Showing posts with label flood risk management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flood risk management. Show all posts

Wednesday 22 February 2023

Northern NSW State of Play 2023: seven days out from the first anniversary of that catastrophic unnatural disaster, the Lismore & Northern Rivers Floods of 2022



 

The Guardian, 20 February 2023:


In February the hills and valleys of the New South Wales northern rivers are green and lush and fertile in the late summer sun. There is brightness in the madly proliferating tropical flora, radiance in the golden hour of the evening.


In the towns the mud has gone, mostly, and the smell too has faded; a semblance of normality returned to the main streets. As the foliage has returned, the devastation of the 2022 floods is more hidden now; the scale of what happened. The people who are changed.


As the anniversary of the disaster approaches, along with the cyclone season, for those left in the flood’s wake the impact is still unfolding. When the flood waters receded a year ago, for many, the disaster was only beginning.


You could hazard a guess that something like 15 to 20,000 people were impacted,” says Professor James Bennett Levy from the University of Sydney Centre for Rural Health. “I would say there’s been huge collective trauma as well as individual trauma.”


If I am doing a community event,” says Naomi Vaotuua, recovery and resilience officer for the Red Cross, “I will literally have grown men crying in my arms because it’s a cloudy day and they thought they were doing alright but they have been triggered.”


Kerry Pritchard, coordinator of recovery Hub 2484 in Murwillumbah, says: “I guess what is surfacing now is more residual complex trauma. We feel like we are still very much in the middle of it, at the coalface of supporting people. That is both in terms of rebuilding in a physical sense and also healing from that traumatic event.”


The northern rivers floods were Australia’s biggest natural disaster since Cyclone Tracy in 1974. It was the second-costliest event in the world for insurers in 2022, and the most expensive disaster in Australian history. Many residents had found premiums unaffordable and had no insurance at all.


The Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation (NRRC), funded by the federal and NSW governments, is currently assessing over 6,000 flood-impacted residences for buyback, raising or retrofit.


A survey released this month by Southern Cross University revealed that nine months after the event, at the end of 2022, almost 52% of flood victims were living in the shells of homes that had flooded; 26% were living in temporary accommodation such as caravans, sheds or pods, or with friends or family; 18% were living in insecure accommodation such as tents or temporary rentals; and 4% were no longer living in the region.


The departure of thousands of locals is one of the things that broke the heart of city councillor and executive director of Resilient Lismore, Elly Bird. “They are disconnected from their community and the people they went through that experience with and disconnected from our recovery journey and support. They are probably having a hard time,” Bird says.


Hanabeth Luke, senior lecturer in science and engineering at Southern Cross University, and one of the researchers behind the survey, said she was “shocked to see the low, low levels of mental health. Twenty percent of people said they were coping with the stresses and challenges of recovery and 60% said they were not coping.”


It is the housing uncertainty causing mental health strain, Luke says; the stress of “not being able to move forward, making do without a clear plan”. People live in substandard dwellings while they wait on government assessments or insurance payouts, not knowing whether to fix a house or if they might get a buyback. People camp out in caravans outside dilapidated abandoned houses, houses they are still paying mortgages and rates for. Families squeeze into a single motel room where they are not allowed to cook or have their pets.


Up until last month, the Koori Kitchen was still serving around around 700 free meals a day at Browns Creek car park in Lismore, says Koori Mail general manager Naomi Moran. It was forced to close as the council wanted the car spaces back to help support local business recovery.


These things take their toll.


What has been found is that the more you were likely to have been scared of injury or death, the higher the likelihood of PTSD,” says Bennett Levy. “Similarly, the more extensive the inundation the more likelihood of significant mental health issues. If we go back to the data we can say that the people who are displaced from home for more than six months are at very high risk of PTSD.”


Pritchard sees the data borne out in real life. “A year out and people are just worn down, they’re exhausted, they’re losing hope and just can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. We’re seeing a lot of suicidal ideation.” People who have always worked hard and supported themselves find themselves having to ask for help, she says. “There are a lot of feelings of shame and impotency around that.”


Those who could afford insurance are now coming to the end of the 52 weeks of temporary accommodation paid for by their insurers. For those locals, there is anxiety about whether they will get into the 11 pod villages built by Resilience NSW across the region. The villages aim to house 1,800 people for up to three years. Another 300 people are still in emergency accommodation…..


Read the full article here.



Southern Cross UniversityNew Southern Cross study reveals ongoing housing and mental health challenges for flood-affected, 7 February 2023:


A new Southern Cross University survey has shown almost 50 per cent of Northern Rivers flood victims were still displaced nine months after the devastating floods and landslides of 2022.


The survey, conducted by Southern Cross researchers in the latter months of last year, aimed to gain a better understanding of the ongoing struggles faced by flood-affected communities. The results paint a stark picture.


Of the 800 survey respondents, 52 percent were back living in a home that had flooded, while 26 per cent were either living in temporary accommodation such as caravans, sheds or pods, or with friends and family. A staggering 18 per cent of people reported they were living in ‘other’ insecure or crisis accommodation such as tents or temporary rentals and four per cent were no longer living in the region.


One fifth of respondents reported it was hard to find out what support was available to them, suggesting insufficient variety in information channels used to communicate with flood-affected residents. Additionally, nearly one third of insured survey respondents reported being ineligible for an insurance payout, and many cited excessive bureaucracy as a major barrier to accessing funding for recovery efforts. Survey respondents had to fill out an average 6-8 forms each to receive any financial assistance.


The Insurance Council of Australia estimates the cost of the 2022 east coast floods to be around AUD $5 billion in insurance damages. The Southern Cross survey results showed that while the most common cost of the flood was between $201,000-$500,000 to each respondent, the most common maximum amount received at the time of completing the survey was a tenth of that, at $21,000-$50,000.


"The findings of this survey are a sobering reminder of the ongoing impact of the floods on the Northern Rivers community," said lead researcher Dr Hanabeth Luke.


Flooding has affected dozens of rural and urban communities around the country and continues to do so, most recently in Western Australia. There are important learnings from this that can guide us and others to be better prepared next time,” she said.


Elly Bird, Executive Director of Resilient Lismore – a community organisation and partner in the survey – said "just 20 per cent of respondents report they are coping with the stresses and challenges of recovering from the floods, and more than 80 per cent agree that community hubs have been essential to their recovery.


Nearly 60 per cent of respondents still need help with access to tradespeople, and more than 45 per cent require access to building materials. This is holding up the recovery and needs to be addressed urgently.”


Many respondents reported not ‘being able to plan’ as a significant challenge.


The majority (96 per cent) of survey respondents saw community preparedness as most important for mitigating future events, with engineering solutions receiving a lower level of support than all other options.


"This study is a crucial tool in the ongoing efforts of our community to build back. Tapping into the experiences of those affected will help shape services and streamline processes and hold us in better stead for future events,” said Ms Bird.


Download the survey results here [PDF]





https://youtu.be/vfAF60gjnMA

Tuesday 25 October 2022

STATE OF PLAY NSW 2022: In a changing climate is your local council and the regional planning panel in your area really taking into consideration all state policies, acts & regulations applicable to flooding?


 

In a changing climate whose effects and negative impacts have been driven home to NSW communities since the mega bushfires of 2019 and the increasingly heavy rainfall events across the state, there is a need for communities to ensure their wellbeing and safety is paramount in the minds of all those making policy and/or planning decisions concerning the local government areas and regions in which they live.


The widespread and catastrophic flooding to date in 2022 highlighting the need to ask this particular question.


Is my local council and, the NSW regional planning panel in my area which has authority to consent to state significant and high dollar value development applications, really obeying all the planning instructions that have been put in place since 2020?


In July 2021, the NSW Government updated its guidance to councils on considering flooding in land-use planning. 


Set out below is the "Flood prone land package" concerned residents, ratepayers and community groups can use as part of their own checklists when trying to ensure that proposed land releases and large-scale development applications have been genuinely assessed against growing flood risks.








Wednesday 19 October 2022

So, you are looking to buy a house or land in Yamba on the Clarence Coast in NSW?

 


A recent local newspaper article of 12 October 2022 stated that Clarence Valley Council would not release the results of a circa 2014 floor level survey of an unstated number of Yamba homes.


This survey was apparently undertaken to assess flood risk vulnerability against potential flood height modelling for Yamba township and environs.


The reason Council gave for withholding this information appears to be; “Premature release of the floor level data might (for instance) result in one or more sales falling through without the statutory immunity of Council being assured.”


By Census Night in August 2021 there were 4,073 residential dwellings recorded for a Yamba population of 6,376 people.


It is possible that conservatively between 30% to 53% of this housing stock is vulnerable to varying degrees during heavy rainfall associated with adverse weather events and Lower Clarence River flooding. A smaller percentage of Yamba dwellings above flood height on Pilot Hill and environs may be still be at risk - from land slippage during prolonged heavy rain and high seas.


Now according to propertyvalue.com.au there have been 142 houses sold in Yamba and environs in the last twelve months with a median price of $925,000.


Looking at online real estate sites there are also a number of dwellings in the town currently for sale – ranging from modest houses on manufactured relocatable housing estates through to 3-4 bedroom brick family homes and onto million dollar plus residences of up to 5 bedrooms & 2 bathrooms with all the mod cons.


There’s no easy way to establish floor levels in Yamba just by viewing real estate websites or looking at documents currently publicly available on Council’s own website. The only historic information publicly available ‘guesses’ dwelling floor heights in many of the town’s streets based on the surveyed height of the adjacent road surface.


An estimation method which clearly had its drawbacks in March 2022 when this overview of a section of Yamba Road was taken.



Embed from Getty Images



If Clarence Valley Council is determined to cloak in secrecy a more accurate extant list of floor heights, perhaps it’s time that the Yamba community began to help people who want to move here make informed choices before committing themselves to a mortgage or spending their hard-earned retirement savings?


Remembering that the Lower Clarence River estuary has flooded on average every three years since the 1990s, looking at Google Earth as well as basic digital flood modelling that Clarence Valley Council has available online and, then sampling from the over 50 dwellings currently advertised for sale for an example of each of the three aforementioned housing types:


  • that sweet little 3 bedroom home in one of Yamba’s manufactured home estates is probably only est. 4m above mean sea level and, if its floor level doesn’t turn out to be at least 2.84m AHD then there is a statistical 1 in 100 chance in any given year that it will have stormwater and/or floodwater running across the bedroom carpeting;


  • the 4 bedroom brick home with a tidy garden is probably est. 4m above mean sea level but if its floor level isn’t high enough then there is a statistical 1 in 50 chance in any given year that flood water will enter the property and threaten the house. There is also a 1 in 100 chance in any given year that with a floor below or even at 2.84m AHD the river will come knocking at the door and take possession of the house for as many days as it pleases;


  • when it comes to one of those houses with the million dollar plus price tag, well it is an est. 3-4m above mean sea level. However if its floor level falls short of 2.84m AHD then it may be uncomfortable to live in as there is a statistical 1 in 50 chance in any given year that flood water will enter the property but possibly not the house. However, there is also a 1 in 100 chance in any given year that storm water and/or flood water will enter the property and threaten the ground floor areas of this house.


Needless to say all three example residences are highly likely to be inundated during an extreme flood event given that modelled flood water heights would reach above the ceiling of the average single storey house design and above ceiling level on the ground floor of the average two-story design.


I rather suspect that Council is not voluntarily offering up that information to prospective home buyers, unless they happen to ask a precisely framed question in writing over the signature of their solicitor and perhaps not even then – given how many hundreds of land or house & land packages property developers are hoping to sell over the next five to twenty-five years in Yamba and how attractive future increases in rate income are to local government. 


Although quite frankly with Australia’s climate already having warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910 [Dept. Planning and Environment, AdaptNSW 2022] and the possibility being canvassed that the world and Australia will reach long-term 1.5°C warming as early as the 2030s, Clarence Valley Council has more to worry about than riverine flooding.


In a worst case scenario due to the expected increase in sea-level rise this warming will bring, a significant amount of land within Yamba town precincts will be begin to go under water at high tide in another 8-17 years time.


Climate Central Inc. interactive mapping
Sea-level rise at 1.5°C global warming
Click on image to enlarge


Thursday 13 October 2022

So you built, purchased or rent housing on flood prone land - what comes next beside an upgraded personal flood plan?

 

2022 may be the year that brought home to many on the Australian east coast what it really means in a changing climate to have built, purchased or rented a freestanding house, townhouse, unit or flat on flood prone land or on floodplain.


Right now, ten months into the third year of a triple La Niña event, individuals and couples may well be wishing that the real estate agent, local council, individual who did the property conveyancing, a neighbour, friend or family member, had been a little more forthcoming about what moving to a particular street, town, local government area or region actually meant when it came to hazard risks from storms, heavy rainfalls and local or widespread flooding.


Whether it is your first home, your retirement dream home or just an affordable rental in which you are happily settled, for literally thousands of people the limitations of the dwelling in which they currently live is becoming apparent.


While devastated souls in catastrophically affected areas are trying to come to grips with trauma and loss as they assess their options.


Where to start with looking at your home with fresh eyes, before deciding if it will withstand the worst floods or whether you need to modify the dwelling, move the house to higher ground or look for a brand new home on land in a safer area? Big decisions.


In mid-2021 a report was published looking at certain options available for flood prone buildings.


Bushfire & Natural HAZARDS CRC, COST-EFFECTIVEMITIGATION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT FOR FLOOD PRONE BUILDINGS, Final project report, July 2021, excerpt:


Globally, floods cause widespread impacts with loss of life and damage to property. An analysis of global statistics conducted by Jonkman (2005) showed that floods (including coastal flooding) caused 175,000 fatalities and affected more than 2.2 billion people between 1975 and 2002. In Australia floods cause more damage on an average annual cost basis than any other natural hazard (HNFMSC, 2006). The fundamental cause of this level of damage and the key factor contributing to flood risk, in general, is the presence of vulnerable buildings constructed within floodplains due to ineffective land use planning.


Retrospective analysis show large benefits from disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the contexts of many developed and developing countries. A study conducted by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) found an overall benefit-cost ratio of four suggesting that DRR can be highly effective in future loss reduction (MMC, 2005). However, in spite of potentially high returns, there is limited research in Australia on assessing benefits of different mitigation strategies with consequential reduced investment made in loss reduction measures by individuals and governments. This is true not only at an individual level but also at national and international levels. According to an estimate, international donor agencies allocate 98% of their disaster management funds for relief and reconstruction activities and just 2% is allocated to reduce future losses (Mechler, 2011).


The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Collaborative Research Centre project entitled Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings is examining the opportunities for reducing the vulnerability of Australian residential buildings to riverine floods. It addresses the need for an evidence base to inform decision making on the mitigation of the flood risk posed by the most vulnerable Australian building types and complements parallel CRC projects for earthquake and severe wind.


This project investigates methods for the upgrading of the existing residential building stock in floodplains to increase their resilience in future flood events. It aims to identify economically optimal upgrading solutions so the finite resources available can be best used to minimise losses, decrease human suffering, improve safety and ensure amenity for communities.


This report describes the research methods, project activities, outcomes and their potential for utilisation.


Flood mitigation strategies mentioned in the report


Elevation


Elevation of a structure is one of the most common mitigation strategies where the aim is to raise the lowest habitable floor of a building above the expected level of flooding. This can be achieved by extending the walls of an existing structure and raising the floor level; by constructing a new floor above the existing one; or through raising the whole structure on new foundations (walls, piers, columns or piles)as shown in Figure 3.












Technical considerations that need to be taken into account in raising buildings are structure type, construction material, foundation type, building size, flood characteristics and other hazards. Other factors to take into consideration when elevating existing structures are additional loading on foundations, additional wind forces on wall and roof systems and any seismic forces (FEMA, 2012).


Generally the least expensive and easiest building to elevate is a low-set single storey timber frame structure (USACE, 2000). The procedure becomes complicated and more expensive when other factors are included such as slab on-grade construction, walls of masonry or concrete or application to a multistorey building (USACE, 1993). Elevation is one of the strategies which currently can result in incentives from the insurance industry in the form of reductions in annual premiums for flood insurance (Bartzis, 2013).


Relocation


Relocation of a building is a dependable flood mitigation technique. However, it is generally the most expensive as well (USACE, 1993). Relocation involves moving a structure to a location that is less prone to flooding. Relocation normally involves placing the structure on a wheeled vehicle, as shown in Figure 4. The structure is then transported to a new location and set on a new foundation (FEMA, 2012). Relocation is much easier and cost effective for low-set timber frame structures. The relocation of slab-on-grade structures is more complicated and expensive.



Relocation is most appropriate in areas where flood conditions are severe such as a high likelihood of deep flooding, or where there is high flow velocity with short warning time and a significant quantity of debris. Technical considerations for relocation include the structure type, size and condition. Light weight timber structures are easy to transport compared to heavy masonry and concrete buildings. Similarly, the relocation of single storey compact size structures is far easier than for large multi-storey structures.


Dry floodproofing


Dry floodproofing essentially attempts to keep floodwaters out of the house. The portion of a structure that is below the expected flood level is sealed to make it substantially impermeable to floodwaters. This is achieved by using sealant systems which include wall coatings, waterproofing compounds, impervious sheeting over doors and windows and a supplementary leaf of masonry (FEMA, 2012). The expected duration of flooding is critical when deciding which sealant systems to use because seepage can increase with time making flood proofing ineffective (USACE, 1993). Preventing sewer backflow by using backwater valves is also important in making dry floodproofing effective (Kreibich et al. 2005; FEMA, 2007).


Dry floodproofing is generally not recommended in flood depths exceeding one metre based on tests carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers as the stability of the building becomes an issue over this threshold depth (USACE, 1988; Kreibich et al. 2005). Dry floodproofing is also not recommended for lightweight low-set structures or structures with a basement. These types of structure can be susceptible to significant lateral and uplift (buoyancy) forces. Dry floodproofing may also be inappropriate for light timber frame structures and structures that are not in good condition and may not be able to withstand the forces exerted by the floodwater (FEMA, 2012).


Wet floodproofing


In this measure floodwater is allowed to enter the building to equalise the hydrostatic pressure on the interior and exterior of the building, thus reducing the chance of building failure due to a pressure differential on components. As all the building components below the flood level are wetted, all construction material and fit-outs should be water-resistant and/or can be easily cleaned following a flood. Flood resistant materials can help reduce flood damage and facilitate cleanup to allow buildings to be restored to service as quickly as possible. FEMA (2008) provides a detailed list of building materials classified as acceptable or unacceptable for wet floodproofing based on cleanability and water resistance.


Wet floodproofing involves raising utilities (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical systems etc.) and important contents above the expected flood level.


Wet floodproofing may not be suitable in floods with duration of more than a day as longer duration can lead to damage to structural components of the building and can also result in the growth of algae and mould (FEMA, 2007). Also wet floodproofing can only reduce loss from floods but cannot eliminate loss as some amount of cleanup and cosmetic repair will always be necessary (USACE, 1984). Although using flood damage resistant materials can reduce the amount and severity of water damage, it does not protect buildings from other flood hazards, such as the impact of flood borne debris.


Flood barriers


Flood barriers considered here are those built around a single building and are normally placed some distance away from it to avoid any structural modifications to the building. There are two kinds of barriers: permanent and temporary.


An example of a permanent barrier is a floodwall which is quite effective because it requires little maintenance and can be easily constructed and inspected. Generally, it is made of reinforced masonry or concrete and has one or more passageways that are closed by gates. An example of a floodwall is shown in Figure 5.



There are also several types of temporary flood barriers available on the market which can be moved, stored and reused. There are a number of considerations with regard to the use of these barriers such as the need for prior warning and enough time to be set up in order to be effective (Kreibich et al. 2011). They also require periodic inspection and maintenance to address any repair required. Further, access to the building could be difficult (FEMA, 2007).


A number of vendors make temporary flood barriers that can be assembled relatively easily and moved into place. Some of the temporary flood barrier options are presented below and shown in Figure 6.


Sandbags: This is a traditional and less expensive way to construct a barrier up to 1m high in front of a building and its openings. However, it requires considerable time and effort to set up.


PVC tubes: These consist of two flexible tubes laid side by side and joined permanently to form a twin element with high stability. They can be made ready quite quickly, generally in less than 15 minutes, and are available in 1m height and 10m length units.


Metal boards/fence: This fence system consists of two boards in compact flat packs that are lifted into place after transportation to the site and the system is stabilised by water pressure.


Flexible barriers: These barriers are able to dam or redirect flowing water up to 1m high and can be set up very quickly on almost all surfaces.


Box wall: A freestanding flood barrier for use on smooth surfaces. These can be attached and placed next to each other to build a 0.5m high wall around a building.


Box barrier: An effective temporary flood barrier (0.5m high) that can be aligned easily and rapidly. After positioning, the box can be filled with water to hold it in place.

















The report looks at vulnerability to flood risks of various types of housing from: Timber Frame (raised floor); Cavity Masonry - Victorian Terrace (raised floor); Cavity Masonry (raised floor); Brick Veneer (raised floor); and Brick Veneer (slab-on-grade).


The report also examines the strength of selected building components and generally the cost effectiveness of building material for use in flood prone buildings.


The full report can be downloaded at:

https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/file/13042/download?token=2Iqm6aEk


Tuesday 20 September 2022

On the northern side of the Clarence River estuary, the little coastal village of Iluka is battling poor urban planning and an inadequate drainage network in a changing regional climate



Clarence Environment Centre, Winter newsletter – 2022, excerpt:


Who could have predicted that?

They have to be kidding!


The overworked phrase, “who could have seen this coming”, has been used by all levels of government to excuse the debacle which was the response to the recent flooding event across the Northern Rivers, and has been rightly ridiculed.


For 40 years, the world’s scientific community, through the UN, has been warning us that the changing climate will generate more frequent and more extreme weather events, and have begged the world’s governments to take appropriate action, with little success.


The failure of those governments to make meaningful attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inexcusable. However, to fail to plan for those forecast catastrophic weather events, verges on criminal neglect. The recent flooding saw lives and property lost, businesses forced to close, and rendered thousands homeless.


In the Clarence Valley, the response to 4 decades of warnings about the inevitability of increased flooding. has been zero, something that even this latest disaster seems unlikely to change.


In fact, Council’s first act when reviewing the cause of ponding in some areas in Iluka, was to examine past rainfall data, leading to the hardly surprising conclusion that: “The significant rainfall has led to a saturated catchment and high-water table, exacerbating the time taken for water to disperse”.


Council’s statement continues with: “There has been no event or combination of events since records began that comes close to the rainfall totals recorded at Yamba”, going on to say: “We need to be aware that the most efficiently designed drainage systems are not built to cope with rainfall totals equal to that recently experienced”.


Ponding problems in Iluka from recent rains will only worsen with the clearing of forested land and replacing it with roof-tops, concrete and bitumen


Having had over 40 years to plan for just such an event, we have to ask, why haven’t adequate drainage systems been designed, and required to be installed in all new developments?


Alongside one of Iluka’s ponding problem areas, a 140-lot subdivision is currently converting 14ha of bushland into roofs, concrete and bitumen, all combining to channel rainfall, at speed, through an inadequate stormwater system, directly into those ponding hotspots.















The above image was of the condition of that housing development after the water had subsided. Laughingly advertised as “Birrigan Iluka Beach”, despite being nowhere near the waterfront, it has already changed water flows beginning with the removal of the forest which has led to the unprecedented ponding, prompting this Facebook comment (see right). 


Council should be taking its “Climate Emergency” declaration seriously, and plan accordingly, but they aren’t, with multiple floodplain developments underway or in the planning stages in Iluka and Yamba.


Interesting time ahead!


Monday 23 May 2022

Once again local government tries to paper over the real flood plan for Yamba & environs, which has always been 'let them climb on their roofs or float out to sea - their choice'



Clarence Valley Independent, 18 April 2022:

















Environmental watchdog, Valley Watch, first began predicting flooding of Yamba, as a result of developing West Yamba, in about 1995; on Sunday May 21, the group will present a more than 1,000-signature petition to the mayor, Ian Tiley (or his proxy), calling for a moratorium on further filling and development approvals on the Yamba floodplain.


Basically, the petition is demanding a well-designed master plan for West Yamba,” Valley Watch spokesperson Helen Tyas Tunggal said.


During the record rain that fell during February and March, many homes and properties were flooded for the first time, some of which were built within the past 20 years, theoretically above any threat of flooding.


Ms Tyas Tunggal couldn’t have been more succinct speaking with the Sydney Morning Herald in March 2007, when she expressed a view now apparent to many Yamba residents.


When you raise the ground level, the displaced water has to go somewhere,” she said, when referring to the estimated 270,000 truckloads of fill needed to accommodate future West Yamba development.


Other more established areas of town will flood as a result.”


As it happens, Cr Tiley, who was the mayor at the time, agreed.


It may be that people who are flood-proof at the moment will be put at risk,” he said at a Clarence Valley Council (CVC) committee meeting, according to the SMH, when answering a question about filling the area.


A great deal has happened since the council [first] decided to increase [the area’s] yield.


From the middle of last year, a great awareness of climate change issues [has surfaced].


It is a whole different ball game.”


According to the SMH, former CVC environment and planning director Rob Donges “acknowledged [there were] problems there”.


It is flood-prone, low-lying land with a high water-table … we have never hidden the fact that if we were to start the process of West Yamba today there would be doubts as to whether council would proceed,” he told the SMH.


Come 2008/09, CVC adopted the Yamba Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, which warns that “it is imperative that any additional development does not exacerbate the existing flood problem”.


The plan recommended, for example, that a master plan “must address water-related cumulative issues”, including “possible floodplain management measures … (if the development is to proceed) [including]: a) a floodway, b) a comprehensive flood evacuation strategy, and, c) [various] updated flood-related development controls.”


Meanwhile, there appears to be confusion among CVC staff about whether or not the Yamba Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan is relevant.


In a response to a detailed enquiry by Valley Watch, following the public meeting held at Treelands Drive Community Centre on April 29, 2021, staff wrote that the Yamba flood study and plan had “been superseded by the 2013 Grafton and Lower Clarence Flood Model and updated Grafton and Lower Clarence FRMP hence, the queries in relation to this study are no longer relevant”.


However, the Grafton and Lower Clarence document excludes Yamba and Iluka stating, “Flood-prone areas of the Lower Clarence River formerly administered by Maclean shire council from Brushgrove to Palmers Island including Maclean, and excluding Iluka and Yamba, which are the subject of separate studies.”


Valley Watch’s insistence that CVC develop a master plan for West Yamba, because “there are many unanswered questions” about how development is or should proceed, was partially addressed in a Notice of Motion by Cr Stephen Pickering at the April 26 CVC meeting.


The community is heartened that the new council is taking an interest in the concerns of residents regarding development in West Yamba,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.


However, she doubted that part 1 of the CVC resolution, to “support the creation of a West Yamba Masterplan document”, would be fulfilled and said part 2, to publish an “information brochure … to educate the community, does not go far enough and does little to address the current and growing problems”.


Meanwhile the mayor, Ian Tiley, told the Independent that a master plan would “absolutely” be prepared once the brochure is completed.


Part 1 demonstrated a clear intent to create a West Yamba Master Plan, to guide sustainable development and infrastructure integrated with the greater Yamba township,” he said.


BACKGROUND


North Coast Voices


  • THURSDAY, 1 APRIL 2021

The story of a little town in the Clarence Valley and a growing problem

POSTED BY CLARENCEGIRL

 

  • MONDAY, 5 APRIL 2021

The story of a little town in the Clarence Valley and a growing problem” - Part Two

POSTED BY CLARENCEGIRL


  •  COMMENT:

Anonymous said...

Dear Clarencegirl, you should send your blog on Yamba to all our non concerned councillors, and to Clarence Valley Council. Most people in this area live in denial, that is until the sh... hits the fan, then they whinge. Apathy seems to reign high in Clarence Valley Shire, and Yamba, and this council is sitting on it's hands. Your blogs are good and real. But how do you wake this council up, and make them represent and think! Cheers Yamba resident for 16 years,

5 APRIL 2021 AT 13:45


  • TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2012

West Yamba subdivision questioned

POSTED BY CLARRIE RIVERS

 

  • TUESDAY, 21 APRIL 2009

How serious is local government about protecting against climate change impacts? Not very it seems, if it is Clarence Valley Council

POSTED BY CLARENCE GIRL


  • SUNDAY, 31 MAY 2009

The question of West Yamba

POSTED BY CLARENCE GIRL


  • TUESDAY, 8 JANUARY 2008

The folly of allowing developments in flood-prone land


Persons associated with proposals to develop West Yamba would be well advised to take special note of a decision of the NSW Land and Environment Court.


In an article headed Court agrees climate-change risk rules out housing plan The Sydney Morning Herald (January 8, 2008) reports:

"Many may be pleased to know the Land and Environment Court can overturn not just a council decision but a ministerial one.


The court recently ruled invalid a concept plan approved by the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, for a controversial residential subdivision and retirement complex at Sandon Point, on the coast near Wollongong. The action was brought by a resident, Jill Walker.


The court agreed the department should have considered the flooding risk from climate change as it was an aspect of the public interest that potentially had a bearing on the justice of the decision.


The decision is a win for residents who have been protesting for years against the development of the flood-prone 25-hectare site by Stockland Development and Anglican Retirement Villages.


Deacons Lawyers said councils would have to ensure risks from climate change in flood-constrained coastal areas had been addressed by developers and that they considered such risks in their decisions."


Comment:

The land at West Yamba is flood-prone. Allowing further development in the area will require fill being obtained from elsewhere in order to raise the area above designated ASL requirements. That may solve current problem associated with the West Yamba site but one doesn't have to be Einstein to understand that water which would normally find its way to this naturally occurring flood storage area in times of heavy rainfall will be diverted elsewhere. And just where is elsewhere? Think about it. Land that is currently occupied and considered flood free will not necessarily carry such a tag in the future.


Yes, further development at West Yamba will create a new set of winners (just think 'developers and their associates'), but there'll also be a crew of losers who'll be up the creek without paddles in times of high local rainfall and/or flooding that results from waters flowing downstream from the catchment area.


Clarence Valley Council should have this matter uppermost in its collective mind. So too, should Minister Frank Sartor and all others who will be called upon to give consideration to any hair-brained proposals to develop West Yamba.


Remember, the law attaches great significance to the concept of precedence. Hence, this decision of the Land and Environment Court has implications for West Yamba.

POSTED BY CLARRIE RIVERS