Experts slam government's hands-off approach to flood risk management

Tuesday, 11 April 2017

Several catastrophic floods in quick succession have put the government in the firing line over its inaction on measures to help protect towns and cities from inundation.

Hundreds of Edgecumbe residents remain unable to return home after the Rangitaiki River burst through stopbanks on Thursday, its muddy waters gushing through hundreds of homes and properties - with some houses expected to be condemned.

The flood was one of several to devastate parts of Bay of Plenty in recent years, and came less than a month after floodwaters swept through Whanganui, Northland, Coromandel and Auckland. 

The repeat incidents have prompted questions about why, despite years of reviews and work by officials, the government's failed to come up with national guidance or standards on flood-prevention measures - instead leaving councils and communities to create their own plans.

**READ MORE

* Schools close ahead of Cyclone Cook

* More residents to return home

* Edgecumbe stopbank may not hold

* Edgecumbe and Bay of Plenty have shaky, flood-prone histories

* What is a 'one in 500 year flood'?**

'This area needs national leadership,' says Auckland University associate professor Dr Asaad Shamseldin, an expert in hydrology and water engineering.

'For earthquakes, there is actually national guidance about how to cater for earthquakes in the design of buildings, but when you come to flooding, first of all, New Zealand does not have national standards about how to even estimate floods; how to design stopbanks, there is no national standard at all, or there is no national guidance documents at all.'

A review of the government's role in flood risk management was launched after two major floods in 2004 badly affected Manawatu-Whanganui and Bay of Plenty.

The review's report, four years later, said the government should be more hands-on about risk mitigation, instead of leaving the issue to councils before helping with the response and clean-up.

'In the absence of national guidance, local government fulfils its roles and discharges its responsibilities in response to local priorities. This is appropriate for managing local risk, but managing and reducing the flood risk to New Zealand is a different goal,' the review panel said.

Nine years on, the Ministry for the Environment is now in the 'early stages' of work on a 'national direction for natural hazards' - but again, it expects councils to take the lead.

'The purpose of this national direction is to strengthen the requirements and responsibilities on councils to ensure risks from natural hazards are proactively managed,' a spokeswoman says.

The work follows changes to the Resource Management Act, which passed through Parliament last week, under which natural hazards are now listed as 'a matter of national importance'.

The spokeswoman added that ministry will not have a role in reviewing Edgecumbe's stopbanks, which failed against Thursday's flood; that, too, will be a task for Bay of Plenty Regional Council and local civil defence, not the government.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

Last week's flood was deja vu for Edgecumbe residents - a reminder of July 2004, when the Rangitaiki breached stopbanks and swamped the town, forcing 3200 people from their homes and causing $17.6 million in damage, before further floods in 2010 and 2011.

Bay of Plenty Regional Council says the town's stopbanks were upgraded after the 2004 event, to stand up to a one in 100 year flood. It described last week's flood as a one in 500 year event, although assessments were ongoing.

The council declined to comment on whether the government should take more leadership of flood preparations.

Water NZ, a group of experts, says 'a greater degree of responsibility and involvement' is required from government on flood risk mitigation.

In a 2014 policy report, it said many communities facing flood risks were 'constrained in terms of knowledge and skills availability, [and] the affordability of flood management techniques', and suggested a national infrastructure fund could help councils implement flood risk strategies.

That's a concern shared by Shamseldin and Professor Bruce Glavovic, the EQC Chair in natural hazards planning at Massey University.

'If you're in a small community in a remote area of the country, you're less likely to have the capability to deal with some of these complex, technical issues. It's also probably going to be difficult to afford not only the advice, but some of the measures that might need to be implemented,' Glavovic says.

He's disappointed the government has dragged its feet on flood risk mitigation since 2004.

'For a series of reasons, over the last 10 to 12 years, government has not produced that clear guidance and this has become very problematic.'

​Glavovic says the government's fervency for new housing must be complemented with a focus on future-proofing against climate change.

It should be be 'very cautious about opening up new development in at-risk places' - while living on the coast might be desirable now, rising seas may force residents from their homes in future.

'There will come a point where increasing the height of the stopbank or protective wall is going to become unaffordable and inappropriate,' Glavovic says.

Shamseldin agrees: rather than keeping floods away from people, he says, more consideration must be given to keeping people away from floods.

'We have to explore all options: one option will be making your stopbanks bigger … maybe raising the floor level (of houses), or maybe you could relocate some parts of the city. These are all options which could be debated, and then you work out which one people will accept, politicians will accept, and which one can be afforded.

'Consideration should be given to national guidance for the whole country … It needs a more comprehensive approach than just pointing the finger at Bay of Plenty.'