Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

—

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

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

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

—

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

COMPLETE Dis-satisfaction with DCC, DCHL, DVML, DVL, Delta….

Fake it til you make it, and hey, don’t lift the marigolds.

Sorry Daaave, looks like a D for your council’s governance. —Actually, for the avoidance of euphemism, make that D- and lower for DIRE Performance, accompanying Drivel, and Diabolical treatment of Residents and Ratepayers in the aftermath of emergency situations.

Listening to Yes People and your dwindling voter base isn’t your best hope to resolve ongoing multimillion-dollar losses being sustained by a couple of the council-owned companies, to the point where the holding company led by chairman Crombie, fronts with a “qualified audit” only on presentation of its annual report(?) to Council.

[In July 2015 Graham Crombie was appointed to the Commerce Commission as an Associate Commissioner for a five year term.]

Damages to employment, liveability and opportunity in a No-growth city keep stacking.

—

“It is also yet another example of good public service jobs being lost from our smaller towns and cities.” –PSA spokeswoman

### ODT Online Thu, 13 Oct 2016
ACC jobs to go in Dunedin
By Vaughan Elder
After consulting with staff since June, the decision had been made to relocate all the roles over the next 12 to 18 months to the larger Christchurch office and have “one centre for consistent customer and rehabilitation services across the Southern region”.
Read more

****

Asked about people who continued to be negative about the city, he said: “Negativity is an attitude, it’s not a fact.”

### ODT Online Thu, 13 Oct 2016
Survey ‘shows Dunedin on right track’
By Vaughan Elder
A survey showing Dunedin residents feel increasingly positive about their city shows the city is on the “right track”, Mayor Dave Cull says. […] the annual survey was not all good news. Last year’s June flood was picked as a reason for increasing dissatisfaction with the city’s stormwater system [down 13 points to 43%]. Satisfaction rates also fell when it came to public toilets, the suitability of the city’s roads for cycling and the availability of parks in the central city.
Read more

[Chief executive Sue Bidrose] said some of the areas where there had been negative results this year and in past surveys correlated to negative media coverage in the Otago Daily Times.

*1577 survey responses from 5400 residents randomly selected from the electoral roll,

The Talking Head (without helmet, unprepared)

█ Dunedin City Council (media release)
Residents’ Opinion Survey released 12 Oct 2016. Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: cdn.guardian.ng – marigold, tweaked by whatifdunedin

What local body elections ?

Ecologist appointed to Dunedin City Council
News via Art Festival aside at ODT

### ODT Online Tue, 11 Oct 2016
Won a painting, now for a wall
A new Dunedin resident has won a painting auction; now he just needs a wall to hang the artwork on. Aalbert Rebergen recently moved to Dunedin and his admiration for the work of local artist Frank Gordon prompted a visit to his exhibition at Gallery De Novo on Saturday. The gallery was about to close when he saw the Frank Gordon painting The City of Magic & Song but could not find a price tag. […] Mr Rebergen has moved to the city to take on a new role at the Dunedin City Council as an ecologist.
Read more

We’re probably long overdue to have an ecologist on council staff.
We hear good things about Mr Rebergen, who has been with ORC.

Ecologists are specialist scientists who survey ecosystems and assess the diversity, profusion and behaviour of the different organisms within them. Ecologists tend to work for government agencies, environmental trusts, conservation charities and research institutes.
Or indeed as private consultants.

—

Another sort of ecology IS Dunedin City Council.
When the DCC doesn’t check leaks and drains in the hill suburbs – completely misses them despite ratepayer queries and concerns! But City Care to THE RESCUE (the company from Christchurch, best practice in hand) finds was it five burst water mains in less than a day within the same street area, where for YEARS DCC had not noticed a Cuckoo.

Infrastructure Services needs to gaze at its navel CLOSELY (another ecology!) —and Councillors, you need to check within your constituent areas for problems and complaints as well as DCC works not fully investigated and not done. (Councillors, stop desk hugging on those too generous stipends!)

Message to Residents and Ratepayers: DO NOT leave DCC alone

Void the leaks. Void the drainage problems of your surrounding subdivisions. Void the DCC desert that ‘serves’ us. Backfill DCC with people who know how to run infrastructure efficiently and who KNOW civil engineering for ratepayer benefit.

That is All.

—

BUT THEN

Job Vacancy at Dunedin City Council

CHANGE DELIVERY MANAGER
[nope, not the sort of comprehensive change we lust for at DCC but integral]

The Change Delivery Manager is responsible for leading the development, maintenance and delivery of the council’s long term application development plan as well as overseeing the implementation …
Location: Dunedin Central | Job ID: 3086108 | Closing Date: 28 Oct 2016
http://dcc.recruitmenthub.co.nz/Vacancies/3086108/title/Change-Delivery-Manager

More:
[key words below: “supports the IT Strategy”]

Change Delivery Manager
Dunedin Central

Reference: 3086108

The Change Delivery Manager is responsible for leading the development, maintenance and delivery of the council’s long term application development plan as well as overseeing the implementation of new solutions and systems and application upgrades and enhancements.

Extensive experience in programme and project management and the ability to establish and maintain a professional, customer focused service delivery culture is a must. Leading a highly motivated team of 12, you will have proven experience providing leadership, guidance and mentoring to members of the team.

Success in this role means:
Delivering the agreed requirements of the programme/project to the appropriate level of quality, on time and within budget, in accordance with the programme plan.
Ensuring our business applications are current, and implemented in manner that supports the IT Strategy.
Setting and meeting the customer’s expectations
Ensuring compliance with Governance requirements.

We are ideally seeking the following skills and experience:
Proven programme and project management delivery background.
At least 4 years’ experience leading a team.
An appropriate tertiary qualification in ICT/Business and/or well-developed ICT skills to be able to understand the technical aspects of Change and Application governance and architecture.
A demonstrable broad and deep understanding of principals of change and a range of change techniques.
Ability to capture requirements from multiple sources and translate those into effective and high performing solutions.
Excellent customer and stakeholder engagement/communication skills.
Excellent understanding and application of project/programme management, Business Analysis and ITIL practices, tools and techniques.
If you have the skills and experience we are looking for and the drive to succeed, we welcome your application.

Applications Close: 28 Oct 2016

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: pixabay.com – nature

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*).

Thoughts on ODT Insight : Chris Morris investigates Asbestos plague

 

Dob in an asbestos dumper [illawarramercury.com.au]

—

B E L A T E D L Y
Cowboy New Zealand Governments wake up after YEARS of Devastating Sleep.

New Zealand’s asbestos death toll will climb to about 5100, excluding deaths from asbestosis, which were difficult to determine, a WorkSafe spokesman said. It was expected the peak of asbestos-related disease would not be reached until sometime between 2030 and 2040, the spokesman said. (ODT)

Is the Dunedin City Council opening its eyes quickly enough even with the Amalgamated Workers’ Union (AWUNZ) on its tail ? Good council workmen dead and memorialised in photographs, frightening….

“They worked regularly with the city’s asbestos water pipes – cutting and grinding, kicking up asbestos dust and sweeping up the mess later.” (ODT)

Weathered asbestos cement pipe [cep.bessens.free.fr] and asbestos insulation wrap [Asbestorama via flickr.com]

—

█ HOW MANY Dunedin City Council (DCC) staff, work crews, contractors and subcontractors have been required to work with asbestos product and exposure to fibres over the years —without comprehensive safety training and correctly specified respirators and safety clothing for individual protection ?
The answer is likely to be unlimited numbers.
Has anything changed at DCC ?
Have all asbestos contaminated DCC-owned sites and work areas been identified to date ?
Are formal protocols and a register in place for personnel who believe they may have been exposed to asbestos and require admittance to a testing regime ?

Proper warning [shutterstock.com]

—

ODT Insight: Asbestos: The Silent Killer

### ODT Online Sat, 18 Jun 2016
Asbestos toll will grow
By Chris Morris
The death toll from asbestos-related disease in New Zealand will continue to climb for decades to come, despite a ban on imports of building materials containing the toxic mineral. Environment Minister Nick Smith on Wednesday announced New Zealand would join more than 50 other countries in banning the importation of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), beginning on October 1, unless exemptions were granted. The move was designed to further reduce the “appalling” death toll caused by asbestos, used in building products for more half a century. It now claimed an estimated 170 lives a year, he said.
Read more

[DCC tragedy] ODT: Suspicions of cancer cluster
Former Dunedin City Council water maintenance staff based at the Midlands St yard say the risks of asbestos were not understood and early precautions inadequate […] a solemn memorial to 14 men taken too soon – photographs of the dead, showing men lost to lung, bowel or prostate cancer, pinned to a noticeboard in the Dunedin City Council’s former Midland St workers’ yard.

● ODT: Asbestos: ‘We were totally ignorant’ of risk’ (+ video)
● ODT: Asbestos claimed him (+ video)

Other stories:

11.5.16 ODT: Asbestos likely to be cost in future
Asbestos may impact the financial health of the Dunedin City Council’s coffers in years to come but the extent of the cost remains unknown, councillors heard at yesterday’s annual plan deliberations. Group chief financial officer Grant McKenzie told councillors work was under way at present to establish the extent of asbestos use and issues in council-owned assets, but the cost to rectify it would not be known until the investigation was complete.

4.5.16 ODT: Removing asbestos pipes
The Dunedin City Council says it will remove decaying asbestos pipes from public land after their existence at Sullivans Dam was noted by the Amalgamated Workers Union. The pipes are beside sheds near the entrance to the popular fishing spot in Leith Valley Rd. The council yesterday said it had not known the pipes were there.

21.4.16 ODT: Asbestos at pool no threat to public
The Dunedin City Council says there is no immediate threat to the public following the discovery of asbestos at Moana Pool. During a maintenance check of the building early last week, asbestos was discovered in the pump storage area under the pool level of the building and in restricted storage areas away from the pool.

20.4.16 ODT: No ‘immediate health risk’ from Moana Pool asbestos
Group Manager Parks and Recreation Richard Saunders said the maintenance checks identified further inspection and testing for asbestos was needed at several sites, of which Moana Pool was one. […] Initial inspections have been carried out at two other buildings – the Sims building in Port Chalmers, which is leased to a club, and a storage shed located next to Tahuna Park used by Parks and Recreation staff and contractors.

16.4.16 ODT: Council denies asbestos danger
A union says the public could easily have been exposed to cut and broken asbestos pipes left unsecured in a sometimes unattended Mosgiel yard. The Amalgamated Workers Union (AWU) said the pipes at the Dunedin City Council’s Mosgiel wastewater treatment plant were not in a safe state and could have been accessed by children in the residential street.

Asbestos cement pipe, close-up of Crocidolite and Chrysotile
[Asbestorama via flickr.com]

ASBESTOS (pronounced /æsˈbɛstəs/, /æzˈbɛstəs/ or /æzˈbɛstɒs/) is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals, which all have in common their eponymous asbestiform habit: long (roughly 1:20 aspect ratio), thin fibrous crystals, with each visible fiber composed of millions of microscopic “fibrils” that can be released by abrasion and other processes. They are commonly known by their colors, as blue asbestos, brown asbestos, white asbestos, and green asbestos.

Asbestos mining existed more than 4,000 years ago, but large-scale mining began at the end of the 19th century, when manufacturers and builders began using asbestos for its desirable physical properties: sound absorption, average tensile strength, resistance to fire, heat, electricity, and affordability. It was used in such applications as electrical insulation for hotplate wiring and in building insulation. When asbestos is used for its resistance to fire or heat, the fibres are often mixed with cement or woven into fabric or mats. These desirable properties made asbestos very widely used. Asbestos use continued to grow through most of the 20th century until public knowledge (acting through courts and legislatures) of the health hazards of asbestos dust outlawed asbestos in mainstream construction and fireproofing in most countries.

Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibres can cause serious and fatal illnesses including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis (a type of pneumoconiosis). Illness from asbestos exposure can be found in records dating back to Roman times. Concern in modern times began in the 20th century and escalated during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use was heavily restricted, phased out, or banned outright in an increasing number of countries.

The severity of asbestos-related diseases, the material’s extremely widespread use in many areas of life, its continuing long-term use after harmful health effects were known or suspected, and the slow emergence of symptoms decades after exposure ceased made asbestos litigation the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S. history and a much lesser legal issue in most other countries involved. Asbestos-related liability also remains an ongoing concern for many manufacturers, insurers and reinsurers.
Read more at Wikipedia: Asbestos

—

Myth: Asbestos Fibres are firmly locked in a cement matrix.
● Fact: Asbestos Fibres are readily released from deteriorated or weathered surfaces.

Myth: Asbestos-cement cannot be crumbled to powder by hand pressure.
● Fact: Products such as asbestos-cement corrugated siding become friable from damage.

Myth: Asbestos-cement products present no exposure hazard to building occupants.
● Fact: Asbestos roofing and siding can release fibres inside as well as outside the building. Not all asbestos-cement roofing and siding remain in as good condition. In many countries, the inside of asbestos-cement roofing and siding is subject to the normal activities of the occupants that can release fibres from the surfaces. An asbestos-cement panel can be vibrated by wind, causing some abrasion of the edges.

Myth: Asbestos-cement pipes present no health or environmental hazard.
● Fact: Health and environmental hazards start during the manufacturing process when the ends of the pipes are ground and the waste is disposed of carelessly. Fine dust produced during installation of the pipes is a hazard to the workers and community. When the pipes are dug up and removed, fibres are released as they are broken and crushed. Pressure pipe for water distribution was made with crocidolite and amosite as well as chrysotile.

Myth: Paint and encapsulants offer permanent protection against asbestos fibre release.
● Fact: Paint and encapsulants deteriorate and take asbestos fibres with them when they peel off. Why is it necessary to protect a material that is touted for its weather-resistance and durability, yet encapsulants for asbestos-cement roofing and siding are widely marketed. Encapsulants are a form of paint, and a good paint job begins with surface preparation. The hope is that no one sands asbestos-cement roofing and siding before they paint or encapsulate it, because of the obvious dust and health hazard created.

—

█ NEW ZEALAND LEGISLATION

The Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 came into force on 4 April 2016. They set out the new rules around the removal of asbestos, and the circumstances where WorkSafe must be notified.

New licensing system for asbestos removal
A national licensing system for asbestos removal was introduced on 4 April 2016. The licences available under the new asbestos regulations are:

Type of licence : What asbestos can be removed?

Class A
Any type or quantity of asbestos or asbestos containing material, including:
• any amount of friable asbestos or asbestos containing material (ACM)
• any amount of asbestos contaminated dust or debris (ACD)
• any amount of non-friable asbestos or ACM.

Class B
Any amount of non-friable asbestos or ACM
ACD associated with removing any amount of non-friable asbestos or ACM.

No licence is required for removing:
• up to 10 m2 of non-friable asbestos or asbestos-containing material over the whole course of the removal project for the site
• asbestos-contaminated dust that is associated with this volume of asbestos or asbestos-containing material, and/or any associated minor volume of asbestos-contaminated dust or debris.

A new role of asbestos assessor has been developed. A licensed asbestos assessor will provide air quality monitoring during removal work, inspect the finished job and provide a clearance certificate. A licensed asbestos assessor will be required to assess Class A asbestos removal work from 2018 onwards.

Current Certificate of Competence holders will be able to continue removing asbestos (in the categories specified on their certificate), and supervise asbestos removal, until their certificate expires.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
11.5.16 DCC DRAFT Annual Plan 2016/17 —Harden up, Council [survey budget]
10.4.16 DCC: Council meeting Mon 11 April at 1pm [DCC sites – see Comments]
25.11.15 Mayor Cull and the GREAT Asbestos Defeat ….trucks in toxic waste
27.1.10 Stadium: CST to clean up contaminated land
14.10.09 Questions about landfill charges + DCC reveals contaminated sites

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Asbestos-cement roofing before and after cleaning [specialistroofcleaning.com]

Asbestorama: Asbestos-cement roof shingles [flickr.com]

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

Mayor Cull and the GREAT Asbestos Defeat ….trucks in toxic waste

Dave doesn’t know whether to swallow his kornies or not.

His hair is turning grey, he’s feeling tired and he looks old.

Meanwhile, someone files divorce papers.
[“I thought we were Green! I can’t understand you anymore! Asbestos for cash?! These are your scarves, your suits, I’m throwing out the window – along with this stupid bike helmet, used camel shackles and all the skanky lycra. Go away!”]

Secretly, young woman seen rubbing hands with glee at so much dosh.

[Stifle obvious questions about what else goes into Green Island landfill. This is Tartan Mafia town.]

DCC receives $millions for landfill dumping of hazardous waste, WHO CARES ABOUT GREEN except for the imprint of Serious Money to bolster Council slush funds, rugby? stadium ? cricket ? – anyone ?

NOO! For Sue’s next trips to Oxford, staff’s Grand Central City Plan, and some left-over to pay planning fees and charges for the VB’s aquarium, hotel and connector bridge to the waterfront.

[Share spoils, maties! Leave suspicious Ratepayers out of it.]

There are no serious equitable plans to improve South Dunedin or Mosgiel drainage systems, or manage coastal erosion.

The dilemmas of High Office and short men.

—

Cheaper to dump hazardous waste at Dunedin than at Canterbury.
DCC stoopid again, takes a cheap ride instead of bumping up contract price.

Deals worth millions of dollars —council staff cite commercial sensitivity.

### ODT Online Tue, 24 Nov 2015
Asbestos fill headed for Dunedin
By Chris Morris
Up to 12,000 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated fill from Canterbury is destined to be dumped in Dunedin, but that might just be the tip of a toxic – but lucrative – iceberg. The Otago Daily Times understands the Dunedin City Council has more than one contract to accept contaminated material from outside the city at the Green Island landfill.
Read more

—

The latest inanity. [Comic Sans]
Source: RNZ News: South Dunedin considers sea level threat.
20 November 2015 at 8:42 a.m. (AUDIO LINK)

—

[Listen and Learn] At another thread:

JimmyJones
June 17, 2015 at 9:49 am

Hype O’Thermia: YouTube and Wikipedia are good places to find out more about ICLEI. ICLEI teaches the DCC how to inflict the Sustainable Development world view on the citizens by using devious, undemocratic, secret and manipulative methods. ICLEI has helped the DCC to produce “marketing and communication” strategies to break down barriers to their deeply stupid ideas being accepted by the public. The goal is “behaviour change”. East Germany had the Stasi (Staatssicherheit), now we have ICLEI, Dave Cull and Sue Bidrose.

The influence of ICLEI explains a few things – like the DCC’s tendency towards increasingly secret (staff only) decision-making (eg the development and implementation of the Environment Strategy) and the generally severely deficient level of public consultation due to: skimpy information, poor publicity, expanding decisions beyond the scope of the consultation and treating it as just a ceremonial procedure (eg Dave’s Bicycle Network and its implementation). The pursuit of ICLEI’s goals is a direct cause of the underfunding of the city’s deficient (and worsening) infrastructure.

As far as I can tell most DCC councillors don’t know that the DCC has become a member of ICLEI and are unaware of the financial cost and its big influence in forming DCC policy. This demonstrates a problem with the attitude of the staff that councillors need to fix. The collusion between Dave Cull and Sue Bidrose is, however, a barrier to this that needs to be overcome. Councillors need to stop sleepwalking and start to become aware of the decisions that are being made without their involvement.

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: cartoonaday.com – Dave breakfast gruel [Warcraft-All-Nighter-Gamer tweaked by whatifdunedin]

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 rates increase, despicable 3.8%

### dunedintv.co.nz June 29, 2015 – 6:09pm
DCC to raise rates for the coming financial year
A rates rise is being implemented by the city council for the coming financial year. The council’s just adopted its long term plan, which sets out rates. That’s resulting in a 3.8% increase for the 2015/16 financial year, starting on Wednesday. The council previously set itself a 3% limit on annual rates increases, but big ticket items like the proposed Mosgiel swimming pool have put pressure on councillors.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

****

### ODT Online Mon, 29 Jun 2015
Long term plan to be decided
By David Loughrey
The Dunedin City Council will sit today to decide on a long term plan that should result in a 3.8% rates rise when rates are set for the next financial year. What Mayor Dave Cull called “a bloody big agenda” will include debate on the Government’s Remuneration Authority review of councillors’ pay, under which Mr Cull’s pay will rise in the new financial year by 2.9% to $150,150, and councillors’ up 7.3% to $54,500.
Read more

—

█ Agenda – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 124.3 KB)

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Setting of Rates for 2015/16 Financial Year

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 96.4 KB)
Adoption of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 6.5 MB)
Adoption of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan – Introduction, Sections 1 and 2

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 14.6 MB)
Adoption of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan – Sections 3 – 7

█ Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 421.8 KB)
Management Report on the Audit of the LTP Consultation Document

█ Other Council Reports

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Mayor Daaave lacks honest leadership in media replies

Another instance.

ODT 24.6.15 (page 12)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Tell Us What You Think!

This item was published on 23 Jun 2015

Letters have been sent this week to 4500 Dunedin residents inviting them to take part in the Dunedin City Council’s annual Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS).

DCC General Manager Services and Development Simon Pickford says, “The ROS provides valuable feedback on what Dunedin residents think of their Council and the services and facilities we provide. It is particularly useful as it allows us to hear from the ‘silent majority’ of residents who are less likely to tell us what they think in other ways, such as the Long Term Plan consultation.”

The 4500 residents, randomly selected from the electoral roll, will be invited to complete the ROS online using a unique code. A hard copy questionnaire will be provided on request.

The survey is also open to other residents, who can fill out the survey at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/ros.

Everyone who provides feedback will have the opportunity to enter a draw to win one of five $100 supermarket vouchers.

The survey is open until 17 July 2015. A reminder letter will be sent to those who have not responded about two weeks after the initial letter. This practice has proved successful in increasing the response rate. The survey results are expected to be publicly available by late August.

Mr Pickford says, “We have been using this survey for more than 20 years and it has become a key tool for us to assess how well we are doing and ultimately guide our planning and decision making. ROS focuses on how well we deliver our services and asks questions about residents’ perceptions of our performance. Some of the results are used as official measures of the DCC’s performance for audit purposes. But equally importantly, the feedback is used by staff and the Council to guide our thinking about how we might best deliver services to better meet the needs of Dunedin residents.”

The survey, which costs about $40,000, will be undertaken by independent research company Versus Research.

The results of previous surveys can be viewed at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/ros.

Contact Simon Pickford, General Manager Services and Development on 03 474 3707.

DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

WEATHER is not climate change; this is not the 100-year flood

Debate is raging, more comments and posts will surface on Greenie Mayor Cull’s witless screwy remarks at Otago Daily Times today.

Flood will cost ratepayers: Cull
Dunedin’s massive deluge will hit ratepayers in the form of delayed projects and funding reallocations, Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull concedes. […] “This kind of downpour is exactly the kind of climatic change that is predicted for the eastern South Island in the event of unfolding climate change.” […] “My feeling is central government and local government will need to co-operate right around the country and this is a bit of a pre-taste of some of the effects we can expect from climate change and sea level rises,” he said. “I think it would be a bit naïve to think this won’t happen again for another 100 years.”
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/344767/flood-will-cost-ratepayers-cull

—

Received from Mick Field
Fri, 5 Jun 2015 at 4:20 p.m.

You might find this interesting in view of all the alarm and hype over the latest flooding. The Green Party is entirely wrong to blame the 3 June Dunedin flooding on climate change. Why? Because they show that the severe flooding two days ago is not new. Unusual, but not unique. A combination of rainfall data and photographs makes these comments as convincing as they were prompt.

22 Apr 1923 Dunedin 230mm in 24 hours
19-20 Mar 1929 Ross Creek (Dunedin outskirts) 279mm in 24 hours
[June 3 2015] was 175mm in 24 hours

The Otago Daily Times said it was double the previous record for a full day since records began in 2006. [But 2006 was only the start of recording rainfall in the city centre rather than Musselburgh, 3 km away.]

—

Local experts:

### ODT Online Fri, 5 Jun 2015
Don’t blame climate change for city deluge, weather experts say
By Eileen Goodwin
The flooding in Dunedin on Wednesday was not caused by climate change, a University of Otago climatologist says. “I think this is just a weather event,” Dr Nicolas Cullen, of the department of geography, said.
Read more

—

Comments received:

JimmyJones
Submitted on 2015/06/05 at 12:12 am

….Dunedin has experienced two bad floods, one in 1923 and another in 1929. More rain fell in the 24-hour periods than what we got on Tuesday/Wednesday. In the first 1923 flood, 229mm (9.02 inches) fell (measured at Musselburgh) and in 1929, 279mm (11.0 inches) fell (measured at Ross Creek reservoir). Figures are from City of Dunedin, a history by K C McDonald. Our recent big rain was only 175mm in 24 hours. Probably it wasn’t severe enough to be called a one in 100 year event.

Based on these three measurements, it looks like severe rainfall in Dunedin has become less frequent and less intense. And if Tuesday’s flood was caused by Global Warming, then what caused the other floods? If it was the weather that caused the earlier floods, then why would you think that it wasn’t the weather that caused the recent flood?

A very serious problem for crusaders that blame extreme weather on Global warming is that for at least the last 17 years there has been no warming trend of global temperatures. In fact there has been a slight cooling trend. The conclusion is that anything that has happened over the last 17 years can not have been caused by Global Warming (because there has been none). Don’t expect to get credible scientific advice from the Labour Party, Dave Cull or Jinty MacTavish.

Diane Yeldon
Submitted on 2015/06/05 at 10:51 am

Well, I just did a bit of checking and the Resource Management Act was amended in 2004, putting the responsibility fairly and squarely on to local councils to budget and plan for and take responsibility for reasonably anticipated effects of climate change. There’s a guide about what local councils have a legal responsibility to do on the website for the Ministry for the Environment (mfe.govt.nz – local government and climate change).
So Mayor Cull’s contention that central government will or should bail out Dunedin is as fatuous as a similar claim I read in a past Annual Plan document (2011, I think) that central government would (might?) bail the city out if it got into financial strife after committing to the stadium expenditure. (No central government would set such a precedent, rewarding financial irresponsibility on the part of a local body!)
Mayor Cull’s claims that maintenance is up to scratch and that 100-plus-year-old pipes held up as well as could be expected are ridiculous. He is merely asserting that the DCC is not at fault in any way. And trying to offload the responsibility for any climate change effects on to central government when councils have known since 2004 that it was a local government responsibility. Even if you think climate change is a myth, it seems prudent to protect a city against a 1 in a 100 years weather event. I wonder if the DCC can truthfully say they have been doing that.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Please Mayor Daaave, to pasture NOW

Better that than the knackers yard —we have some notion of human rights! But let’s get rid to back paddock. Some natural justice.

Daaave’s opinion piece in today’s ODT is crippling, rustling with financial ineptitudes, and no clothes.

Sadly, his gratuitous fiction is simply No Match for the lavish, colourfully illustrated ODT love fest with Councillor Lee Vandervis, shown up in the Mix magazine spread on Saturday.

The small town of Dunedin was last murderously accosted by Malcolm Farry and Thugby. Here is yet another short man taking the Citizenry OUT: Mr Death Cull.

No-one seriously believes Daaave’s askew bleats given the state of DCC finances. The debt graph following the council’s recent Long Term Plan decisions should be quickly redrawn by independent honest people, and widely publicised.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Soon there will be no-one left capable of paying the rates, or shrinking council debt. Autumn has passed, along with the last fig leaf.

OPINION
Investing in our city necessary to attract the people we require
Dunedin must invest or wither, writes Mayor Daaave Cull. Dunedin’s aspiration is to be one of the world’s great small cities.
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/344498/investing-our-city-necessary-attract-people-we-require

photonz at ODT gives a very fair summation. The tight echo from all round.

—

Before final LTP decisions in May 2015

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC core business: REAL infrastructure

The council has the power to require property owners to fix retaining walls threatening public property but, in the main, this is an information gathering exercise.

### ODT Online Wed, 10 Dec 2014
City’s retaining walls to be checked
By Debbie Porteous
Stability will be to the fore as the Dunedin City Council casts a critical eye over more than 4000 of the city’s retaining walls.
Over the next six months, contractors will be seen around Dunedin measuring and checking the soundness of about 3000 walls supporting roads or land and property next to a road.
Read more

****

FYI Dunedin 24
Pipeline Renewals

This item was published on 04 Dec 2014

Residents may have noticed CCTV vans in Kaikorai Valley. These are part of a project investigating the condition of earthenware wastewater pipes in the area. These pipes make up about 40% of Dunedin’s wastewater network. Around Kaikorai Valley the pipes were largely constructed in the early 1900s and are fast approaching their use-by dates.
As the pipes age, cracks allow groundwater to infiltrate the system which causes flooding after heavy rain. During storms the pipes already operating at full capacity as a result of groundwater infiltration are then overloaded by stormwater. In the north west corner of South Dunedin this type of flooding occurs when sewerage flows infiltrated with groundwater from Kaikorai meet flows from other parts of the city. Along a flat gradient this results in a bottleneck effect.
As they age, there is also increased risk these pipes will collapse and cause blockages.
To address these issues, the DCC is undertaking the CCTV work to investigate upstream pipes and find those needing replacement. Similar filming work has already been done in Andersons Bay resulting in $5 million of wastewater pipe renewals being completed in 2013/14 and 2014/15.
The results of the Kaikorai Valley filming are so far showing pipes in poor condition. It is expected wastewater pipe renewals in the region of $5–7m will take place in the area over the next three years. Tenders for the work in Kaikorai Valley will be advertised in the New Year.
█ http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/andybaypipes

Contact DCC on 03 477 4000.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr