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

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 dirty laundry/fleet cars #LGOIMA

—

Related Posts and Comments:
18.9.15 DCC suddenly wakes up! *cough —after fleet car pointers from years back
● 16.9.15 DCC: Know your council ‘chair-leaders’ #pillowtalk [THE EMAILS]
4.8.15 Hundreds of DCC Staff receive fraud detection/prevention training #OMG
21.7.15 DCC: LGOIMA requests for the last month
24.4.15 DCC re Dr Bidrose’s time as most senior Citifleet Manager

Belatedly….
19.9.15 ODT: Information requests irk councillors

The latest salvo came after Cr Lee Vandervis made public an email exchange with Crs Benson-Pope and Richard Thomson, copied to other councillors and staff, earlier this week.

Cr Vandervis did not respond to ODT requests for comment yesterday.

In his emails, published online, he blamed a lack of information coming from council staff for the “tedious” need to resort to Information Act requests.

Biblical proportion…. [thanks RMN]

Matthew 23:23-25
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence….

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr (online)

DCC: Know your council ‘chair-leaders’ #pillowtalk

It’s with some fascination if not repulsion that Whatiffers can observe bullying by standing committee chairmen continuing unabated on the mayor’s watch.

Cr Thomson’s historical on camera stunts of addressing or referring to Cr Vandervis as “my good friend” are, how shall I say, unchaste and deceptive in the context of what follows below.

Two emails received tonight.

—

Received from Lee Vandervis
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 9:26 p.m.

█ Message: Differing Councillor views that may be of interest.
Cheers, Lee

—

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:41:19 +1200
To: Richard Thomson, Grace Ockwell, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Jinty MacTavish, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Andrew Whiley, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Andrew Noone, Ruth Stokes
Conversation: OIA Request
Subject: Re: OIA Request

Actually Richard, the Lamborghini has become symbolic of many other very visible excesses, but let us stick to Council issues.

For many years I used to make all the information I had available in very candid discussions with staff, who often then failed to investigate appropriately. Citifleet is a prime example, and this and other examples has taught me that a publicly funded organisation is poorly motivated to investigate itself.
Without my LGOIMA requests the incredibly belated Citifleet ‘investigation’ might never have happened, as it did not happen for over a decade before. Have you counted the cost of that multimillion dollar fraud as a percentage of the cost of processing my LGOIMA requests?
Do you not realise that most of my LGOIMA request arise from questions and allegations from members of the public that I represent?

Even when an internal investigation does prove that for instance over quarter of a million of public funds was paid to a contractor to clear mudtanks and none were cleared, nothing appropriate seems to happen at the DCC without publicity. Hence my now having to get the public involved when things are not sorted internally.
When you claim that needing information “of how the information relates to possible wrong doing” is necessary to get information, this is absurd. It is much easier to simply search ‘Stihl chainsaws’ and forward what DCC files information appears. Similarly a vehicle registration number. Just search the registration number and forward the files – easy, quick, no thinking required, little time wasted considering whether ‘particular staff have been involved in possible wrong doing’ etc.

Why is it that our staff can have all this information, but not want to share it with us the supposed decision makers when we request it?
Answer – information is power – and bureaucracies generally do not want to share it, especially with supposed decision makers.

Don’t you dare suggest that I do not give a toss, as you have no way of knowing the state of my mind or the work that I do, and don’t you dare suggest that my approach has failed to identify fraudulent behaviour, as you similarly do not know what has gone into, for instance, Citifleet, Jacks Point/Luggate, mudtanks, Noble, Town Hall redevelopment, or the almost complete turnover of senior managers at the DCC in the last few years.

I will continue to carry on in the manner I believe to be appropriate, and I do not seek any advice on my manner from of you.

Regards,
Cr. Vandervis

———————————

On 15/09/15 9:48 pm, “Richard Thomson” wrote:

Actually Lee my concern is quite the opposite. If there is fraud taking place I want to see it caught. That is why in the Otago DHB when someone came to me with an anonymous tip off and no evidence to back it I initiated a full investigation within half an hour. And I know what some of the consequences are of taking action. They include having to have endless questioning of your integrity/intelligence/ etc by people such as yourself and your fellow travellers on the likes of What If. You have no idea how terribly amusing it is to regularly be accused, because you did the right thing, of “failing to notice the Lamborghini in the carpark”. Never mind that I never had a carpark so didn’t go in the carpark building, or that the fabled Lamborgini was only owned for a few days. Or indeed, had I gone in the carpark building for a random look around and spotted a Lamborghini I would probably have assumed it belonged to a surgeon anyway. So bearing that personal history in mind here is what really pisses me off.

When you make accusations but when virtually begged to make the information available to the CEO so it can be investigated you respond that the “only way you will be making the information available will be through the pages of the ODT”. As you did at the Audit Committee meeting.

When you put in OIA requests and refuse to give any indication of how the information relates to possible wrong doing. Lets think chain saws here. So in the end the only way the OIA can be responded to is to make general inquiries all over the place thereby pretty much ensuring that if there has been dishonesty the person involved will have plenty of time to bury any evidence.

When you seek “all documentation” about a motor vehicle without giving a toss whether the inquiries around that might harm any investigation if there has been wrong doing because the people responding to the request will have no idea if they are going to tip off unknowingly a suspect.

It ought to be of some concern to you by now that your methods and approach have failed to catch any fraudulent behaviour but that the methods of Mr McKenzie that you so disparage have caught a number. Perhaps the fact that people do come to you with info might actually result in people being caught if you worked with people instead of carrying on in the manner you do.

R

[contacts deleted]

———————————

From: Lee Vandervis
To: Richard Thomson; Grace Ockwell; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull; Kate Wilson; Chris Staynes; Jinty MacTavish; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Andrew Whiley; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September 2015 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: OIA Request

Re: OIA Request

I note Richard, that you and some others are quite happy to get on with running a city without knowing who is stealing what or how much things cost to run the city.
My regular voting against Council spending motions often arises because there is simply not enough information made available to justify voting for.
If staff reports provided adequate relevant information, and if rate-paid reports like the $300,000 Deloitte investigation information were made available to us who need to make related decisions, none of this tedious LGOIMA process would be necessary. It is a shame that I have to go to so much effort just get basic information, and that so few others can be bothered.

Cr. Vandervis

———————————

On 15/09/15 5:27 pm, “Richard Thomson” wrote:

Hi,

Could I please file an official information act request asking what the cost to Council has been of answering Cr Vandervis’s official information act requests over the last year.

on second thoughts, please don’t. I’d prefer you got on with running a city..

R

[contacts deleted]

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Received from Lee Vandervis
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 9:27 p.m.

█ Message: And this…

—

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:50:07 +1200
To: David Benson-Pope, Richard Thomson, Grace Ockwell, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Jinty MacTavish, Hilary Calvert, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Andrew Whiley, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Neville Peat, Andrew Noone
Conversation: OIA Request
Subject: Re: OIA Request

You might well have stopped for a moment David, to consider the cost of not making LGOIMA requests, or of the enormous savings to ratepayers had LGOIMA requests been honestly and promptly complied with as required by the LGOIMA Act.
It has been recently proven that ex CEO Harland misled Councillors making LGOIMA requests to find out what Farry and Co were up to with Stadium planning/funding, by falsely claiming that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust were not subject to LGOIMA information disclosure requirements. Ex-CEO Harland did this despite having two legal opinions, one local and one ex Wellington, saying that the CST were absolutely subject to LGOIMA information requests. Harland’s deceptions have only come to light as a result of many subsequent LGOIMA requests.
Had Harland processed LGOIMA requests as legally required during his tenure it would highly likely have saved ratepayers many millions in a variety of areas, if not hundreds of millions wasted on our Stadium liability.
If all my 2011 LGOIMA requests for Citifleet information, including all credit card information had been made available as requested under LGOIMA, think how many subsequently stolen vehicles would have been saved and perhaps even the life of a bent manager. Put a price on that David and make sure to request the full cost thereof.
The horrendous cost of not having required relevant information on which to make decisions is the reason we have LGOIMA.
In my opinion, not using the LGOIMA process suggests that you are not doing your job as an elected representative.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 15/09/15 6:04 pm, “David Benson-Pope” wrote:

While I agree with the sentiment … If he won’t I wil

This is therefore a request for full details of all lgoima requests made to the dcc by any councillor in the current triennium and the full cost thereof
Yours etc
David Benson-Pope
Sent from my Windows Phone

———————————

From: Richard Thomson
Sent: 15/09/2015 5:27 p.m.
To: Grace Ockwell; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull; Kate Wilson; Chris Staynes; Lee Vandervis; Jinty MacTavish; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Andrew Whiley; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone
Subject: OIA Request

Hi,

Could I please file an official information act request asking what the cost to Council has been of answering Cr Vandervis’s official information act requests over the last year.

on second thoughts, please don’t. I’d prefer you got on with running a city.

R

[contacts deleted]

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: toonpool.com – Cat Whisperer by Goodwyn (tweaked by whatifdunedin)