A perspective on one of the serious flaws to be found in the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act

A perspective on one of the serious flaws in the NSW Perrottet Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act which was offered in a last ditch effort to get at least one meaningful amendment to the Bill through the Upper House....

 

NSW Parliament, Legislative Council Hansard, 17 November 2022:

Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:23): I move Independent amendment No. 1 on sheet c2022-241:

No. 1Disaster prevention areas

Page 18, clause 41(2)(c), line 2. Omit "potential". Insert instead "imminent".

The amendment goes to the issue of the extraordinary powers in the bill to override the planning Act in New South Wales. To be really clear for members who may not have taken notice of the extraordinary powers that the bill confers on the planning Minister, the bill entirely switches off the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In fact, there appears to be no limit on the sort of development that could be approved at the stroke of a pen by the Minister. There seems to be no limit on the extent of the proposal, including a proposal that would otherwise be State significant infrastructure requiring very detailed planning and assessment, and there seems to be no limit on where that development could occur in New South Wales.

Under proposed section 68, the planning Minister is authorised to undertake a development without the need for an approval under the Act. This applies under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are my concern. The authorisation may be given "in relation to a declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area". This is a critical point. If you take note of the specifics in the bill, a disaster prevention area could be incredibly broad. There is no requirement for exceptional circumstances. There is no requirement for a disaster to be underway or even likely to be underway in a particular area. If the authority, via the Minister and the Premier, decides that an area is a disaster prevention area, that in and of itself empowers the Minister to authorise the undertaking of a particular development.

In the second reading debate, I raised the example of the Warragamba Dam. I do not for a moment expect that the planning Minister will just authorise the construction of the Warragamba Dam using the provisions of this bill but, to be clear, there is no prevention in the bill. The bill would allow for such a significant development to be undertaken should the Minister, with the concurrence of the Premier, declare the area around the dam to be a disaster prevention area.

Rather than such an extreme example, let us consider a levee around a particular town. Questions around levees are often incredibly controversial. They are raised from time to time and they are highly politicised. Often they must go through extraordinary degrees of community consultation and planning before they are even considered. But, particularly on councils, you will hear some voices arguing strongly for a levee to be increased or a levee to be added. You will hear others warning that there will be incredible downstream impacts as a result that might impact businesses or homes or the environment. I can envisage that these sorts of powers to authorise a development with no restriction could be used to circumvent normal political disputes.

It would be better to resolve the disputes and design such infrastructure, if we were going to proceed with it, in a considered and methodical way using the planning system and all its provisions for consultation in order to go through the potential impacts. But here we have the power to simply declare a disaster prevention area. It is important for people to note just how broad this is. The Minister may make a declaration for such a prevention area if they are satisfied that part of the State is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have had, in the past four years, enough experience to know that any part of New South Wales is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have seen it happen, and we know it is only going to get worse. In my mind, there is no constraint about where this could apply.

The second aspect requires that the authority has recommended making such a declaration. I can envisage that it might arrive at that conclusion because the Minister is satisfied the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community. Not only is it broad in its scope as to where it could apply, the only test is whether the Minister considers that such a development could help prevent or mitigate potential disasters for a community. We have heard the Government make arguments like that for Warragamba Dam. We have heard certain representatives and communities make those sorts of arguments for levees around their towns. We hear those arguments when it comes to clearing of vegetation for fire mitigation, no matter how misguided and not supported by the science that is.

There is a very low test, no threshold, no oversight, no transparency and a very broad remit for an area to be declared a disaster prevention area. Once that is done, the Minister has the power to switch off the New South Wales planning Act entirely and approve a development. That might seem extraordinary, but I have tested it with the Government. The Government has acknowledged that it is true. That is the extent of the powers in the bill, but the Government says, "We don't intend to use it." I would love for the Parliamentary Secretary to clearly put on the record in his response to this amendment that the Government does not intend to use it that way. I agree that the Government would not intend to use it in some of those ways, but I ask this fundamental question: Should emergency powers be used to do preventative work at all? In fact, that is an important consideration. I raised it in my speech to the amendment regarding the climate adaptation plans.

If it is a good idea for the prevention of risk in the instance of a potential disaster, let us do it now. Let us do it in a collaborative and coordinated way. Let us engage the planning system in the way that is intended, which is to raise issues, highlight potential impacts and then mitigate or avoid them where possible. One would expect that that is how it would be done. I have been told by the Government that is not what it intends with disaster prevention areas. The Government described the situation in Lismore with the potential requirement to clear the drains and said that it would have been able to act in advance of that. I do not buy that. There are other provisions in this bill and other elements of the law that would not allow that but, if that is the case, my amendment is clear and simple. Instead of requiring the Minister to be satisfied that the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community, let us omit the word ''potential" and insert instead ''imminent".

There has been sufficient time to understand the potential risks associated with flood and fire impacts in recent years and to give time for an authority, once established, to act at that level to implement projects that could help mitigate risks. But giving it carte blanche with a broad definition "some potential disaster somewhere that it might be likely to directly or indirectly affect", would be open to abuse. This reasonable amendment will bring the bill into line with what the Government says is its intention in the first place. I commend the amendment to the Committee. [my yellow highlighting]

On 17 November 2022 the NSW Perrottet Government and the state parliament passed into law a bill which creates the NSW Reconstruction Authority - an authority that will allow government, industry, business & property developers to control & exploit all land across the state if they so wish under the guise that they are doing a public good

“The powers of the Authority include the power to carry out development on certain land in particular circumstances and the power to direct a government agency, a State owned corporation, a local council or a person prescribed by the regulations (a relevant entity) to take particular actions in certain circumstances, with a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units for failing to comply with a direction. The Authority may work in cooperation with other government agencies and other persons and bodies if the Authority thinks it appropriate and may delegate the exercise of a function of the Authority to certain persons…..

the Minister may declare the following by notice published in the Gazette—

(a) a project for proposed development to be a declared project,

(b) a part of the State to be a reconstruction area,

(c) a part of the State to be a disaster prevention area.

The proposed Part also sets out the matters to be established before the Minister makes a declaration under the proposed Part, and provides that the notice for the declaration may specify that an Act or statutory instrument does not apply in relation to the declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area.” [NSW Reconstruction Authority Bill 2022: Explanatory Note, excerpt]

Seeing the writing on the wall, the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government found a way to manoeuvre the state parliament into allowing every individual, industry or business which would otherwise have to make a case to gain consent to mine, drill, clear fell forests, pollute land or waterways and/or eradicate wildlife to the point of extinction in order to make money speculating on land, a free pass to do so. By way of the NSW Reconstruction Authority Bill 2022.

Why? Because the O'Farrell-Baird-Berejiklian-Perrottet NSW Coalition Government — ably assisted by the the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Coalition Federal Government — having spent the last eight years refusing to face the fact that climate change was real, climate change was here and climate change was very quickly escalating, now has to act. 

However, rather than create a genuine in the public interest Reconstruction Authority, Perrottet and his mates decided to rush through, in the last two parliamentary sitting weeks before the 25 March 2023 state election, the creation of an authority which would allow those mates and their mates and their mates' mates to make fortunes out of the people's misery.  

Communities across New South Wales will rue the day this 

bill was passed.

ABC News, 18 November 2022:

The NSW government is having another crack at setting up a natural disaster authority — but this time the body will have some far-reaching powers that have some on edge.

On Thursday, the parliament passed a bill to create the NSW Reconstruction Authority to assist communities recover from disasters as well as prepare for them.

It's designed to cut through red tape but to do so, it will have a broad remit which includes the ability to develop in national parks or on native title land.

Let's look at what it means for the state.

Why was this bill introduced?

The idea for the authority came from Lismore MP Janelle Saffin during the devastating floods her community faced earlier this year.

She said the now-dismantled Resilience NSW, which was led by Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons, didn't have the necessary powers, and the state would be better off with a model based on the Queensland Reconstruction Authority.

The independent flood inquiry earlier this year also recommended a permanent state-wide agency dedicated to recovery and preparedness.

The Opposition's Penny Sharpe told the Upper House yesterday the "status quo" wasn't working and although this new model was "radical", Labor was willing "to give it a go".

But the Greens and Independent MLC Justin Field argued the new authority had "unfettered powers" which were unprecedented in NSW.

What powers will this authority have?

The Reconstruction Authority will be permitted to carry out development on land that's likely to be directly or indirectly affected by a natural disaster.

This includes developing land within national parks, protected marine areas or land subject to native title claims, so long as the development is necessary and appropriate.

This also includes the habitat of threatened species.

The authority will be able to do anything that is "supplementary, incidental or consequential" to these functions and the CEO will be able to take whatever steps they deem "necessary or desirable".

Communities across NSW are enduring more severe flooding as the state deals with the largest flood-related emergency response in its history — this is what it looks like.

It will however be subject to the minister for planning's control and direction, who can authorise development without assessment under the Environmental Planning Act.

The environment minister does not have any oversight over the authority but a "joint select committee" will be formed, made up of 10 MPs, who will be responsible for reviewing the authority's actions following any disaster.

A successful Greens amendment this week means the authority must now also take into account how their decisions will impact climate change.

What does all this mean?

Gundungurra elder Sharyn Halls said she's confused about where this legislation leaves Indigenous people who have land agreements, as there's no requirement for consultation.

The government's push to make sure the bill was passed before the parliamentary year finished also left Ms Halls uneasy, as she believes many people won't have even heard of it yet.

"It seemed to be too much of a rushed job," she told the ABC.

"I'm sad that no one's possibly looked into the consequences of this bill properly."

The National Parks Association (NPA) of NSW supports the idea of an authority, but says it's disappointed amendments proposed by the Greens and Mr Fields were rejected.

These included:

• A ban on clearing native vegetation

• A ban on developing within a national park

• The ability for National Parks and Wildlife to intervene in the case of unnecessary environmental impact

• Excluding property developers from the authority's advisory board

NPA president Grahame Douglas said the proposed amendments would have ensured the state's key environment assets were protected by future governments...

"An example of that is the potential abuse of a future government wanting to raise the Warragamba Dam wall in a World Heritage area using this legislation."

[my yellow highlighting]

An insurance crisis grips the flood-ravaged Central West of NSW as state enters 69th day of consecutive flooding

 

The Sydney Morning Herald, A frame grab from aerial drone vision over Eugowra (Postcode 2806) on Tuesday. 15 November 2022. IMAGE: Mat Reid

Mainstream media reports that the entire postcode of 2871 is to be denied future flood cover by insurance industry. Included in this postcode are:

Bandon, Bedgerebong, Bundaburrah, Calarie, Carrawabbity, Corinella, Cumbijowa, Daroobalgie, Fairholme, Forbes, Garema, Grawlin, Gunning Gap, Jemalong, Mulyandry, Ooma, Warroo, Weelong, Wirrinya and Yarragong. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Morning Edition,17 November 2022:

Insurers drop flood-stricken residents

As floods continue to devastate the state’s central west, exhausted residents have begun receiving letters from their insurers telling them they are no longer covered. Touring the affected areas, acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said the government would continue to talk to its state counterpart about potential land buybacks. But the insurance crisis prompted calls for the federal government to intervene with a reinsurance pool like it did in Queensland, where premiums skyrocketed due to cyclones.

“There’s got to be a suite of measures on the table, from the financial to the physical, like flood mitigation,” said local federal MP Andrew Gee. In 2019, the state government committed to raising the wall of Wyangala Dam, which has been spilling hundreds of thousands of megalitres of water a day as communities downstream are inundated. However, laws allowing the government to fast-track that project expired last year before work commenced, and Opposition Leader Chris Minns will not commit to it if elected next year. He says the multibillion-dollar project is being used by the government to peddle “false hope” for flood-ravaged communities…..

Photo: Alex Ellinghausen, see more here.

• See the latest news in our live flood coverage

Perrottet and Toole faced with an approaching tidal wave of condemnation, retreated from their latest attempt to drive NSW koalas into species extinction

 

This was going to be the scheduled North Coast Voices post title today: "Dodgy duo Dom Perrottet and Paul Toole are hoping that NSW residents, ratepayers and voters will forget this act of political bastardry once the state parliament goes into recess until February 2023. How wrong they will be in many a coastal council area".

But then, with an eye to his political legacy, retiring NSW Christian Democrat MLC Fred Nile spoke out.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 December 2022: 

The NSW government has been forced into a humiliating backdown in the latest koala wars after Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile refused to back its native forestry bill, guaranteeing it would have failed on the floor of parliament. Agriculture Minister Dugald Saunders confirmed late on Monday that the Nationals would pull the hugely divisive bill in a bid to avoid an embarrassing loss for the Coalition in the final sitting week of parliament before the March election. The death knell for the bill came when Nile ruled out support for changes to native forestry laws, which would have made it easier for landholders to remove trees.....

Without Nile’s support, the bill could not have passed the upper house and it was also likely to fail in the lower house because Nationals MP Geoff Provest told Nationals leader Paul Toole on Monday that he would not support the bill. Liberal MP Felicity Wilson also ruled out supporting the bill. Millionaire businessman and environmental crusader Geoff Cousins, who waged the high-profile campaign to stop the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania during the 2007 federal election campaign, also delivered a blistering warning to the NSW government, saying he would “do everything I can to run a major campaign against the Perrottet government in the next election” in response to the bill. “I would liken the sort of campaign I would run to the Gunns pulp mill campaign,” Cousins, a former adviser to John Howard, said. “If they want to go up against that, that’s fine. But it would include a major advertising campaign and I would do everything I could to bring down a government that would put forward legislation like this.” .....

In addition to dissenting members of the NSW Parliament, it was obvious that individuals and communities all along the est. 1,973km long NSW mainland coastal zone and, as far inland as the Great Dividing Range, were prepared to resist the Perrottet Coalition Government's attempt to lock in destructive legislation ahead of the March 2023 state election. In what looked suspiciously like an erstatz insurance policy for their timber industry mates - just in case the Coalition lost the forthcoming state ballot.

Somewhat predictably, in this approach the Perrottet Government was aping the failed former Morrison Government and, thereby doing itself no favours.

BACKGROUND

Newly minted NSW National Party Leader & Deputy Premier Paul Toole 
and newly minted NSW Liberal Party Leader & Premier Dominic Perrottet. IMAGE: ABC News, 14 October 2021

 

Following in the footsteps of a disgraced Liberal premier and a disgraced Nationals deputy premier (both of whom resigned
office and left the NSW Parliament) it seems no lessons were learnt......

The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November 2022, p.1:

NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet faces a damaging internal battle in the final week of parliament as Liberals threaten to cross the floor over the revival of the so-called koala wars which almost tore apart the Coalition two years ago.

As NSW parliament sits for the last time before the March election, the bitter issue of protecting koala habitat could split the Coalition, with Liberals who face challenges from teal candidates fearing it would ignite a backlash against the government.

The Nationals have introduced a bill to make it easier for landholders to clear private native forestry without duplicate approval processes between state and local governments. However, critics have warned it could water down environmental regulation and destroy koala habitat.

Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes a Court described revisiting the koala wars as a "gift" for the teal movement in NSW, which would seize on the NSW government's position in northern Sydney seats.

Holmes a Court said Perrottet had made three significant environmental missteps in recent weeks, which included committing to raising the Warragamba Dam wall and appointing former Sydney Hydro boss Paul Broad as a special adviser.

Broad, who was appointed by Perrottet while Energy Minister Matt Kean was overseas, has been a critic of NSW's energy road map, which provides long-term contracts for renewable generation and grid services. Broad has called the plan, devised by Kean, "fundamentally flawed". He also backed the former federal government in its push for a large new gas-fired power plant in the Hunter Valley.

"Until recently, it's been hard for the teals to find strong differentiation in states with almost-good-enough environmental credentials like Victoria and NSW," Holmes a Court said.

"Dominic Perrottet has handed the movement a gift through deciding to flood a UNESCO site with many significant Aboriginal sites, reopening the koala wars and putting Angus Taylor's gas man in the Premier's office."

Asked yesterday about Broad's appointment, Perrottet said he was "highly regarded, and his experience in water, engineering and infrastructure is second to none in this country".

Perrottet said Broad's remit included raising the Warragamba wall and ensuring the $3.5 billion Narrabri gas project was online as soon as possible.

The Coalition battled internal warfare over koala planning laws in 2020, when former deputy premier John Barilaro threatened to take his Nationals MPs to the crossbench if proposed new rules to protect an increased number of tree species home to koalas were adopted.

Then premier Gladys Berejiklian stared him down and Barilaro withdrew the threat.

The bill to change planning laws for private native forests will be debated his week and is likely to be particularly problematic for Liberal MP James Griffin, who is environment minister and holds the seat of Manly, which has a very active independents' group.

Several senior government sources said other at-risk Liberals, including North Shore MP Felicity Wilson and Port Macquarie MP Leslie Williams, are considering crossing the floor or abstaining. Nationals MP for Tweed Geoff Provest could abstain.

Wilson, Williams and Provest were contacted for comment.

In an indication of how damaging Wilson thinks the bill could be, she gave a private members' statement to parliament last week when she wanted her "support for a plan to transition the native forestry industry towards sustainable plantations" placed on the record……

Opposition environment spokeswoman Penny Sharpe said Labor would oppose the bill…...

Local Government NSW president Darriea Turley said the bill had been rushed into parliament without any consultation with local government.

"This bill undermines the crucial role councils play in the regulation of private forestry operations," Turley said. "It will have devastating impacts on native habitats, particularly for koalas and many threatened species."

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