Tag Archives: Stormwater pumping stations

“Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

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.

Listener 11-17 Jun 2016 p22 [20160606_154423] 36 June 2016
[post] Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood

‘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.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

19 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Carisbrook, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Cycle network, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Other, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design

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

Listener 11-17 Jun 2016 p22 [20160606_154423] 3

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]

10 Comments

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

Johnstone review following DCC Infrastructure Services meeting 26.4.16 #SouthDunedinFlood

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCC Reports and Responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By N.P. Johnstone, MIPENZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 May 2016

[ends]

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

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

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

Rain_Madness01 [cartoonstock.com]

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

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

16 Comments

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

Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood

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

DCC publications:

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

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

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

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

Received: 18 May 2016 [full text]

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

By N. P. Johnstone, MIPENZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 Comments

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

“O Oysters, come and walk with us!” #SouthDunedinFlood

Douglas Field Published Mar 31, 2016 | Republished Aug 17, 2016
The walrus and the carpenter

THE TIME HAS COME!!!!
We’re cabbages
And kings!!!!

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin

DCC: Infrastructure report 2 pending —Mudtanks & stormwater drainage #SouthDunedinFlood

Douglas Field Published on Mar 30, 2016 | Updated Jul 30, 2016
busy doin’ nonth’

Comments from Lyndon Weggery:

2016/03/31 at 11:12 am
Newsflash!!! – According to my DCC source the long awaited MudTank report will be tabled on Tuesday 26 April 2016 to the Infrastructure Services Committee. That’s nearly 11 months after the infamous event.

2016/03/31 at 3:34 pm
Elizabeth – aside from our patient waiting for the Mudtank report we are also waiting for any progress on a Council formal resolution dated 30 November 2015 requesting staff to implement a work programme etc to alleviate the flooding dangers to South Dunedin. So far nothing has happened and in the course of a polite discussion with Councillor Aaron Hawkins on Facebook on related matters I have asked him to check on progress. To his credit he has agreed to do so.

● ODT 5.3.16 New contractor for mud tanks
● ODT 25.1.16 April date for report on flooding

Council meeting 30 Nov 2015

Minutes – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 121.8 KB)

Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553.9 KB)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event [report 1]

17
INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE DURING JUNE 2015 FLOOD EVENT

A report from Water and Waste Services provided an overview of the extreme rain event of 3 June 2015, its impacts and the performance of the drainage infrastructure. It focused primarily on the impact of the events that were experienced in South Dunedin, as that had been an area of particular public interest.

The analysis presented in the report was based on a flow balance model that had been developed for the purposes of assessing the impact of pumping station performance. The flow balance model had also been used to assess the relative impacts of the high groundwater levels in South Dunedin that significantly increased the amount of runoff generated by the rainfall.

The rain event significantly exceeded the capacity of the stormwater system in South Dunedin. The post event analysis had identified some opportunities to improve the performance of the existing infrastructure in large scale rain events, but would not prevent serious flooding in a similar future rain event.

Work was already underway to redesign the screens at the Portobello Road pumping station to make it easier to keep them clear during large events and was expected to be completed during the current financial year.

The planned infrastructure improvements would slightly reduce the impact of future flooding. However extensive flooding of low lying areas in large scale rain events or long duration rain events remained highly likely, particularly if the rain event coincided with high groundwater conditions.

The General Manager Infrastructure and Networks and Group Manager Water and Waste commented on various aspects of the report and responded to questions from Councillors.

Councillor Thomson left the meeting from 3.52 pm to 3.55 pm and Councillor Staynes left the meeting from 3.54 pm to 4.35 pm during the course of questions. Councillor Vandervis left the meeting from 4.36 pm to 4.38 pm and Councillor Peat left the meeting at 4.38 pm.

Following questions it was moved (The Mayor/Wilson):

“That the Council:

a) Notes the report on Infrastructure Performance during the June 2015 Flood Event.”

b) Notes the serious implications and consequences of rising ground water levels in parts of Dunedin.

c) That staff investigate and report back on a work programme to address the issues caused by rising ground water levels in South Dunedin and other parts of the city.

d) Notes that the report should include:
i) Possible responses to a range of sea level and climate change scenarios.
ii) Budgetary, infrastructural and community implications of both scenarios and responses.
iii) Catchment wide stormwater systems, ownership and effective management.

e) Notes that Council’s long term aims, as much as possible, are:
i) that the environment of affected parts of Dunedin is improved to an acceptable level.
ii) that no Dunedin citizen, ratepayer or householder is seriously disadvantaged as a result of any measures taken to deal with the challenges of ground water and rising sea levels.”

Councillor Peat returned to the meeting at 4.42 pm.

During discussion the work of staff was acknowledged during the time of the flooding.

Following discussion Motion (a) was put and carried on a division 14:0 with one abstention.
For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Bezett, Calvert, Hall, Hawkins, Lord, MacTavish, Noone, Peat, Staynes, Thomson, Whiley, Wilson, The Mayor
Council minutes – 30 November and 14 December 2015 7
Abstention: Councillor Vandervis, on the grounds that the motion did not identify the major flood causes as he understood them

Motions (b) – (d) were put and carried on a division 13:1 with one abstention.
For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Bezett, Calvert, Hall, Hawkins, Lord, MacTavish, Noone, Peat, Staynes, Thomson, Wilson, The Mayor Against: Councillor Whiley Abstention: Councillor Vandervis

Motion (e) was put and carried on a division 12:2 with one abstention.
For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Bezett, Hall, Hawkins, Lord, MacTavish, Noone, Peat, Staynes, Thomson, Wilson, The Mayor Against: Councillors Calvert, Whiley Abstention: Councillor Vandervis

It was moved (The Mayor/Staynes):
“That the meeting adjourns for ten minutes.”
Motion carried

The meeting adjourned from 5.35 pm to 5.47 pm.
[Item 17 ends]

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 7, 2015
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015
Agenda Item 17 from 1:09:50

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Business, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin