How many years has this taken DCC
It’s still only “temporary” accommodation….
South Dunedin has been waiting for a public library since the time of borough amalgamation.
—
Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Home found for South Dunedin pop up hub
This item was published on 02 May 2017
A home has been found for the South Dunedin pop up community hub. The Dunedin City Council this week signed a two year lease to set up a temporary hub in part of the Cargill Enterprises premises at 199 Hillside Road.
[screenshot – click to enlarge] DCC Webmap – 199 Hillside Rd, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013
Group Manager Arts and Culture Bernie Hawke says, “We are delighted to have a confirmed location for the pop up hub. This is a well known, central location and we look forward to providing a range of services on site for local residents.”
The DCC is leasing about 200sq m, which includes space for community activities, meeting areas, DCC service centre and library activities, and kitchen and toilet facilities. The hub will also provide access to Gig wifi for the South Dunedin community. It is hoped the pop up hub will be open about mid year. As well as providing access to DCC services, the hub will provide an opportunity for the community to have input into the development of the permanent South Dunedin Community Hub. While the opening hours for the pop up hub are still to be confirmed, the hub is expected to be open about 25 hours a week, across five days and including one evening and Saturday morning.
Cargill Enterprises Chief Executive Geoff Kemp says, “Cargills are thrilled to be in a position to accommodate the city’s South D interim hub initiative. “A community centre and library adjoining the main facility will give our 94 staff easy access to the many services planned, particularly the opportunity to explore a wide range of reading material and multimedia. We view the hub as complementing our employer-led numeracy and literacy training programme. Very exciting!”
Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull comments, “The establishment of the pop up hub shows the Council’s commitment to South Dunedin and is a key part of a much wider engagement with the South Dunedin community and agencies working in the area.”
DCC Chief Executive Officer Dr Sue Bidrose says, “When the pop up hub has been established, we will turn our attention to the location and development of the permanent hub. The signing of a lease for the pop up hub is an important step in this process. In addition to the pop up hub development, our Community Development team has been working alongside groups within South Dunedin to look at the social and economic needs and strengths of this community. As part of this, on 18 May we are organising a number of local community-based groups and individuals to meet to see if a collective action plan to support improved social and economic wellbeing can be created within the South Dunedin area.”
as well as (pre-Election)
DESPICABLE DCC / ORC CLIMATE CHANGE MASSAGE
[click to enlarge] DCC Webmap – GREAT DISTANCE except by computer or Segway….
South Dunedin | from King Edward St (red) to Gasworks Museum (blue) via Lorne and Braemar Sts (green) – colour overlays by whatifdunedin.
—
█ DCC doesn’t need Athfield Architects to justify the LONG DURATION need and solution. No disrespect to colleague, the late Ian Athfield —or the current firm (love them heaps).
DCC, DO NOT OVER THINK THIS, FOR CRISSAKES
Give South Dunedin a community facility as was Promised YEARS AGO. Leave the goodie-two-shoes Gasworks Museum lobbyists out of it, or very much to the side. They mean well, but for too long they’ve been praying on the feckless DCC, soaking up Ratepayer dollars with little justification, and they keep wanting more.
COLLECTIVELY, WE HAVE LOCAL SOLUTIONS – WE DON’T NEED TO BE HELD BY THE HAND TO SET UP SOMETHING SO INCREDIBLY SIMPLE AS AN ECONOMICAL WELL-CRAFTED COMMUNITY HUB IN KING EDWARD STREET
How many people is this “out of control” Dunedin City Council wanting to Massage – BEFORE the October Local Body Elections.
VOTE BUYING
The CULL Stench around this is SO DISGUSTING.
—
Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Drop-in sessions start of community conversation on South Dunedin’s future
This item was published on 22 Aug 2016
A series of drop-in information sessions hosted by the Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council early next month are the start of a community conversation around South Dunedin’s future. The sessions will be at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum on Thursday, 1 September and Friday, 2 September.
DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose will be presenting information about what happened in the 2015 flood, how the current stormwater system works, and how the DCC plans to invest and work with the community in the future.
Ms Bidrose said that it was important to plan carefully for South Dunedin’s changing environment. It was also important to take the time to involve the community in the decision making along the way, rather than to just do things on their behalf.
“Addressing the challenges of the future requires the DCC and ORC starting to have conversations with the community about the challenges, and the expectations and options for what can be achieved. The rest of Dunedin’s population needs to be involved as well. There is a great opportunity to turn some of the challenges into opportunities and give confidence for long-term investment in the area. These drop-in sessions are the beginning of the process. The DCC will be actively seeking local people’s thoughts on these issues and working with the ORC on what the long-term responses might be. I’m looking forward to seeing as many people as possible from the South Dunedin area at the sessions.” –Bidrose [employed by ????]
ORC director of stakeholder engagement Caroline Rowe said the drop-in sessions were part of a wider South Dunedin community engagement plan, aimed at developing a conversation with locals and groups about managing the risks associated with the changing environment. Ms Rowe said they follow the recent release of the ORC’s Natural Hazards of South Dunedin report. The [BULLSHIT ORC]technical report pulls together information and analysis gathered over the past seven years on natural hazards facing the area, particularly the increased likelihood of surface flooding associated with rising sea level.[FALSE AND MISLEADING BULLSHIT]
Presentations, with accompanying video, will be at each session and people will have an opportunity to talk individually to staff from both councils. The hour-long sessions will be repeated several times, with Thursday sessions starting at 10am, 11.30am, 1pm, 4.30pm and 7pm. The Friday sessions will start at 10am, 11.30am, and 1pm.
Ongoing engagement planned for the next few weeks also includes briefings for support service agencies and other specific interest groups such as the South Dunedin Business Association, the Otago Chamber of Commerce, and school and early childhood centres.
Contact Sue Bidrose, chief executive DCC on 03 477 4000.
The feedback period runs from Saturday, 20 August until 4pm on Monday, 29 August.
****
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 ODT: South D hub proposal unveiled
The Dunedin City Council is calling for feedback from residents on its preferred option for a library and community hub in South Dunedin before a report is presented to councillors next month. Council services and development general manager Simon Pickford and architect Jon Rennie, of Athfield Architects, presented the council’s preferred option to about 50 people at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum on Saturday morning. Under the $5.25 million proposal, a library would be built in the former BNZ building in King Edward St and the facility linked to the Gasworks Museum through Lorne St. Some facilities, such as a café, would be based at the museum. Mr Pickford said residents had until August 29 to provide feedback to the council on the proposal.
█ For more, enter the terms *south dunedin*, *flood*, *hazard*, *vandervis* (sane) and *cull* (VOTE Cull OUT) in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
ORC stakeholder engagement director Caroline Rowe said the sessions were part of a wider “South Dunedin community engagement plan”.
### ODT Online Tue, 9 Aug 2016 Sessions on natural hazards
By John Gibb
South Dunedin residents will be able to learn more about natural hazards facing the area through drop-in sessions to be held at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum early next month. The Otago Regional Council is organising the September 1 and 2 sessions, in collaboration with the Dunedin City Council. The drop-in session on the first day will run from 1.30pm to 7pm, and on the second day from 10am to 2.30pm.
Last month the ORC released a report titled “Natural Hazards of South Dunedin”. This report consolidated information and analysis gathered over the past seven years on the natural hazards facing the area, particularly the “increased likelihood of surface flooding associated with rising sea level”. Read more
—
W H A T ● R I S K S ?
Answer ……. M I S I N F O R M A T I O N via ORC Hazard Plans and Maps
F I G H T >>> To Protect Your Property Values
“In a report to be tabled at the ORC’s technical committee tomorrow, Ms Rowe said South Dunedin was “an integral part of the wider Dunedin community” and many people and groups had an interest in how its risks would be managed. The report said the ORC also planned several other communication activities over the hazards plan, this month and next.” –ODT
—
█ ORC : Combined Council Agenda 10 August – Public.pdf
● Go to Agenda Item 5 (pp 34-35) 2016/0988 South Dunedin Community Engagement Report
The report outlines the approach management is taking to the community engagement as was verbally communicated at the Technical Committee meeting held on 20 July 2016 where Council received the report entitled “The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin” and made the decision to “endorse further community and stakeholder engagement within a timely manner”.
Stormwater is rain or snow runoff that does not soak into the soil.
When an area is developed, stormwater generally increases due to runoff from impermeable surfaces (eg roofs, roads, carparks, or compacted soil). It flows naturally from higher to lower ground, and ultimately discharges into natural watercourses such as wetlands, creeks, rivers or the sea. Land development results in the creation of both private and public stormwater systems, which collect and transfer stormwater to lower ground more efficiently. The public stormwater system is a network of drains, gutters, pipes, mud tanks, detention ponds, stormwater reserves and other associated infrastructure.
—
At other threads (here and here), contributor JimmyJones has cited the South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) to draw attention to the actual or perceived state of the stormwater pipes at South Dunedin. He believes the type of pipeways and the deteriorating condition of the pipes contributed to the June 2015 South Dunedin “flood event”, and will require budgeted upgrade.
But is the South Dunedin ICMP correct about the underground pipes and their condition?
Largely, the ICMP was a desktop assessment carried out by consultants for the Dunedin 3 Waters Strategy. Namely, Opus International Consultants and URS New Zealand (now trading as Aecom) in association with Dunedin City Council.
DCC says ICMPs are used for planning and management of the stormwater system. For each stormwater management area, or catchment, issues are identified and prioritised, and solutions are identified and implemented. The ICMPs are mainly in the metropolitan Dunedin area (including Mosgiel and Port Chalmers). They inform investigation and planning decisions and help focus council priorities for future operational and capital works. Implementing the ICMPs is also a key requirement of DCC consents to discharge stormwater into the coastal marine area. Further information is available on the Stormwater monitoring page, see also the Stormwater responsibilities page.
—
The Pipes at South Dunedin
Local water and drainage experts familiar with the stormwater system say:
Received.
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 at 10:52 a.m.
The South Dunedin ICMP report has been read, it’s “ok”. But it’s also described as “…glossy and costly for the consultant(s). Basically, such reports tell the Council stuff they neither read nor understand, but would have mostly been trivial knowledge (where accurate)” to local experts familiar with the design and day-to-day workings of the stormwater system.
“You can believe any part of [the ICMP] or not. It’s a desktop study, which speculates on pipe condition. Robinson and Hendry have read it and obviously don’t agree. Pipes last for an eternity with limited maintenance (other than blockage removal) provided there isn’t ground movement or corrosion (these pipes are concrete).”
—
Listener, June 11-17 2016, pp22-29 (not yet available online):
[excerpt —click to enlarge]
—
ODT 13.2.16
“Mr Hendry believed South Dunedin’s infrastructure, which he spent six years helping build as a surveyor in the 1960s, would have been good enough to prevent much of the damage had it been properly maintained. […] My view is that these people out here, a lot of them have got nothing. Now they have got a hell of lot less. It’s not fair on them. Nobody’s come out and said ‘we were wrong. Something wasn’t done right’.”
█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
1. The claim of “factual errors” is surely able to be substantiated or thrown out by a suitably qualified (named) EXTERNAL peer reviewer acceptable to DCC and engineer Neil Johnstone. The ‘matter of degree’ (serious ?) is a matter for the peer reviewer to comment on. As are issues of professional competencies —which only an independent and transparent peer reviewer with nationally recognised engineering expertise can deal to. Not an in-house operational.
2. Neil Johnstone has issued three reviews, two of these deal to DCC’s formal reports on the June 2015 South Dunedin “flood event”, dated 30 Nov 2015 and 26 Apr 2016 respectively; and the third deals to comments (video recorded by Ch39 and published at DCC’s Youtube channel) during the DCC Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 26 April 2016. The reviews are published at this website – enter the term *johnstone* in the search box at right.
3. Neil Johnstone has requested that factual errors noted by DCC be made discoverable. DCC appears to be side-stepping qualification and quantification of its verbal assertions every which way.
4. It is highly likely that no expert external peer reviews exist or they would have been made public by now. More than a year after the “flood event”, we wait.
5. A peer review(s) is not something to hide. Why is DCC doing secret squirrel when challenged to substantiate its earlier comments (publicly stated on more than one occasion, recorded by mainstream media – for example, by Mayor Cull and Transportation’s Ian McCabe, who later resigned) – that external peer reviews of its formal reports did happen. After the fact is a little squiffy, if DCC is writing them now.
“Technical qualifications and experience with stormwater infrastructure design and management” are not provided. Rhetorical.
Holes being dug, an epitaph.
█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
M E M O R Y • P R O B L E M S • C A N • H A P P E N • A T • A N Y • A G E
keep managed retreat and climate change out of local body politics
ODT 16.6.16 (page 12) —[click to enlarge]
█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
S o u t h • D u n e d i n • F l o o d
Truth and decency are owed to the flood affected people of South Dunedin.
Interpretations post flood and in the months since —appear without technical evidence, making false claim to Climate Change (the ‘end is nigh’ if only to avoid local government liability), in contradiction to data and analysis provided by local engineers, ORC, MetService and former council staff, amongst others.
‘Our leader’ is in a self-flagellating hole —prepared to say anything to attract votes in the October local body elections. Serious ? Genuine ?
We owe it to ourselves.
The Mayor of Dunedin should not get a third term.
‘Leadership’ has involved neglect of core council business – specifically, maintenance of key infrastructure network and services.
This has done too much damage: tens of millions of dollars of damage at South Dunedin. A massive hit sustained by constituents and insurers. Yet today ‘the administration’ rattles and unsettles the community it has comprehensively failed, with latest wanton burble at the opinion pages of the Otago Daily Times.
The Mayor should immediately resign his office at Dunedin City Council.
Bullshit from the Mayor and underlings is UNACCEPTABLE.
South Dunedin has a stormwater system that when properly maintained is well able to take rainstorms equivalent to that experienced a year ago.
Systems can always be improved but the current stormwater system is not all that old and has been designed with sufficient control mechanisms and stopgaps.
The Administration failed (for years) to deliver on budget, contracts, drain and mudtank maintenance; failed to check pump performance and screens at pumping stations during the June 2015 storm event; as staffing changed, failed to set in place procedures for weather events; failed to understand Civil Defence requirements for the most densely settled suburb of Dunedin; failed to adequately consider storm run-off from surrounding hill areas and the increase of impermeable surfaces as The Flat developed; failed to release stormwater to the ocean, etc etc……. but ultimately FAILED to put proper thought and planning to AVOIDANCE of Endangerment to the lives, health and livelihoods of thousands of South Dunedin residents.
Seriously. That’s the sort of ‘care and concern’ the gold-chained opinion-writer represents at ODT today. Further, there are Absolutely No Grounds to grease up the loophole backside of the technically inexpert Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
The Listener article raises the issue of “mismanagement” during the rains of early June 2015. The liability rests at council doors.
That is a hammering public fact.
█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
R E S O N A T E S
Get the latest issue of New Zealand Listener (pp 22-29), more soon….
█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
*Image: phoneshot at a diner by whatifdunedin [click to enlarge]
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]
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.
█ 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.
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
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 →
LOUD Applause for Cr Andrew Whiley —whom Cr Hawkins thought he could sting with a little pop gun that blows bubbles. Greenie Hawkins is particularly keen was it(?) to stand in Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers Ward at the next election, if that is his game in moving to Port Chalmers recently.
### ODT Online Tue, 8 Mar 2016 South Dunedin needs some love from city
By Andrew Whiley [Councillor]
OPINION It is amazing how the future of South Dunedin has become such a political issue since the flood of June 3, 2015. […] It is a great community, with a vital shopping area, wonderful schools and proud citizens. It is a valuable area that just needs attention with the appropriate investment in services and maintenance. In my opinion, the flood of June 3 was exacerbated by the poor maintenance of the mud tanks and the issues around the Portobello Rd pumping station. The mud tank report has yet to come to the council but any resident in the area will tell you there was an issue with maintenance. Read more
Remember that in advance of the two VERY LATE infrastructure performance reports was the DCC’s media statement that its lawyers and insurers had determined that the city council had no liability in connection with the [majorly devastating] flood event at South Dunedin on and about 3 June 2015.
█ 27.11.15 ODT: Council ‘not liable for flood damage’
“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, Mrs Stokes said.”
******Failed LGOIMA Request lodged by Elizabeth Kerr
From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 9:24 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham; DCC LGOIMA Information Request
Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420
Further to my use of the online form at DCC website:
Dear Sandy
LGOIMA Request – South Dunedin mudtanks and stormwater drains
Reference No. 531420
I request the following information:
1. Can Dunedin City Council tell me if all mudtanks and stormwater drains in the South Dunedin catchment have been physically cleared in the time elapsed since the 3 June 2015 flood?
2. How many times have these mudtanks and stormwater drains been checked and cleared since the 3 June 2015 flood?
3. Which contractor / subcontractor has been responsible for this monitoring and clearance work since the 3 June 2015 flood?
4. Who (name and staff position) at Dunedin City Council has been directly responsible for checking the contractor / subcontractor work since the 3 June 2015 flood?
5. Are there any items of stormwater infrastructure in the South Dunedin catchment that are known to be blocked or cannot be cleared (if for any reason), since the 3 June 2015 flood?
I look forward to your reply in digital format by email.
Kind regards, Elizabeth
—
Response
From: Kristy Rusher
Date: 26/01/2016 8:36 am (GMT+12:00)
To: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham, DCC LGOIMA Information Request
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420
Hi Elizabeth,
Thank you for your LGOIMA request. I have forwarded your questions to our Group Manager, Transport [Ian McCabe -Eds] for a response. As you are aware, a decision on your request will be made within 20 working days.
Regards,
Kristy Rusher
Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council
—
Notice of Extension 1
From: Kristy Rusher
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 5:47 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA request – Mudtanks number: 531420
Hi Elizabeth,
The DCC is extending your request for information for 5 working days as meeting the time limits for the original request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Council (section 14(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).
Regards,
Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council
—
Notice of Extension 2
——– Original message ——–
From: Kristy Rusher
Date: 02/03/2016 8:29 am (GMT+12:00)
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Re: LGOIMA request – Mudtanks number: 531420
Hi Elizabeth,
The DCC is currently extending your information request for a further 15 working days (section 14(1)(a) LGOIMA 87). This is because meeting the timeframes would unreasonably interfere with organisational priorities.
Regards,
Kristy
Sent from my iPhone
—
REQUEST DECLINED
From: Kristy Rusher
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2016 8:21 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Information Request – Mudtanks.
Dear Elizabeth,
Your information request concerning mudtanks in the South Dunedin area has been declined, as this information will soon become publicly available in a report to Council in coming months (section 17(d) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).
As we have declined your request, we are required to advise you that you may have this decision reviewed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may be reached on the following contact details:
Email: info @ombudsman.parliament.nz
Free phone: [numbers deleted -Eds]
Regards,
Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council
While the above correspondence was in play the following letter to the editor by John Evans (ODT 17.2.16) received reply from Mr Ian McCabe. Hmm.
And further, Ms Ruth Stokes declared (ODT 5.3.16) that CityCare had been awarded the contract to clear South Dunedin mudtanks:
New contractor for mud tanks
The companies responsible for keeping South Dunedin’s mud tanks clean, and stamping new markings on the city’s cycleways, are set to lose $15 million worth of contracts with the Dunedin City Council. The decisions were confirmed yesterday, as it was also announced City Care – a Christchurch City Council-owned company already working in Dunedin – would clean all 1500 mud tanks in South Dunedin over the next month. Read more
Semi-retired consulting engineer Neil Johnstone was invited to speak to his independent review of the DCC report, Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event (30 Nov 2015), at Monday night’s public meeting held in South Dunedin.
Large numbers of local householders and business people, together with news media, filled Nations Church Auditorium at 334 King Edward Street, to examine why South Dunedin “flooded” on 3 June of last year.
Dunedin City Council personnel who didn’t bother to show up included Mayor Cull, CE Bidrose and members of the Executive Leadership Team (RLT). How many elected council representatives turned up —one, Cr Mike Lord (the question was nearly rhetorical although a couple of councillors had forwarded their apologies).
A fortnight ago Mr Johnstone sent a copy of his review to DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose. Notably, it took until the day of the public meeting for Ms Bidrose to acknowledge receipt and respond to the review by letter —DCC made sure to effect personal delivery to Mr Johnson’s home in Macandrew Bay, followed by an electronic copy some time later.
Copies of the review were circulated at the public meeting —these were in some demand!
Following the close of meeting, the reviewer kindly supplied What if? Dunedin with copy for publication.
—
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.
An Independent Review if DCC Report
‘Infrastructure Performance during the June 2015 Flood Event’
1. Having lived most of my life in Dunedin and its environs (though never in South Dunedin), and having had a long career in natural hazard identification and mitigation, I am concerned with the standard of understanding and reporting of current natural hazard issues by our local Councils and, to a lesser extent by Government Agencies. I spent many years as Investigations Engineer at the Otago Catchment Board from 1986, and held a similar position at the Otago Regional Council until 2002. During those years I analysed numerous recent and historic flood events; none was more straightforward than the South Dunedin flood event of June 2015, and many were far more complicated. Now semi-retired, I still operate my own small consultancy.
2. In my opinion the DCC Report might best have been produced by independent experts, or – at the very least – have been subject to rigorous expert peer review. Current “victims” of the in-house reporting approach appear to include residents of South Dunedin who were affected by the June 2015 flood, and the wider population of the city and beyond who have been presented with information of questionable validity.
3. I have no personal interest in the South Dunedin area, but do jointly own a property elsewhere in Dunedin City. This paper only peer reviews DCC’s Report Infrastructure Performance During the June 2015 [Flood] Event. Further reviews of other hazard reports are planned. The reader can access online both DCC’s Report on the June 2015 flood event (referred herein to as “the DCC Report”) and ORC’s report Coastal Otago Flood Event, 3 June 2015 (referred herein to as “the ORC Report”). The latter is frequently referenced in the DCC Report.
4. The DCC Report is lacking in detail and thoroughness. It is short, but neither concise nor accurate, in my view. No reason is given why such a simplistic document took virtually six months to produce. By contrast, an earlier DCC report on the South Dunedin flood of 9 March 1968 took about a week to prepare following that event. My review is intended to provide alternative and more plausible explanations for the flooding experienced in June to those given in the DCC Report and accepted and promoted by some Councillors. I have used almost exclusively data provided by ORC and DCC publications. My approach is reasonably “broad-brushed”, but to a level of accuracy I believe limited only by the quality of data available.
5. Specifically, the DCC Report lacks objectivity in that it:
A. exaggerates the historical significance of the June 2015 rainfall,
B. repeatedly (and contrary to very clear evidence) identifies high groundwater levels as a prime cause of the flooding,
C. fails to discuss why staff did not (apparently) continuously attempt clearance of pumping station screens,
D. fails to adequately address the impacts on total runoff volume of reduced ground surface permeability due to land use change,
E. promotes a simplistic flow volume model that contains a key erroneous assumption,
F. fails to quantify ingress of “foreign” water from other sub-catchments, especially St Clair,
G. refers only briefly to the Shore St (Tainui) sub-catchment, and then fails to note that flooding was much less significant there than in the South Dunedin catchment or to explain the reason why,
H. defends the maintenance performance of mudtanks without providing any supporting evidence.
6. With respect to the above lettered points:
Point A: DCC has persistently exaggerated the significance of recent rainfall in the city. Initial claims regarding the June rainfall had it as a 150-year event, and (with respect to a disadvantaged peninsula property owner) reportedly claimed rainfall intensities increasing by 82% as a result of climate change. Now the June [flood] is stated in the Report to be a 63 year event. Such claims are all substantially in error. Rainfall in the March 1968 event is conceded in the DCC Report to be higher than in June 2015, yet the earlier event is omitted from consideration of flood frequency. Inclusion of the 1968 rainfall must substantially reduce the assessed return period of the 2015 rainfall.
From: Elizabeth Kerr Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 9:50 a.m. To: Kristy Rusher Cc: Elizabeth Kerr; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Editor @odt.co.nz Subject: Re: LGOIMA request – Mudtanks number: 531420
Dear Kristy
The extensions are clearly becoming an unnecessary problem.
I will be in touch again on this matter within 48 hours.
Regards
Elizabeth Kerr
Sent from my smartphone network
——– Original message ——– From: Kristy Rusher Date: 02/03/2016 8:29 am (GMT+12:00) To: Elizabeth Kerr Subject: Re: LGOIMA request – Mudtanks number: 531420
Hi Elizabeth,
The DCC is currently extending your information request for a further 15 working days (section 14(1)(a) LGOIMA 87). This is because meeting the timeframes would unreasonably interfere with organisational priorities.
Regards,
Kristy
Sent from my iPhone
On 23/02/2016, at 5:46 PM, “Kristy Rusher” wrote:
Hi Elizabeth,
The DCC is extending your request for information for 5 working days as meeting the time limits for the original request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Council (section 14(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).
Regards,
Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council
[my emphasis in Kristy’s email messages]
—
DCC forwarded the following request to new group manager transport Ian McCabe, for reply:
From: Elizabeth Kerr Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 9:24 p.m. To: Sandy Graham; DCC LGOIMA Information Request Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420
Further to my use of the online form at DCC website:
Dear Sandy
LGOIMA Request – South Dunedin mudtanks and stormwater drains
Reference No. 531420
I request the following information:
1. Can Dunedin City Council tell me if all mudtanks and stormwater drains in the South Dunedin catchment have been physically cleared in the time elapsed since the 3 June 2015 flood?
2. How many times have these mudtanks and stormwater drains been checked and cleared since the 3 June 2015 flood?
3. Which contractor / subcontractor has been responsible for this monitoring and clearance work since the 3 June 2015 flood?
4. Who (name and staff position) at Dunedin City Council has been directly responsible for checking the contractor / subcontractor work since the 3 June 2015 flood?
5. Are there any items of stormwater infrastructure in the South Dunedin catchment that are known to be blocked or cannot be cleared (if for any reason), since the 3 June 2015 flood?
I look forward to your reply in digital format by email.
EXTENSIONS
An agency may extend the maximum time limit for transferring a request or making a decision and communicating it to you, if:
• your request is for, or requires a search through, a large quantity of information and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the agency’s operations; or
• consultations needed to make a decision on your request mean than a proper response cannot be made within the original time limit.
The extension must be for a reasonable period of time in the circumstances.
The agency must notify you of the extension within 20 working days after the day it received your request. The notice must:
• specify the period of the extension;
• give the reasons for the extension; and ● state that you have the right to complain to an Ombudsman about the extension.
While more than one extension may be made within the original 20 working days (if necessary), no further extensions may be made once the original 20 working day maximum time limit has passed.
Source: Making official information requests: A guide for requesters Download PDF 829 KB | Download DOC 654 KB
—
█ PUBLIC MEETING – SOUTH DUNEDIN FLOOD
South Dunedin MP Clare Curran is convening a public meeting on Monday 7 March at 6:00 p.m. in the Nations Church Auditorium, 334 King Edward Street, to look at why South Dunedin “flooded” on 3 June last year. All Welcome.
Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015 Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding
Video courtesy One News
From: Kristy Rusher Sent: Sunday, 21 February 2016 9:59 p.m. To: Elizabeth Kerr Subject: FW: Local Government Official Information request – 531354
Hi Elizabeth,
In response to the information request – 531354, I advise the DCC did not arrange a formal external peer review of the report you refer to. However the report and modelling was reviewed internally.
[site moderator’s emphasis]
After this report was made public it was scrutinised by external experts (Bruce Hendry and Trevor Williams) who had previously commented critically on the Council’s public statements. Feedback from these individuals was that the report was thorough and the numbers and analysis stood up to scrutiny.
Therefore we are unable to provide you with a peer review in digital format on the basis that the information you have requested does not exist (section 17(e) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).
As we have declined to provide information that you have requested, you are advised that you may request that the Ombudsman review our decision. The contact details for the Ombudsman are available at this webpage: http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
Regards, Kristy Rusher
Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council
—
The Official Information Form at the DCC website was used to lodge my request, however this removes all document formatting – therefore, and as an official file record, the request was also forwarded by email:
From: Elizabeth Kerr Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 12:23 p.m. To: Sandy Graham Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531354
Dear Sandy
LGOIMA Request – June 2015 Dunedin Flood
Reference No. 531354
“Mr McCabe told the Otago Daily Times the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was “robust”, including an external peer review of its findings.”
I note the earlier council report, tabled at the full council meeting on 30 November 2015 (I attended this meeting):
1. Was the flood report of 30/11/15 peer reviewed?
2. What was the name(s) of the peer reviewer(s) and their professional accreditation and or relevant work experience?
3. Is the peer review(s) available for public scrutiny, and if so I request a copy in digital format by email.
I look forward to your reply.
Kind regards, Elizabeth
—
I was informed in person, in January, that the Water and Waste Services department report, ‘Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event’, tabled at the full council meeting on 30.11.15, had been “peer reviewed” and the time taken for review was cause for delay of the report’s release.
We now learn an “internal review” happened at the council, with some external scrutiny. In considerable doubt, since DCC does not provide the evidence in its official response (21.2.16), is the claim that “Feedback from these individuals was that the report was thorough and the numbers and analysis stood up to scrutiny.”
An internal review is a long way short of an independent peer review – peer reviews are typically formally briefed as to scope etc with binding agreement of the parties.
Commonly, in New Zealand, the following is used as a guide to scoping peer review processes:
How does the ‘internal review’ stand against the news story,
Flooding: lack of maintenance blamed (ODT 13.2.16) —where Bruce Hendry is cited: “A man who helped build South Dunedin’s drainage network says a lack of maintenance exacerbated problems caused by last year’s record-breaking flood. […] “Eight months after what has probably been the biggest and most expensive disaster in Dunedin since the 1929 floods, answers relating to the future and safety of those most affected, particularly residents of South Dunedin, have not been given,” he said in the report.” What report? DCC fails to produce it.
What will happen in April with the release of the report from the DCC’s Transport department on the performance of drains and mudtanks during the flood, and which in recent times have been subject to poor maintenance and lack of upgrade?
Bruce Hendry (81) wrote a report on last June’s flooding after becoming fed up with the lack of answers from the Dunedin City Council.
### ODT Online Sat, 13 Feb 2016 Flooding: lack of maintenance blamed
By Vaughan Elder
A man who helped build South Dunedin’s drainage network says a lack of maintenance exacerbated problems caused by last year’s record-breaking flood. […] “Eight months after what has probably been the biggest and most expensive disaster in Dunedin since the 1929 floods, answers relating to the future and safety of those most affected, particularly residents of South Dunedin, have not been given,” he said in the report. Read more
From: Elizabeth Kerr Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 12:23 p.m. To: Sandy Graham Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531354
Dear Sandy
LGOIMA Request – June 2015 Dunedin Flood
Reference No. 531354
“Mr McCabe told the Otago Daily Times the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was “robust”, including an external peer review of its findings.”
I note the earlier council report, tabled at the full council meeting on 30 November 2015 (I attended this meeting):
Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553 KB) Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event
From: Elizabeth Kerr Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 9:24 p.m. To: Sandy Graham; DCC LGOIMA Information Request Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420
Further to my use of the online form at DCC website:
Dear Sandy
LGOIMA Request – South Dunedin mudtanks and stormwater drains
Reference No. 531420
I request the following information:
1. Can Dunedin City Council tell me if all mudtanks and stormwater drains in the South Dunedin catchment have been physically cleared in the time elapsed since the 3 June 2015 flood?
2. How many times have these mudtanks and stormwater drains been checked and cleared since the 3 June 2015 flood?
3. Which contractor / subcontractor has been responsible for this monitoring and clearance work since the 3 June 2015 flood?
4. Who (name and staff position) at Dunedin City Council has been directly responsible for checking the contractor / subcontractor work since the 3 June 2015 flood?
5. Are there any items of stormwater infrastructure in the South Dunedin catchment that are known to be blocked or cannot be cleared (if for any reason), since the 3 June 2015 flood?
I look forward to your reply in digital format by email.
Kind regards, Elizabeth
Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015 Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding
Video courtesy One News.
Received from Lyndon Weggery
Monday, 25 January 2016 6:13 p.m.
█ Message: I did comprehensive research at the Library this afternoon and these are my findings. Councillors have clearly dropped the Ball!!!
—
From: Lyndon Weggery To: Jinty MacTavish CC: Andrew Noone Subject: South Dunedin Flooding: ICMPs Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:10:14 +1300
Dear Jinty,
You will be aware of the widespread concern that despite the Mayor’s opinion the stormwater network infrastructure did play a significant part in the flooding of 3 June 2015. I would tend to agree with that opinion because a close study of the South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) attached to the 3 Waters Strategy conveys the same impression. The question I have asked myself is this: were Councillors aware of the potential problems before last year’s extreme weather event and could any of you have done more to check that South Dunedin ICMP recommendations were being followed through faithfully by staff with adequate funding by Council?
You will recall being part of the Infrastructure Services Committee that formally endorsed the 3 Waters Strategy in 2010 along with the 10 ICMPs that were attached. On 29 November 2011 I note from the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee in regard to Agenda item 6 (3 Waters Strategy Project – use of Integrated Catchment Management Plans) that you personally seconded a motion by former Councillor Syd Brown:
1. That it be noted that 11 stormwater ICMPs had been developed covering Dunedin’s urban-based reticulated stormwater catchments (including Mosgiel)
2. “that the approach proposed regarding the use and management of the information contained within the ICMPs be endorsed”
Motion carried
You may recall from the Staff Report prepared by Tracey Willmott that part of the approach that you seconded to be endorsed was “From an investment perspective – the ICMPs are a tool used to inform and justify the capital and operational investments made by WWS. They propose a series of recommendations over the short, medium and long term and suggest a costed and prioritised programme of work for each catchment comprising of: capital work options, planning options, operation and maintenance tasks or further study.”
So my question is why didn’t you (or any one of your colleagues) think to follow this up by using your right to put this important matter on future Agendas for a review? It is sad that a close inspection of subsequent minutes show no Councillor using the “Notification of Agenda Items for consideration by the Chair” option to formally check on progress with ICMP implementation and particularly the South Dunedin Catchment.
To be fair to Staff the next (and only time) this matter came up on the Agenda was 12 June 2012 under Agenda [item] 4 Stormwater Quality Update. Although this Report majored on quality discharge there were bold statements made eg “we will resolve all known cross connections between the foul and stormwater networks by 2015 etc” and particularly in the Conclusion – “Council has also committed significant funds to ensure that its strategic stormwater management objectives are met and is making good progress with implementation of these Plan”.
So in the light of these promises and the fact that a search of subsequent minutes of the ISC to date show no mention of this issue why wasn’t this most important issue followed up by you and your fellow councillors on the Infrastructure Services Committee?
Lyndon Weggery
[ends]
—
[The above email has been lightly moderated for style consistency.]
The chair of Infrastructure Services Committee is Cr Kate Wilson. Cr Jinty MacTavish chairs the Community and Environment Committee. Cr Andrew Noone is the past chair of ISC, and currently chairs the Hearings Committee.
Lyndon is wrong. The 3 June 2015 Dunedin Flood was NOT an extreme weather event. This was easily confirmed by recognised experts in their fields including a hydrologist (hydrologists use a variety of computational, hydrological and scientific modelling techniques in the research, development and maintenance of safe and sustainable domestic or natural water management strategies) and a meteorologist (meteorologists predict the weather and study the causes of particular weather conditions using information obtained from the land, sea and upper atmosphere; they use computerised and mathematical models to make short and long-range forecasts concerning weather and climate patterns). Historical records have also been referenced to expose the Mayor of Dunedin’s erroneous claim that this was an extreme weather event.
DCC Webmap – 199 Hillside Rd, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013 
![ORC Report 4.8.16 South Dunedin Engagement Plan [ID- A924516]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/orc-report-4-8-16-south-dunedin-engagement-plan-id-a924516.jpg)
![Listener 11-17 Jun 2016 p22 [20160606_154423] 3](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/listener-11-17-jun-2016-p22-20160606_154423-3.jpg)
![Rain_Madness01 [cartoonstock.com]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/rain_madness01-cartoonstock-com.jpg)
![King Edward St - South Dunedin Flood June 2015 [Stuff.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/king-edward-st-south-dunedin-flood-june-2015-stuff-co-nz.jpg)
![South Dunedin flood June 2015 [stuff.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/south-dunedin-flood-june-2015-stuff-co-nz.jpg)
What if? Dunedin... 