This is the reply to an e-mail that we sent Cr James Cootes at his invitation on how the problem of street and watercourse flooding in Waikanae (and elsewhere) every time there is a significant deluge is being addressed.
As I am sure you are aware the physical works to address the issues are in the vicinity of $246 million+
What we are asking is, do you want us to address these issues over the 60 years as previously planned or would you prefer us to address them over a 45 year period? 60 years = “old approach” and 45 years = “new approach” as you’ve referred to.
There is a programmed schedule of works with a site specific hierarchy to address the $246 million worth of works. In some instances works have to be done downstream before we can resolve a particular issues upstream as the Act requires us to not make changes that have an adverse effect to properties downstream. E.g.: We could put in a larger culvert that solves flooding on a particular property but then shifts that issue further downstream flooding 2 or 3 other properties. Hence why we are not allowed to do that.
I’m assuming there would also be a schedule of upgrades and renewals budgeted over the 20 years and that also there would be a mixture of plastic, concrete and asbestos pipes across the district included in that.
With regards to the significant development at Maypole (and others), two areas that KCDC have led the way a bit is in new developments requiring rain water tanks, grey water systems and to have hydraulic neutrality. This helps alleviate the pressure from new developments. As you’re also aware Development Contributions also assist and I have raised the question that the DC contribution is apportioned correctly and was given the assurance that we have it at the right level of contribution.