Katharine Moody probes how planning might respond to help disaster recovery, to prevent future tragedy and incorporate lessons from recent extreme weather events

This Top 5 comes from Katharine Moody, a senior tutor at Massey University's College of Humanities and Social Sciences in Palmerston North, who comments on interest.co.nz as "Kate." The views expressed in this article are her own and don't necessarily reflect those of Massey University.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz. And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 5 yourself, contact gareth.vaughan@interest.co.nz.

See all previous Top 5s here.

…there but for the grace of God go I

All too often when considering others’ misfortune, there is a tendency to lean back on homo-economicus to guide our ethical thinking. Adages such as caveat emptor, moral hazard and King Canute are often trotted out in public discourse. Recent weather events however heighten our recognition that others' misfortune could be well be our own were it not for the blessing of God, Gaia or atua, or fortune or fate.

Many here would agree that disaster recovery in Christchurch took too long, and too many people suffered unnecessary anxiety and depression as their businesses and lives were disrupted for years. How might planning respond to aide disaster recovery, to prevent future tragedy and to take lessons from these recent weather events?

1. Impose nationwide minimum set-back rules for residential building which is on, above or below steep slopes.

We sadly now know full well the threat posed to lives from slips – both houses tumbling down cliff faces and others in the path of slips from above. Normally, when consent is sought to build on, above or below a steep slope a geotechnical engineering report is required to determine the safety or otherwise of such construction. Retaining walls and other engineering methods are used to mitigate the hazard.

Perhaps it is time to put a pause on mitigation, and simply avoid such hazards under Resource Management Act (RMA) section 5(2)c as a temporary emergency measure while we take stock in the aftermath of these events.

2. Impose nationwide no-build areas for newly identified flash flood hazard zones.

A distinction needs to be made between assets at risk of flash flooding events (with potential for loss of life) versus assets at risk of overland stormwater flow paths. In planning we often call the latter ponding, but in most of the GIS (Geographic Information System) systems I’ve seen, both are categorised on LIM (Land Information Memorandum) reports as a flood hazard.

To my mind, ponding and overflow is a flood nuisance that can be remedied via improved stormwater infrastructure management. In the recent case of flash flooding of the town of Edgecombe, it is my understanding that water was not spilled early enough from the Matahina Dam, and led to the failure of an already weakened stopbank. That was likely preventable with improved flood defences and better dam management.

Regarding the more widespread tragedies we have seen recently with loss of life, I commented here on 9 February about when evacuation orders would be given with respect to Cyclone Gabrielle’s approach.

by Kate | 9th Feb 23, 11:32pm
This is so weird - we have a Cat 3 storm on the way - the Meteorologist interviewed on TV1 tonight said in all her time, she'd "never seen a storm like this" (referring to the size of it and the wide area it will affect) BUT there has been no suggestion regarding early evacuation where possible?
Cyclones Tracy and Bola were both Cat 3s…
The least they could tell people is if the storm tracks as they predict and evacuation is to be considered - what day they will call it on?  It's Friday tomorrow and this is expected to make landfall on Monday morning.

Let’s be frank – we were woefully unprepared for this. Perhaps no amount of flood defences would have prevented the carnage in the Esk River Valley, but early mandatory evacuation would have saved lives. Politicians interviewed have referred to difficult conversations and tough calls.

Urgent assessment of communities at risk of riverine flash flooding need reassessment the nation over. Once identified, all new residential building in these areas should be made a prohibited activity under the RMA. New building and/or re-building in harm’s way now, on the premise of potential future mitigation actions, does a dis-service to our children, in particular. Post-traumatic stress disorder is real, and particularly so in children as they are less able to rationalise about the likelihood of a repeat event or experience.

3. Mayors come together to review NZTA funded or part funded major roading projects in their regions, to divert money and resources to the cyclone ravaged areas.

Unless an existing NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency) funded project has a high chance of resulting in loss of life if not completed urgently, perhaps all local government Mayors as a gesture of goodwill could voluntarily agree that infrastructure funding already secured should be diverted to the Coromandel, Hawke's Bay and West Auckland area roads to restore access as soon as possible.

For example, this NZTA project in the Hutt Valley has been long fought for by many of our central and local government representatives. And good on them, it is needed work. But, as a community, I think we can wait another year for the major bridge/road construction to begin. I’m certain many other tasks as part of the wider project can commence in the meantime.

Lower Hutt's $700 million RiverLink project.

Mayors need to demonstrate to all New Zealand communities that we recognise we are all in this together. These damaged roads are all our roads; these once pristine beaches are all our beaches; these people and places are all a part of us. He iwi kotahi tātou. The word parochialism and the idea of ‘patch protection’ should no longer be a part of our collective mindset in the 21st century.

4. Fast-track RMA consenting requirements for all bridges/roads needing repair and/or replacement.

Something I am certain the government is working on already. Specific legislation, such as the Hurunui/Kaikoura Earthquakes Recovery Act 2016 needs to be implemented with respect to Cyclone Gabrielle recovery.

These decisions will be part of the ‘tough calls’ and ‘difficult decisions’ that are referred to above. And when the government chooses to fast-track such decisions, consultation and participation is curtailed.

Through the Emergency legislation they blocked the community rights, and freedoms... They stole our Kaikōura coastline, blocked us from mahinga kai areas and digging through cultural significant sites.

They were supposed to be here to open the roads, but projects continued with many new builds including cycleways and tourism viewing platforms along the coast...

To my mind, there needs to be a re-birth of trust. Trust that our leaders, their officials and workers will do their best to respect our whenua, our taiao, our wāhi tapu, our whānau and our livelihoods – accepting that compromises will need to be made in the recovery, as painful as some of them might
be for everyone involved.

In particular, there are likely to be many regulatory takings outside the purview of the Public Works Act 1981. If there is trust that all parties will act in good faith, the necessary changes will get done.

This brings us to the fact that new forms of compensation when regulatory rules in city/district plans change under the RMA are needed. Which leads to the final item in the list.

5. Impose nationwide requirement for all local authorities to urgently consider a flood management retreat policy.

For years, there has been a lot of talk about the adaptation option of managed retreat. I’ve even seen it recently referred to as ‘planned retreat’. Whatever the word – it is a notional concept. Most councils have no management; no plan. Instead, managed retreat has become a regulatory catch phrase for:

If we do nothing (aside from map the hazard) perhaps you (the property owner) will eventually abandon your land and assets voluntarily.

Back in 2006, I read a 2004 engineering consultancy report on surface flood management (i.e., an investigation of stormwater ponding and over flow paths) that stated;

The question whether some of these as yet undeveloped low-lying areas should be developed at all in future needs to be considered.

But, of course, the question was never addressed; and greenfield development of land (which already flooded in the un-developed state) continued unabated. That community has recently been identified as one of 44 vulnerable communities spread across 12 regions in New Zealand.

My point being, many people across the nation who now find their homes frequently inundated during rain events, are in that position because more recent development in the near vicinity has caused mounding of groundwater, loss of storage, and impediments to overland flow paths. Their problems are not exclusively that of a changing climate - yet central and local government are getting good at using climate change as a ‘cover’ for lack of infrastructure planning, upgrade and maintenance.

Our infrastructure problem in two charts:

It is time that we move managed retreat from a notional concept to a real option for those who seek to voluntarily relocate from frequently flood damaged homes. Porirua City Council has led the way in proposing and passing such a Flood Retreat Response Policy (linked to below) in advance of government decisions on ‘who pays’ under the Climate Adaptation Act;

Council officers said Wellington Water identified 44 houses at risk of internal flooding above floor level in a once-in-a-20-year event. An on-site inspection would be needed for confirmation.

Each council to my mind needs to urgently undertake a similar policy development exercise and central government needs to set its rules now around a funding split.

And, given the urgency of this task, in a ‘perfect world’ central government would extend the due date imposed on councils for implementation of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

The pressure that this legislation has forced on certain territorial authorities to identify and impose Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) across their districts may result in areas unsuited to such intensification where the requisite ‘3 Waters’ infrastructure capacity does not exist. And in many cases, the land is already susceptible to stormwater inundation and/or slope erosion hazards.

I appreciate that we have a housing crisis but is the urban planning answer good quality high, or (potentially) low quality medium density? It’s an issue that has not been fully explored.