Tag Archives: Flood

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

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

DCC —godsakes, how did it get to this? #flood #property damage

Rain_Madness01 [cartoonstock.com]

ONE YEAR AFTER THE JUNE 2015 FLOOD EVENT………………
“D for prolonged distress”

### ODT Online Fri, 3 Jun 2016
In limbo, sleeping in car (+ video)
By Vaughan Elder
A Green Island mother’s “nightmare” since last June’s flood has culminated in her being separated from her son, homeless and sleeping in her car. Tina Conway has pointed the finger at Dunedin City Council for her plight after staff repeatedly failed to discover a council mains pipe was leaking water on to her property, causing a bank to slip away in the June 3 Dunedin floods. It was almost 10 months after the floods and only after the Earthquake Commission (EQC) called in a private engineering company that the council fixed the pipe at the end of March.
Read more

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 2, 2016
Dunedin South MP Clare Curran has called on the council to act quickly to remedy the situation.

“The first reaction of the DCC when faced with a situation whereby private property is damaged – particularly by water – is to run for the hills, disclaim any responsibility whatsoever and blame anything else.” Cont/
russandbev at ODT Online

A N N I V E R S A R Y
█ Read more about the aftermath of Dunedin’s June 2015 flood event at ODT tomorrow, Saturday.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year —this post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: cartoonstock.com – Rain_Madness01 | tweaked by whatifdunedin

16 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Travesty, What stadium

Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood

Updated post
Sat, 4 Jun 2016 at 4:11 p.m.

DCC publications:

● 30 Nov 2015 (McElhone)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event | Meeting Video

● 20 Apr 2016 (Media Release)
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released

● 26 Apr 2016 Agenda (and reports) Infrastructure Services Committee
Item 5 (Stokes, pp 6-27) South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up | 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.

Received: 18 May 2016 [full text]

An Independent Review of DCC Report : ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up’

By N. P. Johnstone, MIPENZ

1. This review complements my peer review of DCC’s first flood report, published in November 2015. This review assesses the content of the second report (described henceforth as “the report”) published in late April 2016, and contextual statements made elsewhere by DCC staff and elected members. The author of the report is Ms R. Stokes. The technical qualifications and relevant experience of the report’s author are not stated.

2. I consider that there is a need for such a review for reasons of historical accuracy and context, the identification of solutions (which can only be achieved be if the problem is understood and acknowledged) and – most importantly – to provide a considered assessment of what South Dunedin’s current flood risk really is, noting that two events (of which only the recent one caused major inundation) in five decades does not suggest a current flood risk much different from that existing in many other established New Zealand communities, despite some landuse changes. It is emphasised that the flood had nothing to do with climate change, nor therefore does this review. The failure to understand the issues may lead to inaction or to inappropriate and expensive actions.

3. This review may be criticised for being repetitive on some issues, but the repetition is at least partly driven by the number of times challengeable information on the flood event and its causes has been circulated by DCC. In many respects, the report under review could be seen as a concentration of such challengeable information. The report is solely based on my research, knowledge and experience; any errors are therefore mine, but hopefully, few.

4. This review has led to the following conclusions:
4.1 Council’s continued insistence that the June 2015 rainfall event was the largest since 1923 remains erroneous;
4.2 Pre-existing groundwater levels were unexceptional, and had no impact on the flooding, contrary to claims made in the report, previously and subsequently;
4.3 South Dunedin does not have a significant imminent exposure to stormwater flooding. This finding is based on the original design parameters, historical performance, an absence of groundwater issues, and provided existing infrastructure is properly maintained, monitored and operated;
4.4 Problems at the Portobello Road Pumping Station caused elevated flood levels and prolonged the period of inundation, but the report acknowledges only the latter;
4.5 Similarly, the now-admitted failures to ensure that mudtanks were properly maintained impacted adversely on flood levels attained in some locations at least, and prolonged the period of inundation in many areas;
4.6 Comparisons with the 1968 flood event can be instructive in assessing the impact of Council failures in 2015 in terms of water level, disruption and cost. The report fails to make such assessments.

5. My review of the first report, written by Ms L. McElhone, was driven by DCC claims that the prime causes of the flood were high sea and ground water levels, a 150-year, then a 100-year, then a 63-year (and incidentally and extraordinarily now again a 100-year*) rainfall event, and confirmed that Portobello Road pumping station issues added not less than 200mm to peak flood levels. That review also demonstrated that the rainfall event of March 1968 was demonstrably larger than that of June 2015, but caused much less damage, and that land use changes added up to 150mm to flood levels (based on DCC’s unconfirmed data on impermeable areas). Any consented landuse changes should, in my opinion, have been compensated for in past years with additional infrastructure to maintain drainage standards and South Dunedin’s protection standards.
(*Ms Stokes to John Campbell on Checkpoint, 21 April 2016).

6. Exaggerated assessments of both the historical significance of the 2015 rainfalls and groundwater levels, and the absence of mudtank information originally helped DCC promote its position of zero liability. The mudtank maintenance failures are at last largely revealed in the new report; significant mudtank maintenance issues were previously reported by Cr Lee Vandervis as early as 2014, but were seemingly largely ignored by DCC. Paragraph 37 of the report which reads: “Mudtank maintenance and performance in general has been the subject of focus for a number of years”, appears vague, and therefore requires elaboration. The statement, if accurate makes the failures more disturbing. There is still some unfortunate reliance on the groundwater myth (paragraphs 2 & 32), and to the underestimation of the 1968 event (paragraph 20). There appear to be newly-entrenched positions at DCC that the existing stormwater system is inadequate, presumably based on the report’s paragraphs 23-27, and reinforced in recent public statements from Ms Stokes and Mayor Cull, that the flood would have occurred (or that a serious flood would have occurred) even if the current system including the mudtanks had operated at optimum. This review strongly disputes such claims, and uses the well-documented event of March 1968 as a very useful “model” for key comparisons between a contained flood (1968) and a disaster (2015).

7. The general understanding was that DCC’s second review was to concentrate in detail on the performance of mudtanks, and was to be peer reviewed. Detailed reporting and peer review processes were understood to be the reason for the extraordinary delays in publication. In reality, only paragraphs 33-61 deal with mudtanks issues and no peer review is included. It is noted that Mayor Cull confirmed to John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme (22 April 2016) that peer reviews of the report had been produced. The peer review(s) could usefully have been attached to the report; failing that, the report’s author should have explained their absence. Continue reading

32 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design

South Dunedin: Fixing Council attitudes and badly maintained infrastructure

storm-ridden - wet cycling [n-tv.de]Council told storms will become more common and more severe [n-tv.de]

### ODT Online Mon, 9 May 2016
Flood’s ‘true’ cost $138 million
By Vaughan Elder
The “true” cost of last June’s Dunedin flood has been revealed as more than $138 million. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull said the “sobering” figure, calculated by New Zealand’s largest insurance company, IAG, would sharpen the council’s resolve on investing in better infrastructure. […] IAG calculated the $138.4 million taking into account $28.2 million insurance pay out together with estimates of the economic and social impact of the event.
Read more

Economic costs took into account damage to uninsured properties, lost productivity, work to fix infrastructure and social costs included stress suffered by affected residents and business owners.

DCC Graphic - South Dunedin stormwater networkDCC Graphic: South Dunedin and adjacent stormwater catchments
Area approx 570ha, comprising 10-15% of Dunedin’s central urban area.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

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

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin

DCC meeting and apology NOT Enough— #SouthDunedinFlood

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

Received today.

android-email-app [carleton.ca]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)

ODT 25.4.16  Letter to editor Vandervis p10

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.

lee pushing head in mudtank words [Douglas Field 26.4.16] detailDouglas 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

53 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood

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

Flooding South Dunedin June 2015 photo by Paul Allen [listener.co.nz]Photo: Paul Allen

New Report [excerpt]—
DCC Flood Report 2 (2016) 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

94 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium