John Howard

In response to the Awakeri flood design proofed for climate change (Beacon, September 25).I’d like to raise a number of points conveniently omitted or understated by staff.

Why, when no other councillors had any questions (council meeting, September 24) was Councillor Gavin Dennis shut down?

Protocol or just to avoid revealing more inconvenient truths?

Having always lived in the area and having had 25 days under water this early autumn, there are serious problems with large-scale development in this area.

This waterway system feeds into the Te Rahu Canal, then into the Whakatāne River.

But to avoid further flooding of Whakatāne township in such events, the flood pumps can be turned off allowing the water to spill over a specially lower stop bank onto farmland into what is known as the Te Rahu Basin.

So, what’s going to happen with more hard surface run-off in these supposed one-in-100-year floods that are more like a one-in-five-year flood event?

Having supposed setbacks and containment areas that are planted up means – as sediment builds up – it then becomes more difficult to remove because of the plantings.

So, that means less depth available for holding water.

Who will be responsible for cleaning such areas? The developer?

No, the council in whatever form it may have going forward.

Does our current council not have or has it had issues managing the Matatā fanhead?

Walkways, plantings and containment areas are at odds with each other.

The Te Rahu Canal proves everything that is blamed on climate change is more about manmade climate change in that our rivers are becoming perched and need cleaning.

The difference in days under water is significantly less under the current BOPRC management.

So, with this development, we will go from a dozen houses overlooking this farmed area (good, valuable farmland) to hundreds of houses watching stock walking around in the water and pugging up the paddocks, with no understanding that the stock are cared for as best they can in those circumstances or that hard surface areas are contributing to this flooding.

Property in the area is described as “moderate”. Just what does that mean geotechnically?

Deep down you’ll find a hard surface and that foundations will be more than “moderately” expensive to build on, with ongoing issues of flooding and subsidence from peat soils.

Yes, it’s great for staff to deliver a project and to see sections become available in Whakatāne.

More ratepayers to pay the ever-increasing rates. But they have put the spin on it they want, to deliver it.

When the same staff members can write any number of reports to say it’s possible and also contribute directly into the regional spatial plan to say it is possible, then who dares to contest such reports.

So, in order to allow a development to go ahead, the neighbouring landowners are just expected to roll over and drown.

All in the interest (of the developer) of progress.

Well, this will be a true definition of a man-made climate change disaster if it progresses to the proposed plan.

Water always finds its way to the lowest point, as one of the pictures in the council agenda highlighted, and because of the levelling effect, what is 2 metres deep will mean other areas are going to be 1m deep.

The whole flow-on effect has been very much omitted. Potentially, another flood pump may need to be installed in the immediate area.

Flood proofed? I say not.

Yes, we will get our chance to have our say in the submission process. But it would be better if it was more open and transparent about all the consequences. But I guess it’s all just water under the bridge and they’ll do it anyway.