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.
I would be interested to know how much money is in the development contribution fund? How much was collected this year? Do developers only give money or is land and other forms of development contribution allowed? How is the contribution fund dispersed?
I would like to know how much maintenance on the existing system is carried out – other than a contractor clearing leaves out of the sumps and painting a green dot. The pipes connecting the sumps to the stormwater system need to be cleaned out. Especially near the beach where they are blocked with sand.
I must be missing something here. The costs seem to be greater than the potential damage in most cases. If so, why don’t we just let nature do it’s thing and clean up/fix up afterwards.
Can someone explain for me please.
Are they talking about private property damage from flooding? The council knowing about the risk and doing nothing about it would certainly be actionable by those affected, or their insurers.
The schematic doesn’t say if it’s private or public property damage. It just says Potential Damage with a figure. In most cases, that figure is less than their proposed fix. is it really Council’s responsibility to prevent my property from flooding if I’m in a known, identified flood-prone area? And could the doing something be as simple as telling property owners, you are in a flood-prone area, your risk, insure? The data are available on KCDC’s GIS mapping tools,
I am genuinely confused by this. Is Council also responsible it an identified fault causes damage to my property? Or if a strong gust takes down trees and causes damage when I’m in a known high wind area? Aren’t we asking a lot of Council if so, or more correctly a lot of our fellow ratepayers, like a community insurance paid through rates but not risk-weighted.