Showing posts with label liability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liability. Show all posts

Tuesday 13 April 2021

Berejiklian Coalition Government washing its hands of any responsibility for the past 74 years of urban development on NSW floodplains?


Macleay River flooding from the air
IMAGE: Macleay Argus, 21 March 2021













In all but ruling out largescale buybacks of housing on NSW floodplains, a cynical Berejiklian Coalition Government is obviously feeling safely protected by the 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act s2.28 liability exemption clause.


As well reassured there will be no blowback on local government due to protections for councils and staff inserted by a predecessor, the Fahey Coalition Government, in the 1993 NSW Local Government Act s731-s733 liability exemption clauses covering flooding and bushfires. Later helpfully reinforced by another predecessor the Keneally Labor Government in 2011, to cover indemnity against lack of action or planning decisions taken that were known to increase risks of climate change impacts.


In between these two pieces of legislation, the Carr Labor Government even tossed in the 2002 Civil Liability Act to add to the circumstances in which liability could generally be avoided.


The proof of the ease with which the Berejiklian Government is passing the buck back to homeowners for the past 74 years of urban development on floodplains is found in the current Coalition state government’s response to widespread flooding in New South Wales during March 2021.


Vulnerable communities in north-east NSW might think on the Berejiklian Government’s reluctance to seek genuine solutions to increasing floodplain risks due to climate change-induced alterations to seasonal weather patterns, the contribution to flooding made by erosive wave patterns with rising seas and, natural disaster events.


The Guardian, 10 April 2021:


Urban planners and water scientists have urged the New South Wales government to offer to buy back thousands of homes in flood-prone areas of western Sydney, as overdevelopment sets a trajectory for the number of uninsurable houses in the city to surge.


Infrastructure NSW has acknowledged residential property buybacks would be “effective” to mitigate flood risk in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and across western Sydney, but the government agency has said such a scheme would incur “very significant social and economic costs”.


The call for buybacks, from the urban thinktank the Committee for Sydney, followed floods in March that inundated parts of western Sydney after Warragamba Dam spilled over, and wreaked havoc across NSW and south-east Queensland.


By Tuesday, the insurance bill for the floods had risen to $537m, from 35,845 claims, as affected residents continue to lodge damage with their insurers.


The Committee for Sydney’s resilience director, Sam Kernaghan, believes the insurance bill for March’s floods will rise to $2bn and says it will ultimately cost the NSW government too as it foots the bill for emergency services and recovery relief services as insurer of last resort.


The committee has issued a plea for the state’s recovery and rebuilding to seriously consider not “reestablishing homes, farms and businesses in this increasingly hazard prone location”.


The bill will be enormous… [instead] we have an opportunity to use that money differently to support western Sydney residents and businesses for the long term,” the committee said, calling for the billions to be spent rebuilding to focus on a voluntary home purchasing scheme “that supports residents to move out of the way of the floods”.


Funded by state government, this scheme would provide a mechanism for residents to sell flood risk properties to the government at market rates,” the committee said, noting a similar scheme put in place after the 2011 Queensland floods that saw Brisbane city council purchase $35m in flood-affected land, with properties transformed into parkland.


Kernaghan believes there is a strong argument to buy back about 5,000 to 7,000 homes in western Sydney – not all of the 55,000 to 77,000 that are estimated to need to evacuate during a one in 100-year flood event….


The committee is also calling for more thorough mapping of flood plains in Sydney to help long-term planning, as well as transferrable development rights similar to the model used in Norfolk, Virginia – a US city sinking more than 3.5mm a year – and strengthening evacuation routes to help existing communities in the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain…..


If nothing is done to address this escalating risk from extreme weather and climate change, by 2100 Sydney will have a projected 91,000“uninsurable” addresses — the most of any city — with over five times as many uninsurable properties in 2100 than in 2019,” he said.


Regardless of what Sydney decides to do, the question before western Sydney is this: do we really want to continue to put people in the flood plain? Previous governments ignored the science, hoping it would be all right. The result has been tragedy for thousands of people.


The recent floods should make it clear it is not responsible to put people where they will be exposed to this level of harm ... It’s time for Sydney to look at a long-term plan to reduce the cycle of disaster.”


Dr Ian Wright, a water scientist at Western Sydney University who previously worked as a scientist for Sydney Water studying the Sydney basin flows, also supports the concept of home buybacks.


Wright has been a vocal part of the chorus of water scientists warning of the impact overdevelopment had on the recent floods.


As large swathes of western Sydney that were previously bushland and soil – which absorb water before flooding – had been paved over and roads and hard surfaces built to support new suburbs in recent years, there is increased runoff and flood risk to communities lower down. Residents in western Sydney complained of this issue as their homes, which had seen out previous floods, succumbed to the recent deluge…..


The NSW planning minister, Rob Stokes, referred the Guardian’s inquiries to environment minister Matt Kean’s office, which referred it to Infrastructure NSW.


An Infrastructure NSW spokeswoman said the government had considered buybacks to mitigate flood risk, including in its Hawkesbury-Nepean flood strategy released in 2018.


However, in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, large-scale compulsory acquisition across entire suburbs would be necessary for this to be effective and would have very significant social and economic costs,” she said. [my yellow highlighting]


Aerial shot of  the Hawkesbury River in flood
IMAGE: ABC News, 21 March 2021



Monday 16 March 2015

The flood next time......


Clarence Valley Council (CVC), in the NSW Northern Rivers region, has control of:

110 km of levee 
18 km rock protection 
50 bridges 
500 floodgates 
250 flood mitigation drains

on the Clarence Valley flood plain.

In the 2013 flood one section of the 110km of levee walls was topped at Wilton Park, Waterview:


This is what that section looks like today:

Clarence Valley Council has apparently done no actual repair work on this levee since the 2013 flood.

According to its records it is quibbling over the amount of funding for levee repair the NSW Baird Government is willing to supply:

[CVC Corporate, Governance & Works Committee , Business Paper, 10 March 2015]

One has to wonder what other sections of the levee network are in a similar state of disrepair?

I hope council’s insurer will be happy to pay the costs which are likely to be awarded after the next big flood should residents (and their insurers) take council to court on the basis that levee disrepair contributed significantly to flood damage on their properties. 

Or will council’s insurer refuse to pay if residents were to win such a case?

* All images found on Twitter


UPDATE

Clarence Valley Council rates its infrastructure assets on a scale of 1 (excellent condition) to 5 (very poor condition).

Currently 39 segments of the 110km of levee walls are rated in poor condition to very poor condition.


Floods over recent years have had a major impact on floodplain asset condition. In general the restoration cost of these assets has been excluded from the assessment on the basis that Council will receive Natural Disaster Relief Assistance for damage caused by these events. However, damage will occur to assets from repeated flood events that may not be able to be attributed to single events but will cause the increased deterioration of assets over time. The restoration costs of these assets will ultimately be borne by Council.

Major emphasis is to increase maintenance levels in the following areas:
* Rural levee maintenance – increased inspection and maintenance on a four year cycle;…

Proposed to increase asset renewals and new and upgrading of assets in the following major areas:
* Rehabilitate levee segments rated condition 4 or 5 over a 20 year timeframe (currently 39 segments);….

General focus will be on managing condition 4 and 5 floodplain assets and maintaining floodplain assets rated at condition 3 and above.
*Additional detailed data is to be gathered on floodplain network, especially rural levees, to better determine the extent of the condition of the assets and to more effectively schedule maintenance and capital works. This is also to include crest surveys of the levees.....