Horizons Regional Council is looking toward resilience, rather than protection for Whanganui's flood-prone Anzac Parade, raising houses or moving them out of the danger zone, rather than increasing the height of stopbanks along the river. Anzac Parade resident Steve Baron, who has campaigned for higher stopbanks, begs to differ ...
I was disappointed to hear that Horizons Regional Council has pre-empted full consultation on all options for flood protection and does not propose to implement a reasonable level of protection along Anzac Parade.
Yes, I have an interest greater than many, given I own a property there. However, Horizons has made this decision based on limited consultation and feedback from a sector of our community who do not want their rates to pay for protecting this vulnerable area, which not only has private residences but a popular park and a state highway running through it.
Horizons has focused on moving homes, rather than considering all options, quite possibly condemning Anzac Parade and Putiki people to a life of misery and fear every time it rains heavily.
Many of these people have no option but to sit it out for a few more years while Horizons works out how to pay for the cost of moving private properties. The regional council has effectively passed the buck.
Like Chronicle columnist Fred Frederikse, I have come to the conclusion that Horizons is just another level of government we no longer need. I believe the Whanganui District Council should manage issues like this.
If the council had control over this issue, reasonable flood protection along Anzac Parade and Putiki would have been implemented by now. And I am not talking about a huge increase in height to protect against medium level floods.
Managed retreat, which Horizons is touting as the answer, is a long-term option that may take 10 years, 20 years or even 30 years before we see real action. In the meantime, many residents will suffer, as will Kowhai Park and Whanganui Girls' College. They are difficult and expensive to move -- but, conveniently, that is not Horizons' problem.
PROTECTION: Work is under way to raise the stopbank in Kowhai Park back in 2015.
I would argue that putting taxpayer money into raising private properties above flood levels, and so increasing the value of those homes, is crossing a line that a council should never cross. Protecting those homes from being inundated by floods, with reasonable flood protection, is a totally different story.
What does irk me is the vast amount of misinformation and the weak arguments from Horizons. For example, it is argued the Matarawa Stream is a serious issue because it floods properties in behind the current stopbanks. Not true.
To my knowledge, the Matarawa has never topped flood protection walls prior to 2015, and then all stopbanks were topped so the flooding was going to occur anyway.
I've been told stopbanks will mean 100 trees will be bludgeoned to death. Well, people come before trees, and the reality is that just about all these trees can be transplanted, or replanted, and the large trees can be built around.
I've been told that the view of the river will be blocked. The reality is that most of the badly affected properties do not have a view of the river anyway, because the trees block it.
Some argue that Anzac Parade residents should not be "bailed out" by other ratepayers paying for this flood protection. Well, as Matt Dutton stated on Facebook, comments like this are simply "antisocial negativity".
Increasing the height of stopbanks to a reasonable level is a social responsibility. The point that eludes many of these critics is that we are all, at some point, paying for something that we do not directly benefit from. That is what caring communities do and why we all pay our taxes.
And what of the Whanganui District Council's culpability? It issued building permits in the first place.
Horizons has claimed the cost of reasonable flood protection is likely to be much higher, due to a common problem with many stopbanks called "piping", where water pressure from higher flood protection forces water underneath, to the other side.
Why was this not an issue when Horizons previously talked about the cost being around $7 million? Where are the new reports and tests confirming this? How convenient to mention this now. Is it an expedient excuse to justify a weak decision?
While councils may buy flood-prone properties over time, my guess is this will only happen at bargain basement prices, once a property has been devastated by the next flood and the owner is desperate and prepared to move on.
Horizons needs to give the public the full story, along with all the options, and then consult on all options. Long-term planning is fine, but it is also prudent to take a short-term view; to take a quick peek over your shoulder before crossing the road -- it stops you being run over by a bus.
Steve Baron is an Anzac Parade-based political commentator, author and founder of Better Democracy NZ. He holds degrees in economics and political science.
