deals with a wider area than South Dunedin. It is apparent that ORC staff never visited the flooding areas of South Dunedin on 3 June, but took advantage of fine weather to take some water level readings the following day. The opportunity for useful progressive surface water level recording was thus lost. Levels were collected at some 150 points on 4 June. ORC’s main conclusion was that “localised variations in topography were probably the main driver of flood depth”. Or, put another way, water depth was deepest where the ground was lowest. This seems hardly surprising, and even trivial. No attempt was made to explain the photographic images presented of extensive ponding remaining well after the rains had ceased. The phenomena of blocked mudtanks and unutilised pumping capacity went seemingly unnoticed.

The report does usefully reference ORC’s four borehole recorders of groundwater, but makes the somewhat misleading assessment that groundwater levels were “elevated” prior to the rainstorm. This misinformation was seized upon by agencies such as DCC and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to highlight climate change impacts.

Having obtained the actual groundwater level data from ORC via the LGOIMA process, the author was able to reveal this “groundwater fallacy” in reviews from February 2016, but it was not until the publication of NZ Listener’s article (June 11-17, 2016) entitled ‘FLOOD FIASCO’ that ORC admitted that pre-flood groundwater levels were in fact “just a little bit above average”. ORC now seems intent on resurrecting this fallacy.

The ORC report fails to address the real and key issues of pumping station failures (Portobello Road and Musselburgh), or comparisons with much lesser flood impacts in the larger rainfall event of March 8/9 1968.

The report states that the 2015 24-hour rainfall was the largest since 1923. This was patently incorrect, but again was utilised by DCC to divert blame from their role in the disaster.

3. The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin (ORC, published July 2016)

The report states unambiguously in its Opening Summary that the major flooding of June 2015 was “a result of heavy rainfall, surface runoff, and a corresponding rise in groundwater”. By now, most people are aware that the causes of the flooding’s disastrous impact were failure to optimally operate pumping stations, failure to clear mudtanks, and failure to deploy staff to key areas during the event. Again, none of these factors is addressed in ORC’s report.

The report presents a table on its second page entitled “Factors Which Can Influence Flood Hazard”. Examples of exaggerated negativity include:

1. Heavy Rainfall:
– Many recorded instances of rainfall leading to surface flooding.
– Heavy rainfall events have occurred frequently over the last decade.

Comment: These conclusions do not appear to be supported by the report’s text, and are vague, factually challengeable and alarmist. Prior to 2015, no major flooding had occurred in South Dunedin since 1968, and even that was minor by comparison.

2. Sea Level:
– Groundwater level fluctuates (by up to 0.5m near the coast) on a twice-daily cycle in response to normal ocean tides.

Comment: All of South Dunedin is near the coast; most of the area does not experience such large fluctuations. This should have been made clear by the inclusion of groundwater data from all 4 ORC sites across the plain, not just from Kennedy Street.

3. Seismic:
– Large earthquakes could result in increased flood hazard on the South Dunedin plain, due to liquefaction-related land subsidence or direct, sudden, changes in land elevation relative to sea level.

Comment: All areas of NZ have some susceptibility to earthquake damage. Dunedin is amongst the areas at lowest risk; no incidences of even minor liquefaction have ever been reported in South Dunedin, and little or no clearly liquefiable materials have been identified (Refer GNS, 2014*).

South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP

Dunedin City Council (website) on Stormwater:

Stormwater is rain or snow runoff that does not soak into the soil.
When an area is developed, stormwater generally increases due to runoff from impermeable surfaces (eg roofs, roads, carparks, or compacted soil). It flows naturally from higher to lower ground, and ultimately discharges into natural watercourses such as wetlands, creeks, rivers or the sea. Land development results in the creation of both private and public stormwater systems, which collect and transfer stormwater to lower ground more efficiently. The public stormwater system is a network of drains, gutters, pipes, mud tanks, detention ponds, stormwater reserves and other associated infrastructure.

—

At other threads (here and here), contributor JimmyJones has cited the South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) to draw attention to the actual or perceived state of the stormwater pipes at South Dunedin. He believes the type of pipeways and the deteriorating condition of the pipes contributed to the June 2015 South Dunedin “flood event”, and will require budgeted upgrade.

But is the South Dunedin ICMP correct about the underground pipes and their condition?

Largely, the ICMP was a desktop assessment carried out by consultants for the Dunedin 3 Waters Strategy. Namely, Opus International Consultants and URS New Zealand (now trading as Aecom) in association with Dunedin City Council.

South Dunedin ICMP – Integrated Catchment Management Plan
● Sth Dunedin ICMP (PDF, 11.1 MB)
● Sth Dunedin Mapbook (PDF, 12.0 MB)

Read more about the 11 ICMPs for Dunedin here.

DCC says ICMPs are used for planning and management of the stormwater system. For each stormwater management area, or catchment, issues are identified and prioritised, and solutions are identified and implemented. The ICMPs are mainly in the metropolitan Dunedin area (including Mosgiel and Port Chalmers). They inform investigation and planning decisions and help focus council priorities for future operational and capital works. Implementing the ICMPs is also a key requirement of DCC consents to discharge stormwater into the coastal marine area. Further information is available on the Stormwater monitoring page, see also the Stormwater responsibilities page.

—

The Pipes at South Dunedin
Local water and drainage experts familiar with the stormwater system say:

Received.
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 at 10:52 a.m.

The South Dunedin ICMP report has been read, it’s “ok”. But it’s also described as “…glossy and costly for the consultant(s). Basically, such reports tell the Council stuff they neither read nor understand, but would have mostly been trivial knowledge (where accurate)” to local experts familiar with the design and day-to-day workings of the stormwater system.

“You can believe any part of [the ICMP] or not. It’s a desktop study, which speculates on pipe condition. Robinson and Hendry have read it and obviously don’t agree. Pipes last for an eternity with limited maintenance (other than blockage removal) provided there isn’t ground movement or corrosion (these pipes are concrete).”

—

Listener, June 11-17 2016, pp22-29 (not yet available online):

[excerpt —click to enlarge]

—

ODT 13.2.16
“Mr Hendry believed South Dunedin’s infrastructure, which he spent six years helping build as a surveyor in the 1960s, would have been good enough to prevent much of the damage had it been properly maintained. […] My view is that these people out here, a lot of them have got nothing. Now they have got a hell of lot less. It’s not fair on them. Nobody’s come out and said ‘we were wrong. Something wasn’t done right’.”

█ Come to the Public Meeting in South Dunedin on Monday evening, hosted by the South Dunedin Action Group.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
● 4.6.16 Johnstone review … DCC Infrastructure Services meeting 26.4.16
3.6.16 DCC —godsakes, how did it get to this? #flood #property damage
● 19.5.16 Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood
29.4.16 Vandervis emails batch 2 #Dunedin #infrastructure #flood #mudtanks
27.4.16 Vandervis emails batch 1 #Dunedin #infrastructure #flood #mudtanks
27.4.16 DCC meeting and apology NOT Enough— #SouthDunedinFlood
20.4.16 DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
31.3.16 DCC: Infrastructure report 2 pending —Mudtanks & stormwater…
● 8.3.16 Johnstone independent review of DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood
2.3.16 DCC compels extensions on LGOIMA requests #SouthDunedinFlood
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
21.2.16 DCC infrastructure … report (30.11.15) subject to ‘internal review’ only
● 13.2.16 South Dunedin Flood (3 June 2015): Bruce Hendry via ODT
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome… #hazardzones
4.2.16 Level responses to Dunedin mayor’s hippo soup #Jun2015flood
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
● 25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
19.1.16 Listener 23.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
16.1.16 NZ Listener 16.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
14.1.16 ‘Quaking!’ Dark day$ and tide$ to come #Dunedin #Jun2015flood
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
24.12.15 Site notice: posts removed
● 3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

Downloads:
● Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Correspondence Hendry and Williams 2015
● Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Flood Debrief Notes 2015

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood

ODT 17.6.16 (page 10) —[click to enlarge]

—

whatifdunedin:

1. The claim of “factual errors” is surely able to be substantiated or thrown out by a suitably qualified (named) EXTERNAL peer reviewer acceptable to DCC and engineer Neil Johnstone. The ‘matter of degree’ (serious ?) is a matter for the peer reviewer to comment on. As are issues of professional competencies —which only an independent and transparent peer reviewer with nationally recognised engineering expertise can deal to. Not an in-house operational.

2. Neil Johnstone has issued three reviews, two of these deal to DCC’s formal reports on the June 2015 South Dunedin “flood event”, dated 30 Nov 2015 and 26 Apr 2016 respectively; and the third deals to comments (video recorded by Ch39 and published at DCC’s Youtube channel) during the DCC Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 26 April 2016. The reviews are published at this website – enter the term *johnstone* in the search box at right.

3. Neil Johnstone has requested that factual errors noted by DCC be made discoverable. DCC appears to be side-stepping qualification and quantification of its verbal assertions every which way.

4. It is highly likely that no expert external peer reviews exist or they would have been made public by now. More than a year after the “flood event”, we wait.

5. A peer review(s) is not something to hide. Why is DCC doing secret squirrel when challenged to substantiate its earlier comments (publicly stated on more than one occasion, recorded by mainstream media – for example, by Mayor Cull and Transportation’s Ian McCabe, who later resigned) – that external peer reviews of its formal reports did happen. After the fact is a little squiffy, if DCC is writing them now.

“Technical qualifications and experience with stormwater infrastructure design and management” are not provided. Rhetorical.

Holes being dug, an epitaph.

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome

[click to enlarge]

Date: Monday, 20 June 2016
Venue: Nations Church, 334 King Edward St, South Dunedin
Time: 6:00pm (1800 hours)

█ Facebook: South Dunedin Action Group
https://www.facebook.com/SouthDunedinActionGroup/

—

Message to Mayor David Cull

M E M O R Y • P R O B L E M S • C A N • H A P P E N • A T • A N Y • A G E
keep managed retreat and climate change out of local body politics

ODT 16.6.16 (page 12) —[click to enlarge]

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood

R E S O N A T E S
Get the latest issue of New Zealand Listener (pp 22-29), more soon….

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: phoneshot at a diner by whatifdunedin [click to enlarge]

Johnstone review following DCC Infrastructure Services meeting 26.4.16 #SouthDunedinFlood

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

B A C K G R O U N D
On and about 3 June 2015, South Dunedin was severely affected by stormwater flooding – the Council has since discussed why and how council-owned infrastructure failure occurred. The extent of stormwater damage to private property and the upheaval and distress for affected residents, property investors and businesses is undeniable. Council operationals refer to this as the “June 2015 Flood Event” in formal reports.

A public meeting coordinated by Dunedin South MP Clare Curran was held at South Dunedin on Monday, 7 March 2016. At the meeting the South Dunedin Action Group(SDAG) was formed. Group representatives headed by spokesman Ray Macleod have since met with the Mayor and council officials – the first meeting was held on Tuesday, 3 May 2016. A meeting with council staff has followed more recently.

Local media, the Otago Daily Times and Channel 39, are presently covering the anniversary and aftermath of the “flood event”. Noticeably, the city council has yet to formally apologise to all the many people affected by the lack of council-owned infrastructure maintenance and stewardship at South Dunedin during the rain event of June 2015.

Council ‘not liable for flood damage’ (ODT 27/11/15)
“The Dunedin City Council says it is not liable for private property damage caused by the South Dunedin flood, despite admitting problems with its pumping network prolonged the pain for residents …. The issue had been considered by the council’s lawyers and insurers, but the advice from both was the council was not liable, [council infrastructure and networks general manager] Mrs Stokes said.”

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015
Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding [Video courtesy One News]

—

DCC Reports and Responses:

● 30 November 2015 –Council
Agenda – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 39.6 KB)
Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553.9 KB) ‘Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event’ (McElhone)
Minutes – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 121.8 KB) | Meeting Video

● 7 March 2016 –Letter, DCC Chief Executive [supplied by DCC]
Sue Bidrose to Neil Johnstone 7.3.16 (PDF, 653 KB)

● 20 April 2016 –DCC Media Release
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released

● 26 April 2016 –Infrastructure Services Committee
Agenda – ISC – 26/04/2016 (PDF, 6.3 MB) [agenda and reports]
Item 5 Report, ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up’ (Stokes), pp 6-27
Minutes – ISC – 26/04/2016 (PDF, 123.0 KB) | Meeting Video

—

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER
The following content from consulting engineer Neil Johnstone is provided for your information and convenience. However, the site owner cannot accept any liability for its accuracy or content. Visitors who rely on this information do so at their own risk.

Reviews previously published at this website:
● 8.3.16 Johnstone independent review of DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood
● 19.5.16 Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood

█ Third Review | dated 31.5.16
[With minor formatting changes for the WordPress template only. -Eds]

SOUTH DUNEDIN FLOODING JUNE 2015
A Follow-up Review subsequent to DCC Infrastructure Services Committee meeting 26 April 2016

By N.P. Johnstone, MIPENZ

DCC has produced 2 reports on infrastructure performance during the flooding that reportedly entered approximately 1000 houses and caused in excess of 100 million dollars of damage. I have previously produced 2 independent reviews that are highly critical of DCC’s Stormwater Infrastructure Report (November 2015) and its “follow up” (the “mudtank report”, April 2016).

I also attended DCC’s Infrastructure Services Committee meeting on April 26, and have sighted video recordings of that meeting, which were belatedly posted by DCC close to a month later. I have formed an opinion that DCC has not fully acknowledged its role in failing to prevent much of the flood damage, but (often unreasonably) blames external influences and alleged historical design deficiencies.

I had originally intended to present a blow by blow comment on proceedings of the meeting, but that has proved a bigger task than my time allows, and would probably prove as tedious as the meeting itself. I have preferred not to align statements with the individual staff or councillor that made them, but the reader can view the recording of the meeting at leisure. I can however, not resist the temptation to present the comments of one councillor who stated: I am heartened by how well staff have responded to the challenges…and we can be comforted, I think by the feeling that you are treating our assets like you would your own. South Dunedin residents who had their assets ruined might see things rather differently.

1. THE FLOOD EVENT OF MARCH 8/9 1968
The rainfall event of March 1968 was of the order of 10% greater than that of June 2015, on any comparison. This is incontrovertibly clear from readily available data, and thus demonstrates that the much greater flooding in the recent event should not have happened. DCC has consistently underestimated the significance of the 1968 rainfall.

2. PRE-EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVELS
DCC has misinterpreted ORC reporting that groundwater levels prior to the onset of rainfall were significantly elevated. DCC has extrapolated this error to claim that no infiltration of rainfall into the ground was possible, thereby explaining away the record surface flooding. ORC’s data is readily available, and demonstrates that groundwater levels only started to increase in concert with the June 3 rainfall, proving that infiltration was both significant and (probably) normal.

3. RAINFALL SIGNIFICANCE
DCC, relying on superficial analyses of other agencies, have claimed that the 24-hour rainfall experienced in June 2015 was a 150-year event, then 100, then 60, then 100 again. The selection of 24-hour duration rainfalls is not entirely appropriate (being rather too long). Nevertheless, the March (or April) 1923 24-hour rainfall was much greater, the 1968 rainfall slightly higher (but ignored in analyses), and at least 2 others between the 1890s and late 1920s were similar, and possibly slightly lower. Analyses of shorter duration events would likely further reduce the assessed recurrence interval of the June flood. I believe it was a 30-year rainfall event at worst.

4. LANDUSE CHANGES
Increased impermeable areas have certainly increased runoff rates; based on DCC-supplied estimates of changes, I have estimated that these changes could have increased flood levels by up to 150mm. Ex-DCC engineers have expressed doubt as to the degree of landuse change. In any case, I would have expected additional stormwater infrastructure to have been installed to compensate.

5. MUDTANK BLOCKAGE
The degree of blocked mudtanks across the catchment was underestimated by DCC, until the release of the mudtank report in April 2016. The extent of the mudtank issue was finally confirmed then, at no great surprise to South Dunedin residents. An unseemly blame game ensued, and may not be over. DCC then took the stance that the plethora of blocked mudtanks had no impact on the depth of flooding across South Dunedin, but may have prolonged the flooding. The claim defies reason, and in part relies on DCC’s adherence to the zero infiltration myth.

6. PORTOBELLO ROAD PUMPING STATION
The partial blockage – and difficulties experienced in the clearing – of the screens at this pumping station has been well publicised, and may have added approximately 200mm to the depth of flooding. Less well publicised are the facts that no emergency staff visited the pump station until about noon on the day of the flood, and (apparently) only attended the station to attempt clearing the screens between visits to other locations during the latter part of the day. Equally poorly understood is that not all of the station’s pumps were operating throughout the flood event due to the manner in which pump cut-ins were programmed. No decision to override the pumps’ programming was made. No information on which pumps remained inoperative has been made available, so it is not possible to attribute the depth of flooding caused by the inability to clear screens, compared with that caused by poor pump management.

7. MUSSELBURGH PUMPING STATION
This pumping station has the ability to bypass the wastewater treatment plant and discharge sewage-contaminated stormwater directly to the ocean at Lawyers Head. The option was not taken in the June 2015 flood. By contrast, in the 1968 event the pumping option at Musselburgh was fully utilised to the extent that approximately 5m³/s was pumped to the ocean for a period of 24 hours. Such pumping would have proved effective as long as individual property gully traps were submerged by stormwater, and may have reduced flood depth by more than half a metre. It is not known (by me) whether a comparable benefit could be achieved under June 2015 conditions, but a very significant opportunity was apparently lost. No information on the Musselburgh station’s pumping operation in the June flood is included in either of DCC infrastructure performance reports.

8. INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
DCC has relied heavily on the belief that the stormwater system can only handle rainfall intensities of 4.1mm/hr, and therefore regular flooding cannot be avoided. This is contrary to historic reality. The 4.1mm/hr limitation only applies if DCC’s assumption of zero infiltration applies. The assumption has no validity, and the existing infrastructure is far more capable than DCC is stating.

9. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW
One of the main reasons for the extraordinary delay in the presentation of the “mudtank” report was that a robust external peer review was to be obtained. Reference to such peer review has surfaced occasionally since, but no review has been published. I have sought a copy of any such review – or even confirmation of its existence – from DCC. No such review has yet been confirmed to exist.

10. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Many of the above topics were discussed to a greater or lesser level of detail at the Committee Meeting on April 26. From sitting through the majority of the meeting and viewing video coverage of it later, it became apparent that Councillors’ understanding of the June 2015 flood causes was generally weak, and that many of their questions directed to staff were inadequately or confusingly answered, if they were answered at all. These included:

10.1 Pre-existing Groundwater Levels
Selective reference was made to ORC report text, but no data was referenced. The data disproves the assertion of high groundwater and zero infiltration.

10.2 Mudtanks
According to staff, mudtank blockage didn’t increase flood levels, yet a raised vegetable patch could.

10.3 Portobello Road Pumping Station
No information on unused pump capacity or its impact on flood levels was given (or sought); and the final word on the subject was that the only issue at the station had been debris blockage, now fixed.

10.4 Musselburgh Pumping Station
In response to a question re pumping rates at this station, the reply was to the effect that “we have no data on this, is there a follow-up question?” There wasn’t a follow-up question on the subject, despite its fundamental importance.

10.5 Infrastructure Design Limitation
The existing infrastructure was repeatedly deemed to be inadequate on the basis that only 4.1mm/hr of rainfall could be accommodated, once pipe storage was exhausted. There was no proviso given that this determination required the impossible condition of zero infiltration of rainwater into the ground.

This review does not exhaust my concerns with the technical presented at the meeting, but I can conclude the following with confidence:

i. Maintenance prior to the flood was inadequate;
ii. Emergency management during the event was poor;
iii. DCC’s understanding and reporting of flood issues remains unconvincing, especially without the benefit of promised external peer review.

31 May 2016

[ends]

█ For more, enter the terms *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)

Received.
Friday, 6 May 2016 6:02 p.m.

From: Clare Curran [Dunedin South MP]
Subject: Notes from the Meeting with DCC on 3 May
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 00:31:05 +0000
To:

Dear everyone
Further to my last email here is the notes taken by office from the meeting with the Mayor and senior Council management on 3 May.
This is to keep you informed and for transparency purposes.

A new meeting date will be set up soon and I will keep you all informed

Kind regards

Clare Curran

[begins]

Notes from meeting 3 May 2016
South Dunedin Action Group (SDAG) and mayor + senior management

Mayor Cull
– acknowledged that there was collective concern, that they were pleased to meet with the group and that the meeting provided the best place to provide clarifications
– Acknowledged that the process had been lengthy and frustrating, and “sloppy”
– Council was now very sceptical about evidence relating to the flood and had been let down. He added that they would not make any changes to anything without evidence.
– If the event occurred again even with the proper maintenance there would have been severe flooding
– Determined to make the system we have work the best that it can
– Agreed need another mechanism other than the ODT to communicate with the community
– Will consider the discussion and come back with a proposal for the next meeting with a smaller group

Laura McElhone. Group Manager Water and Waste
– All mudtanks had been cleaned in South Dunedin (marked with green spray)
– Screen has been redesigned at pumping station, work about to go to tender, installation expected July/August
– Screen currently cleaned weekly by contract with photograph for proof
– Proposed screen modifications would see a 4 part screen to allow for safer and easier cleaning – could not confirm bar spacing
– Approx. 100 manholes had been lifted (Oct/Nov 2015) to identify any siltation – none identified as a problem – map can be provided of manholes checked – this exercise will be repeated in Oct/Nov 2016
– Confirmed that with the work carried out or in progress expected reduction in level of water would be about 200mm – however difficult to predict because too many variable to undertake modelling
– On issue of foul sewage infiltration confirmed that work being undertaken in Kaikorai Valley was to reduce the pressure on the system before it came through to Caversham
– On the issue of diverting foul sewage to Green Island treatment works stated that it was only able to handle a certain amount as it had been set up for a different type of sewage
– With regard to pumping out to sea, confirmed that they now know who to contact at the ORC and will maintain valves to enable this to happen if necessary
– Advised Musselburgh pumping capacity cannot run at maximum [this is disputed by Darrel]
– Forecast received on 2 June was for 1/3 less rain – only after midday on 3 June did they receive prediction on the size of the event
– Definitely had contractors and staff monitoring and out in South Dunedin, but did not have enough people to cover the scale of event
– Door-knocking by DCC did not record the number of flooded houses [DCC has not been back to check]
– 1968 flood had two peaks so had time to recover [disputed by Darrel]
– Too many variables to accurately measure topographical data
– Understand need to reassure and quantify but have to be careful not to give false impression
– Advised that 4/5 engineers employed in planning and 6/7 at the delivery end – acknowledged the identified lack of a storm water specialist – currently under recruitment

Ruth Stokes. Infrastructure and Networks General Manager
– Contractors have been asked to verify status of periphery areas
– Need to build resilience in the community – have recognised need to contact secondary schools and community groups and extend beyond the ‘What’s the plan Stan” initiative

Sue Bidrose. Chief Executive
– Unable to provide a figure on the number of roads closed by DCC as the water washed the cones away.
– Civil defence, Fire and Police all advised DCC that only 20-30 houses had been flooded – suggested that volunteers sandbagging were not part of the information loop and therefore message did not get through to emergency services

Kate Wilson. Councillor
– Have been advocating for a rain radar for a number of years on the Taieri

David B-P. Councillor
– Not just South Dunedin affected but other areas also, we need answers to give the community reassurance that the system is operating

[ends]

█ For more enter the term *flood* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC meeting and apology NOT Enough— #SouthDunedinFlood

Election Year : The following post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

Received today.

From: Hilary Calvert
To: Dave Cull
Cc: Golds [Godfrey Dodd], All Elected Members, Vaughan Elder [ODT]
Subject: Re: Flooding

Thanks for copying us in.

May we know when you requested that the mudtanks were cleaned thoroughly?

I had thought that it was an initiative from Ruth Stokes, as part of the looking into and reporting back on the flood.

I am also interested in your “fact” that the stormwater system is not capable even at optimal condition and performance……. Do you mean that it was not then, or that it would not be even if we made adjustments and sorted out the mudtanks and fixed the screen/pump and made changes which we have signalled to the general stormwater system which flows through South Dunedin?

If council modelling showed the extent of the flooding would be precisely as it was in the event of that magnitude, what relevance had the problems with the screen/pump and the mudtanks? I guess all the problems in South Dunedin during the flood were localised problems and many of them as a result of water lying about, so did our modelling show that as well?

I understood that there was still more work to be done to understand what we could best do particularly about the interconnection between the water from various sources and what we could afford of the options available.

Do you see the governance part of the Council completely blameless in this process?
Since you have apparently arranged for the mudtanks to be cleared, surely you/we could have done something sooner.

Do we have a role at all in your view, apart from advising people they are wrong when it turns out we may have incomplete information?

As seems true for all of the information surrounding this horrible flood, the more information we receive the more questions we have.

Kind regards,

Hilary

_______________________________

On 26/04/2016, at 5:30 AM, Dave Cull wrote:

Dear Mr Dodd,
Thank you for your email. I am puzzled by the apparent assertion that I have blamed the 2015 June flooding on Climate Change. While that may be the root cause I don’t recall saying that. The cause of the flooding, as has finally been comprehensively reported (for a meeting today) was the fact that the stormwater system in South Dunedin is not capable, even at optimum condition and performance, of coping with the amount of rain that fell over that period. That is a simple calculation given the capacity of the system in both volume and pumping terms, and the severity of the event. The mudbank maintenance failure was reprehensible from both a contractor and staff oversight perspective, especially as exactly the same issue had been raised some four years ago and assurances given that it would not happen again. The fact that some mudbanks were not up to scratch may have caused some localised problems and perhaps prolonged the water lying, but they did not cause the extent of the flooding. That was exactly as Council’s modelling showed it would be in an event of that magnitude.
Six years ago Council received reports stating (among other conclusions) two things. First that more frequent and severe rain events were likely. Second that the stormwater system in South Dunedin was not capable of handling those. So flooding was very likely. Last year the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment issued a report showing that rising ground water, pushed up by sea level rise will increasingly afflict South Dunedin.
It’s most important to recognise that while stormwater and groundwater can each affect the other, they are different and have different causes.
The failure was operational and managerial as Council was repeatedly assured that maintenance was up to scratch.
Council’s challenge now is to address both stormwater and groundwater issues. We have already, at my request, ensured that the stormwater system is in the best shape possible as winter approaches, by having all the mudbanks cleaned properly. Additionally the screen at the Portobello Rd pumping station, which was blocked by debris carried by the overwhelming amount of water, will be replaced by July.
Council will consider that report which has taken such a frustratingly long time to get to us, and determine the next necessary steps.
At your request I have copied this to all elected members.

Dave Cull

_______________________________

From: Golds [Godfrey Dodd]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:07 PM
To: mayor @dcc.govt.nz
Subject: FW: Flooding

Dear Mayor
I am sending you this email in that it may make you understand how one ratepayer views your complete failure in the flooding in South Dunedin
WE all know that climate warming is a fact but your glib PR spin and articles in the paper does nothing for your credibility and your lack apology shows that you and the council do not except responsibility for this lack of governance
It is sad that only one of the council appears to have enough bottle to ask you to do in an old fashion way the decent thing
My wish is that you pass this email as part of an agenda item a the next council meeting on how one ratepayer views your lack of understanding in the way a Mayor should carry out his role
I would interested in your reply

Regards
Godfrey Dodd

_______________________________

From: Golds [Godfrey Dodd]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Andrew Whiley [DCC]
Subject: Flooding

Hi Andrew
It is with disappointment reading the failure of governance by the council I was a chairman in those days that was the title of a high school board If the school had a problem which effected the community you had to stand up and take the blame
I do not expect the council elected members to clean mud tanks but when there is failure of this size then the expectation of the community that something is seriously wrong with the governance of the council The glib excuses as regards rise in sea level is the catch cry of the council which you as a member are part of
In my view the council members should of put on gumboots and gone out with the CEO and inspected the mud tanks instead of waiting a year for a report It saddens me to find that people in South Dunedin were not accorded this Instead we had articles written that showed how out of touch the council members were These articles were part of the green PR spin which now blights any decision that this particular council makes All that was needed was clean mud tanks and clear governance by the members of the council not excuses I hope that this is a lesson that you as a council member takes on board when making decisions in the future
Kindest Regards

Godfrey Dodd

—

ODT 25.4.16 (letter to the editor)

Tue, 26 Apr 2016
ODT: Vandervis forcing mud-tank issue [+ Letters]
A series of emails released by Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis show he was raising concerns about the state of Dunedin’s mud-tanks as long ago as 2011. Cr Vandervis said he released the emails because only publicity forced the council to change its ways. “This publicity is going to make sure it really is sorted once and for all this time.” The release of the emails follows a report released by the Dunedin City Council last week into last June’s flood, which found 75% of mud-tanks in South Dunedin were not properly maintained.

Tue, 26 Apr 2016
ODT: Staff apology for mud-tank failure
Council staff were responsible for not properly overseeing mud-tank maintenance in South Dunedin, not councillors or the mayor, a senior staff member says. Council infrastructure and networks general manager Ruth Stokes started today’s council infrastructure services committee meeting by apologising on behalf of council staff for the failings identified in a report on last June’s flood. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull and Crs David Benson-Pope and Lee Vandervis were among those who had raised mud-tank performance prior to the South Dunedin floods, and been given incorrect information by staff. “For that I would like to, on behalf of the executive, apologise,” Ms Stokes. The failure was a management failure and not governance one, she said.

Douglas Field 26.4.16 (detail)

Comment at ODT Online:

Mayor Dave Cull outraged
Submitted by JimmyJones on Tue, 26/04/2016 – 1:49pm.

Mayor Cull says he is outraged at the failure of Fulton Hogan and council staff to adequately ensure that the mudtanks were in working condition. He should also be outraged at his own poor leadership and failure to respond to developing problems. Under his leadership the city continued to build up a backlog of worn-out stormwater pipes and equipment waiting for funding to be allocated. With this lack of funding we have seen the inevitable result of a deteriorating stormwater system. The poor state of the stormwater system was the primary cause of the severity of the flooding at Kaikorai, Mosgiel and South Dunedin last year.

This under-funding of the stormwater renewals is not an accident. Every year the DCC Mayor and councillors decide and vote on this spending – and every year they vote to under-fund the stormwater renewals because they think that a new stadium and a new swimming pool and more bicycle lanes are more important than a functioning stormwater system. The Annual Plan shows that the under-funding will continue next year. Expect the deterioration to continue.

Related Post and Comments:
20.4.16 DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood

█ For more, enter the term *flood* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Email image: carleton.ca – android-email-app

DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood

Election Year : The following post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

Photo: Paul Allen

New Report [excerpt]—

—

Next meeting of the Infrastructure Services Committee will be held on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 1:30 pm or at the conclusion of the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting (whichever is later) – Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers

PUBLIC AGENDA
1 Public Forum (page 4)
2 Apologies (4)
3 Confirmation of Agenda (4)
4 Declaration of Interest (5)
PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)
●● 5 South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up (6-27)
6 Recycling Markets and Bin Contamination (28)
7 Northern Wastewater Schemes’ Options (34)
PART B REPORTS (Committee has power to recommend only on these items
8 Resolution to Stop a Portion of Peel Street, Allanton (44)
9 Road Name – Three Hills Subdivision (54)
PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)
10 Notification of Agenda Items for Consideration by the Chair

█ Agenda – ISC – 26/04/2016 (PDF, 6.3 MB)
The agenda and reports are located together in this file.

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released

This item was published on 20 Apr 2016

The report on the South Dunedin infrastructure performance during the June 2015 flood event was released today as part of the agenda for the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting next week.

The report concludes that while a number of factors contributed, the main factor was the highest 24-hour rainfall total in Musselburgh since 1923.

General Manager Infrastructure and Networks Ruth Stokes says the report outlines the known challenges with managing the South Dunedin catchment and highlights concerns about the performance of mudtanks and the Portobello Road pumping station during the event.

“Changes in the South Dunedin catchment since the stormwater network was designed, combined with operational challenges and high ground water levels, all contributed to the effects of the extreme rainfall event that occurred in June 2015.”

Mrs Stokes says the report shows that mudtanks weren’t maintained as required. As a result, a number of steps, including a full review and retendering of road maintenance contracts have been adopted. Other measures include accurately capturing data on the status of the mudtanks, a redesign of the Portobello Pumping station screen and the development of a communications plan to inform the community of the local infrastructure challenges and how to best plan for future events.

“However, given the volume of rainfall and the system at capacity during the June event, the water would have been unable to enter the network even if all mudtanks were clear.”

She says the DCC must now look at what measures can be taken to mitigate such events in future.

The DCC will soon be engaging with the community about these issues and what the long term responses might be.

Contact Ruth Stokes, General Manager Infrastructure and Networks on 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015
Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding
Video courtesy One News.

█ For more, enter the term *flood* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Mayor Cull won’t admit lack of maintenance #SouthDunedinFlood

Mayor calls on government for help
39 Dunedin Television 20.11.15
A rising issue for seaside suburbs, a new report shows Dunedin is most at risk of suffering the negative effects of rising sea levels due to climate change. South Dunedin residents in particular are likely to experience flooding from rising ground water. Ch39 Link

—

█ Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty
A report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment shows Dunedin is one of the most vulnerable areas in the country.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence… released by DCC #LGOIMA
27.10.15 DCC: South Dunedin flood | higher learning for chief executive
16.8.15 June flood: Dunedin drop-in centre open 27 August
11.8.15 DCC’s unmanaged retreat for South Dunedin
22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
18.7.15 DCC Cycleways: SEEING RED, apology NOT accepted
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
12.6.15 Fairfax: DCC has no insurance cover for flood-damaged roads
● 5.6.15 WEATHER is not climate change; this is not the 100-year flood
4.6.15 Exchange makeover —or pumps and pipe renewals, um
3.6.15 Civil Defence response to Dunedin FLOODING
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards
28.3.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan 2015/16 to 2024/25 —Consultation Open
14.10.14 ORC: New strategic plan fosters Otago prosperity
12.9.14 ORC: City bus services, submissions
10.12.13 ORC restructures directorates
18.10.13 DCC: Final vote tally + St Clair boat ramp
18.8.13 South Dunedin and other low lying areas
26.2.13 DCC binge spending alert: Proposed South Dunedin cycle network
30.7.12 ORC on hazard risks and land use controls
7.6.12 Dunedin stormwater: more differences between ORC and DCC
25.11.11 South Dunedin and other flood zones

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

Downloads:

█ Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Correspondence Hendry and Williams 2015

█ Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Flood Debrief Notes 2015

—

See earlier exchanges (via LGOIMA) and other comments at this post:
█ 30.9.15 DCC liability? South Dunedin Flood (June 2015) #LGOIMA [post removed]

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015
Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding
Video courtesy One News.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Shame: First, John Wilson Dr nonsense, now Portobello Rd cycleway

The agreement meant Portobello Rd, between Andersons Bay Rd and Portsmouth Dr, would remain a two-lane road, after the council last year reduced it from four lanes to accommodate a new cycleway.

### ODT Online Wed, 18 Mar 2015
Cycleway compromise earns praise
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has earned praise from a group of businesses after compromising to resolve a cycleway dispute in Portobello Rd. But the council has also been urged to learn lessons after initial changes introduced on the road prompted an outcry in the area. The deal was confirmed yesterday after a closed-door meeting between councillors, council staff, business representatives and cycling advocates, chaired by the Automobile Association Otago district councillor Norman Oakley.
Read more

****

Comment at ODT Online:

Money wasting madness from DCC
Submitted by photonz on Thu, 19/03/2015 – 1:09pm.

$320,000 spent already for 700m of cycleway, that was already sealed, is madness. And now it has to be redone.
Just like the cycle crossing on Victoria Road that was rebuilt three or four times at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, yet despite passing over it multiple times a day, including rush hour, I’ve seen it used by bicycles just once in nearly a year.
Similar money wastage is now happening with total redesigns of intersection kerbing around St Kilda, at the cost of many thousands of dollars, including intersections which are some of quietest and least used in all of Dunedin.
Yet not a dollar for the very busy intersection at Allendale/Forbury/Bay View Roads, where opposing right turning traffic on Forbury Road, is channelled into a head-on collision.
Heads should roll at the DCC – this is madness. It’s a waste of our money to spend hundreds of thousands on barely used or needed pet projects, often redoing them several times, while not spending a cent on dangerous intersections.

****

The letter from Cr Vandervis was delayed for publication supposedly due to slow reply: [Psalms 118.1….]

ODT 19.3.15 (page 16)

****

### dunedintv.co.nz March 18, 2015 – 5:54pm
Opposing parties reach agreement over Portobello Road development
Parties at loggerheads over plans to develop the southern part of Portobello Road have reached an agreement. The Dunedin City Council and Automobile Association has met with cycling advocacy group Spokes and business owners about changes to the road. Representatives have come up with a mutually agreeable plan to widen the section of road between Timaru Street and Portsmouth Drive. It will provide room for large trucks to safely enter and exit industrial sites along the road. And there will be a 3m cycleway separated from traffic, allowing cyclists to travel in both directions along the road. Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Positive Meeting on Portobello Road Plans

This item was published on 17 Mar 2015

A revised concept plan for the southernmost section of Portobello Road has been welcomed by key parties.
A meeting was held this morning between some Dunedin City Councillors, DCC staff and representatives from the Automobile Association (AA), cycling advocacy group Spokes Dunedin, local businesses and leaseholders. Those at the meeting, which was chaired by AA Otago District Councillor Norman Oakley, strongly supported the revised concept plan for the section of Portobello Road between Timaru Street and Portsmouth Drive. The proposed plan addresses concerns with the existing layout, by providing room for large trucks to safely enter and exit industrial sites along the road.
The revised concept plan increases the total road width to 10.1m, made up of a northbound and a southbound lane, with a 2.5m painted median strip between the lanes (such as in Hillside Road). A 3m wide, two way cycleway, separated from traffic, is still part of the plan. This concept means removing the current concrete median to make more room for the new lanes and the median strip. The intersections at either end of the road remain the same.
DCC Infrastructure Services Committee Chair Cr Kate Wilson says, “I congratulate all the groups involved for working collaboratively to reach such a positive result. Once the revised plans have been finalised, we will be asking other interested parties and the wider community for feedback.” Cr Wilson noted the revised concept plan did not propose major changes for residents on that stretch of road, who can still access their properties as they do now.
AA Otago District Councillor Hudson Biggs says the revised plan is a workable solution for all parties. “There has been a lot of work in the background to get to this point and what has been presented recognises the fact there needs to be cycle access from South Dunedin along Portobello Road, while still meeting the needs of other road users.” Spokes Dunedin Chair Robert Thompson also supported the revised layout. “It strikes the right balance between all road users, providing a high standard cycleway and improved vehicle access within a more intuitive road layout.”

CSL Containers Director Philip Chapman says the new plan addresses his concerns very well. “I couldn’t ask for anything better.”

DCC Group Manager Transportation Gene Ollerenshaw says the proposed design will now be finalised and released within the next two to three weeks for wider feedback from the community. Further consultation will include a mail drop to nearby residents, discussions with other parties such as Bayfield High School and signs to alert motorists who use that route. Following that feedback, the design will be finalised and construction completed as soon as possible before the end of the year.

[click to enlarge]

█ Download: Portobello Rd cross section information (PDF, 96 KB)

Contact Infrastructure Services Committee Chair on 03 477 4000.
DCC Link

****

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Further consultation on Portobello Road Changes

This item was published on 28 Nov 2014

The Dunedin City Council will work further with key parties to finalise a design for the southernmost section of Portobello Road.
DCC Infrastructure Services Committee Chair Cr Kate Wilson says the decision was made following a constructive meeting on Wednesday attended by Councillors, DCC staff and representatives from the Automobile Association (AA), cycling advocacy group Spokes, local businesses and leaseholders.
The meeting, which was chaired by the AA, discussed the recent changes to the section of Portobello Road between Andersons Bay Road and Portsmouth Drive. Discussions began with some context setting. The use of that part of Portobello Road has changed greatly, as has the land ownership in the area. Rather than being a high volume commuter route, it is now a relatively low volume road used by heavy transport, with industrial land on one side and residential on the other.
The road has been altered to accommodate one of the key cycleways in the new South Dunedin Cycle Network. The first stage of work was completed in May. The concept was not fully implemented then because of funding constraints, but the intention was to do further work if it was required as funds became available.
Cr Wilson says a preliminary layout for the second stage was developed in consultation with AA, Spokes and residents and businesses in the area. “However, further feedback from businesses, leaseholders and the public, conclusions we have drawn ourselves, issues around the look and feel of the road, access to the industrial properties and safety concerns at the Timaru Street end mean some further consideration of options is needed.” “We take seriously the concerns raised and following this week’s meeting we will seek further inputs from the affected businesses and leaseholders so we incorporate their concerns and needs into the options.”
DCC Group Manager Transportation Gene Ollerenshaw says in the meantime some interim improvements would be investigated with urgency, such as signage and road marking, particularly at the Timaru Street end. The DCC is still aiming to complete the project in the 2014/15 year.

Contact Group Manager Transportation on 03 477 4000.
DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr