NZ’s climate change guinea pigs

Written By: - Date published: 12:10 pm, July 21st, 2017 - 56 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, Economy, Environment, housing - Tags: ,

Last week RNZ covered a conflict between residents of a coastal village and their local council over climate change action (video below). The Whakatane District Council wants to evict 34 households because it believes they are no longer safe in extreme weather event floods. They’ve offered to buy out the residents but for well below previous market values (less than half). Some of the residents are wanting to stay, others are saying the buy-out isn’t enough. Where the council and residents appear to agree is that Matata is about to set a precedent for the whole country.

This is hugely significant for NZ. While South Dunedin has been wrestling with floods and impending climate change issues for a while, it hasn’t yet gotten to the point where people are having to move and where the big, ugly issues of lost financial housing assets comes into play. So no-one has yet solved this problem. What’s fair when your home is about to be lost? And how much should financial investment also be considered in what is fair?

I feel for the residents. I’d probably be one of the people who would want to stay for as long as possible. For people that have a connection to place, being able to stay can outweigh financial considerations. The residents in the video strike me as good kiwi blokes and blokesses, of the kind I’ve known in many different coastal communities. I look at where they live and completely understand why they want to be there and why they want to stay.

However if it was a place I didn’t feel a deep connection with, I’d probably be ok with taking what compensation I could and moving on. My sympathy starts to wane a bit when I hear the complaints about not being paid enough and not being able to afford to buy the equivalent elsewhere. Yes, that sucks, especially for people that have been working hard to get free of a mortgage and will need to spend much more time doing that. But we’ve known about climate change for a very long time. This is a community highly vulnerable to climate change. If not the flood issue, then eventual sea level rise.

Many of the houses were rebuilt after a massive flood and slip in 2005. The council is being blamed for allowing that rebuild, and in hindsight it does look like a significant error on their part (at the least all the rebuilt houses should have been moveable), but perhaps it was just a deferral of the inevitable, and in the end we’re all going to pay.

In a capitalist society where housing is a commodity eventually someone is will lose out when there is an end to the pass-the-parcel property values game. Who should be left holding the dud? At what point do councils start notifying that areas will have to be abandoned, and then the asset value of the land and buildings becomes useless? Are the people in Matata the fortunate ones because in the decades to come the council probably won’t have enough money to pay out anything for the other sea level communities that will by then be facing inundation or their own flooding/slips? Maybe we need to rethink putting all our eggs into the financial investment basket.

We’ve got some tough years ahead, and this is where we need to be at our most creative and think laterally rather than seeing everything through the money lens. If the people residing there, who’ve made their lives there, want to stay, why not give them a cash payment and let them stay. It opens up their choices. Rezone the land, don’t let any new builds happen, or sales, put in additional civil defence protections for when the next flood comes, but let them stay. Those people can then make better use of their time, their homes, their income and their working lives.

This is congruent with Powerdown thinking, where we make use of existing resources and where the currency of highest value isn’t the NZ$ but community and the ability to work with what we’ve got. Bulldozing ten year old houses that are still sound is a profligate waste in a world at the limits of growth and in a country in the midst of a housing crisis with immense change on the horizon. Forcing locals into legal action is likewise a squandering of community right at the time when we need it most.

Beyond that there are serious questions about what councils are doing to prepare for climate change. In 2008 the Ministry for the Environment produced a series of guides for local bodies on how to assess and prepare for climate change,

Thus, councils and communities should be giving serious consideration to the potential future impacts of climate change on their functions and services. Particularly important are infrastructure and developments that will need to cope with climate conditions in 50–100 years’ time. Examples include stormwater drainage systems, planning for irrigation schemes, development of low-lying land already subject to flood risk, and housing and infrastructure along already eroding coastlines. Climate change may also bring opportunities (eg, growing new horticultural crops in a particular area) to which councils may wish to pay attention.

It’s past time that we stopped thinking this is a problem for later generations to deal with. We’re here sooner than expected and things are likely to move faster than we think we need to be prepared for. I find it bizarre beyond belief that 6 years after Christchurch NZ still doesn’t have an integrated tsunami warning process in place. Maybe it’s always like this with change that’s too big to take in properly. But I can’t help wondering if NZ’s apparent complacency isn’t simply inability to act due to shock at what our country has become. Everywhere I look at the moment I see stress and fractures in our natural ability to do the right things. But I also fractures in the forces of neoliberalism. That along with our innate resiliency and the willingness to push back gives me some hope.

56 comments on “NZ’s climate change guinea pigs ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    21 July 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Global warming kills capitalism. It’s that simple.

    When the likes of settlements like Matata and the 1001 other likely affects of warming are stacked up against solving or over-coming problems through the medium of finance, it doesn’t and won’t pan out.

    I don’t expect people to abandon the habits of lifetimes easily. There is a huge amount of psychological and emotional investment placed in how we do things, and in the various pathways to reward and meaning that come from all of that.

    Essentially we are like monkeys with their fists clenched around ‘bounty’ that they grasped by way of slipping an open hand through a hole fashioned in a tethered coconut. The only way to extract that hand is by unclenching and letting the ‘bounty’ drop. That’s not happening willingly – it’s a simple life saving sacrifice that won’t compute, even though the hunters with the big clubs are approaching.

    I’ll predict many, many people will be thrown under the bus (the hugely populated supporting layers of capitalism’s ‘wealth’ pyramid) before we finally relinquish our grasp on liberal capitalism. That’s assuming we ever even do before the mighty club of global warming swipes everything away.

    We worked and sacrificed for what we’ve got dammit! We’re entitled to this! And with out this, then what?

    Failure of imagination and the addiction of habit. A wonderful combination in extremis.

    • weka 1.1
      21 July 2017 at 2:17 pm

      Nice monkey grabbing fist analogy.

      I’d be interested in what those people thinking about climate change. They’re saying that the flood risk isn’t as high as the council makes out (and one guy got full insurance on his house). What about the sea level stuff? Especially in light of what Macro is saying below.

  2. Macro 2
    21 July 2017 at 1:21 pm

    And just down the road …..
    Ohope.
    Anyone with an eye to the future who has visited these lovely beaches on the Bay of Plenty coastline will have observed that many of the houses – and some are very substantial – are built little more than a few centimetres above high tide level on a a sand spit protected only by sand dunes.
    Enjoy these beaches now because in a few years they will be gone. A 10cm rise in sea level on shorelines such as these can cause a 15 metre inland erosion.

    • weka 2.1
      21 July 2017 at 2:15 pm

      Broken link.

      • Macro 2.1.1
        21 July 2017 at 3:53 pm

        It’s a pdf.
        The relevant section is summarised thus:

        Sea Level Rise Shown
        to Drive Coastal Erosion
        PAGES 55-57
        Our research has shown that an important
        relationship exists between sea level rise and
        sandy beach erosion.The link is highly
        multiplicative, with the long-term shoreline
        retreat rate averaging about 150 times that of sea
        level rise. For example, a sustained rise of 10 cm
        in sea level could result in 15 m of shoreline erosion.
        Such an amount is more than an order of
        magnitude greater than would be expected from
        a simple response to sea level rise through inundation
        of the shoreline.
        Sea level is certainly only one of many factors
        causing long-term beach change.Shoreline revisions
        from inlet dynamics and coastal engineering
        projects are more pronounced in most areas
        of the US. east coast and tend to mask the effect
        of a rise in sea level even over extended
        intervals.The implication is that sea level rise is a
        secondary but inexorable cause of beach erosion
        in such areas.

        my bold
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/00EO00034/asset/eost12721.pdf;jsessionid=BD28755C97BFD1933A4F8D159AA602D6.f04t03?v=1&t=j5d6glkh&s=4496de82d6e8fcb547115ce714d75a8132738bca
        that might work.

    • esoteric pineapples 2.2
      21 July 2017 at 2:32 pm

      Sea level rises are currently 3cm a decade so at the very least, the level will be 9cm in thirty years

  3. marty mars 3
    21 July 2017 at 1:24 pm

    “We’ve got some tough years ahead, and this is where we need to be at our most creative and think laterally rather than seeing everything through the money lens.”

    Yes indeed. And someone will pay – this is the truth of trickle down – someone pays and as it gets passed down the line the people who end up paying are the people less likely to be able to pay – eventually the people due to pay, can’t pay. The compensation isn’t enough, my insurance doesn’t cover it, the council says it isn’t liable, you were warned about this 20 years ago and so on.

    And still councils block multiple dwellings and alternative ways of living on land – including the old ways of tangata whenua.

    • weka 3.1
      21 July 2017 at 2:43 pm

      I’d love to see more creative discussion around land sharing and multiple dwellings. We really need to reconstruct our whole approach to that. I get that councils have concerns about their infrastructure load, and there are perceived issues about rural land use, but this would be part of solving the housing crisis too.

      I’m not a fan of infill because I think open space has value and because we’re going to need it for food and resource growing eventually, but I also recognise that we are blocking a whole bunch of viable solutions by stopping people living on land together.

      Agreed too that tangata whenua can teach us much.

  4. One Anonymous Bloke 4
    21 July 2017 at 1:50 pm

    “Why not give them a cash payment and let them stay?”

    Because we will also foot the bill – via the civil defence budget etc. – for their inevitable rescue, repeated all over the country.

    I say invest a few of those inevitable ongoing costs of doing nothing and offer proper compensation. It’ll probably turn out to be a long-term saving, for those who are precious about the surplus.

    This is not something that local authorities can manage alone.

    • weka 4.1
      21 July 2017 at 2:07 pm

      How much would it cost to have an evacuation plan for severe weather events?

      Proper compensation doesn’t solve the don’t want to move issues.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1
        21 July 2017 at 2:23 pm

        How much would it cost to have an evacuation plan for severe weather events?

        Civil Defence are responsible for implementing such plans, and the weather events would be on-going, so the effective cost to the CD budget is infinite.

        And yes, you’re right, no-one wants to move. I think compensation should be generous, which is a lot less than infinite.

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          21 July 2017 at 2:39 pm

          Making a plan is a one off, not an ongoing cost.

          I think lots of people will be ok to move. But the ones that want to stay where the situation isn’t that clear, I don’t have a problem with this provided the boundaries are clear on safety and no more compensation down the road.

      • Sabine 4.1.2
        21 July 2017 at 8:50 pm

        always remember, your ’emergency dudes and dudettes that will come and save you are volunteers for the most and sadly, not many want to volunteer anymore or can as firefighter volunteers have to live in proximity to their station and with our housing precariat that has started to be a recruitment issue.

        so the question is not “how much will it cost’, but rather will we have the ‘manpower’.

        Cause once you have multiples emergencies you might find that the last bake sale to raise funds for an ambulance or a firetruck just did not cut it.

        other then that the question would be

        a. how many will need evacuating. – how many of those will require assistance
        b. how easy or hard can you get to those needing to be evacuating
        c. can people self evacuate or would that risk another emergency
        d. do you have any other emergencies gong on at the same time
        e. do you have life stock to evacuate
        f. time of evacuation

        but generally, sorry we don’t quite have the resources i am afraid, and the lack of preparedness showed when we had that cyclone come through and all sorts of crap went wrong. so if you have issues on more then one front you might find that a. we are short staffed, and b. the human resources might have to leave work first before they can get started helping to evacuate people.

        disclaimer: my partner is ’emergency services’ volunteer and yes, i have provided baked goods to raise money for a fire station.

        essentially if you live in an are that you might have to evacuate, have your survival bag (papers, cash, bank cards, photos, stuff) ready, have a 5-10 gasoline tin to take, have torches, have your animals chipped and registered, find out your nearest evac centre (good luck with that in AKL – as the civil defense will let people know where to go in case of – yeah, not making that up) and have a plan ready with your whanau on how to meet up should you all be in different parts of town due to work/school etc.
        Also find out if there are shelters that will take pets, as a lot of time that is not allowed.
        If you worry that you might not be at home at time of an emergency set up a system with locals to check on pets, but also to check on people who might be housebound.

        • weka 4.1.2.1
          21 July 2017 at 9:18 pm

          All good points. Personally, I don’t assume that the services where I live will function optimally for the reasons that you state.

          In this situation, if the council rezones the land but allows people to stay, I think there should be self-evacuations much earlier than normal. The community could even designate a local person to trigger that warning. This isn’t a suggestion I would necessarily make for lots of places in the country, but for a community that wants to stay, has already lived through one very large emergency, and is likely to have skills in dealing with shit, I think it’s ok to look at not treating them like city folk.

          So I’m not suggesting adding further burden to the services once an emergency is underway, but instead allowing people to keep living there, conditionally, and have a different plan for them. If they want to live there, in a big rain event they need to leave before the shit hits the fan, and that may mean abandoning their homes.

        • weka 4.1.2.2
          21 July 2017 at 10:05 pm

          Sabine, I used that paragraph about evacuating in the SI state of emergency post. Let me know if you’re not ok with that and I’ll take it out.

    • roadrage 4.2
      21 July 2017 at 3:20 pm

      The solution is simple. It has to maximize freedom. Agree council/state were at error, that residents who never heard of climate change were fools. Let them stay, pay them half, for the error, half of half from central govt. Then let them maximize… …oh wait then the fools might just spend the money reinforcing their homes.

      So yeah if pay them out they have to leave, if they whine tell them they have to pay for the cleanup of the site. Now institute a nz right to a warm dry home for everyone. Cover the social harm.

      • weka 4.2.1
        21 July 2017 at 3:27 pm

        What’s wrong with them staying?

        • roadrage 4.2.1.1
          21 July 2017 at 3:41 pm

          If paid out they might use the money to buyt lots of rocks. Which could exasperate erosion for others.

          • roadrage 4.2.1.1.1
            21 July 2017 at 3:57 pm

            I do not agree with then notion that emergencies services will be put out saving home owners since its a slow erosion. Home owners do need to maximize their position and living in the home makes sense while using a payout to buy building land. But you know that stupid people exist, they don’t believe in climate change and so will use the money to fortify rather than flee.

            • weka 4.2.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2017 at 9:19 pm

              The risk isn’t slow erosion, it’s a landslide in a bit rain event. Happens reasonably fast. Have just replied to Sabine above, if people want to stay, they need to accept a different level of CD/emergency service.

              Not really understanding your point about the rocks.

              • roadrage …
                25 July 2017 at 10:27 am

                The beach homes being washed away… …sure the homes under a muddy hill,but wait! That’s most of nz. Loose volcanic soils getting wet. The council thought its okay to let them rebuild ain’t like mud prone slips aren’t the norm. Our major highways cant be kept clear what hope homes! So if the question is what’s the standard it should be warning people and getting them to move and not make matters worse for themselves. Pay outsmustbe conditional on.

                Take the over hanging rock problem in Littleton? And council saying some homes were under threat when they were being overly cautious. Its such a common nzproblem that has to be a cheap method to decide matters, like home owners allowed to take in some of the risk if they don’t exasperate the problem (andcounbcil don’t either). A case for the local govt ombudsman.

                • weka …
                  25 July 2017 at 10:47 am

                  I don’t think councils have enough money to pay out on all properties now at risk. I guess lots are still insured for acute events, but I suspect we are approaching a time when it won’t be possible to fully insure in many places.

  5. Denis Tegg 5
    21 July 2017 at 2:24 pm

    You mention the 2008 guidelines which are now almost 10 years out of date. Even these are not being complied with by local councils.

    New guidelines have been finalised and have been on Minister’s desks for several months. It now seems almost certain they will not be released before the election. Why is that? Because the government does not want the content of the new guidelines to be made public in the run-up to the election – problem is the guts of the new guidelines has been inadvertently released. – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11868570

    A Ministry PowerPoint – https://teggtalk.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/copy-of-the-presentation.pdf — confirms that under the new guidelines local councils will have to “stress test” new greenfield subdivision and major infrastructure projects against a sea level rise of 1.9 m and with a timeframe out to 2150. No doubt there are dozens of major subdivisions and infrastructure projects (including some major housing developments in Auckland?) which would fail a 1.9 m stress test. Best not to upset voters and more particularly developers and coastal property owners with some harsh climate change reality aye?

    Apart from the Herald , the mainstream media has been totally missing in action on this issue.

  6. esoteric pineapples 6
    21 July 2017 at 2:27 pm

    First people deny climate change, and then they expect others to pay for their loss.

    • Gristle 6.1
      21 July 2017 at 2:53 pm

      The Dunedin City council tried to put information about potential flooding on council property records so that they would show up in a LIM report. See ODT

      Community reaction (read land owners and real estate agents) got up in arms about this. Presumably on the basis that it impeded their ability to flick the property onto to others.

      Steps to take now:
      1. Place severe limitations on building below the 5m or 10m (above sea level) contour, for example no development, or, only with relocatable buildings, or go for it at your own risk (sign here………………………)
      2. Introducing LIM notification
      3. Councils to set up decent monitoring of areas prone to sea level incursion.
      4. Have the conversation with all rate payers about the level of responsibility that the local government should have with regard to compensation of affected properties.
      5. Get the insurance companies involved. (I was told by an insurance actuary that premium rates were going up and cover coming down on South Dunedin properties.)

  7. greywarshark 7
    21 July 2017 at 4:17 pm

    2005. The houses were rebuilt. The Council should have known better and not allowed it. And wouldn’t the residents have fought them tooth and nail! Wouldn’t the Council have been accused of being redtape bound, pie in the sky, barriers to progress with their pettifogging demands and concerns. It is hard for Councils to go againsstrong lobbies, especially smaller ones.

    But the people who should have known and been able to help these local bodies are those in Local Government NZ. They probably did something in 2005, but it wasn’t enough. (I want to underline that but am not sure the thing will work.) They need, of course, major interaction and help from central government, which is in USA mode – over in the USA have admitted severe neglect of much of their infrastructure and of governmental oversight of it.

    LG has been trying:
    http://www.lgnz.co.nz/news-and-media/2017-media-releases/lgnz-election-manifesto-calls-for-joint-approach-to-managing-risk-and-resilience/
    Local Government New Zealand is urging an incoming government to commit to a collaborative approach and urgent action to manage the risks posed to New Zealand communities from extreme weather and seismic events.
    Recent events like the Kaikoura earthquake and the Edgecumbe flooding further put the spotlight on the need to improve readiness for hazardous events to reduce community and economic risks.

    In its election manifesto to be released at this weekend’s LGNZ Conference in Auckland, LGNZ says given the substantial risks New Zealand faces, including from climate change, a more strategic and comprehensive approach across the country is needed.
    The manifesto also reiterates the need for a Government supported Local Government Risk Agency to increase local capacity and develop a consistent standard of risk management.

    and
    New Zealand local government leaders join global community to …
    http://www.lgnz.co.nz/…/new-zealand-local-government-leaders-join-global-community-to-...
    Dec 1, 2015 – LGNZ President Lawrence Yule says New Zealand has much at stake and much to gain by adopting strong leadership on climate change and …

    Leading the Leaders – Waking up local government to NetZeroNZ …
    pureadvantage.org/news/2017/05/25/leading-the-leaders/
    May 25, 2017 – In addition, thirty-one New Zealand local authorities are signatories to the 2015 Local Government Leaders Declaration on Climate Change, …

    And the local officials and bureaucrats are trying to keep up professional standards; presumably they will be doing a better job than the Transport Authority and their caravan of bullshit. (Interesting, if you can’t find it I’ll put it up if you want to know more – just ask.) But whether the high gloss of professionalism includes rolling their sleeves up and sweating under the stress of hard but fair decision making on climate change, costing the changes and getting everyone to bear a fair proportion of it, and making constant reports to the people they so closely connect with – well there’s the rub.

    About Us : SOLGM
    http://www.solgm.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=1069
    SOLGM is the national membership organisation for local government professionals. … Our focus is on providing professional leadership, promoting innovation and … As at 30 June 2017, we had 615 members and all councils in New Zealand are … Simpson Grierson, as soon as possible following any legislative changes.

    A recent survey for local government showed this startling feature, /sarc
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503438&objectid=11888900
    A nation-wide local government survey has found many people want better value for money from their councils.
    That was reported in the Rotorua Daily Post. This has been recited by every ratepayer representative group since Adam and Eve!

    Another startling, but anodyne fact ascertained by Colmar Brunton (who wrote the questions – an SOLGM professional in the art of sliding away from the edge of crumbly precipices?)
    Key priority areas for improvement continue to be “sound financial decision making, delivering strong leadership to develop strategies for prosperity and wellbeing, and listening to, and acting upon, the needs of the community”.

    Just FYI here is a list of what control central gummint has over Councils, quite a lot don’t you think?
    https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/portfolios/local-government
    Also central government has its own website about its little brothers and sisters
    called Local Council. It might be interesting to compare these to see where they differ slightly to get a feel for tensions and coagulations between the two.
    http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/

    Local government tenders. It might suit central gummint not to do anything for NZs at all and just sit on the fence, chewing their stalk of grass, and criticising LG for not being perfect. The old adage that ‘Everyone’s an armchair critic’.
    https://www.lgtenders.co.nz/

    • marty mars 7.1
      21 July 2017 at 5:53 pm

      Jeepers grey a lot of info in there. It must take you ages to compile, type up and post. Onya.

      • greywarshark 7.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 5:44 pm

        Thanx marty mars
        I have just realised how important LG is and how much we need them to go on being there for us doing their service and promotion job for the region and the people who all live on the spot, and not in the heady denizens of Planet Keyless now Clueless.

  8. Ad 8
    21 July 2017 at 5:31 pm

    Weka that’s a really dumb and cynical title.
    They are not “Guinea Pigs”.
    They are people.

  9. Molly 9
    21 July 2017 at 6:02 pm

    James Hansen and others have just released a peer-reviewed paper, which does not view the current and future scenario with any optimism.

    Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions

    I’ve only had a quick look at the abstract and conclusion so far, but provided the link for those who may want to look deeper.

    From the conclusion:

    We conclude that the world has already overshot appropriate targets for GHG amount and global temperature, and we thus infer an urgent need for (1) rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions, (2) actions that draw down atmospheric CO2, and (3) actions that, at minimum, eliminate net growth of non-CO2 climate forcings. These tasks are formidable and, with the exception of the Montreal Protocol agreement on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that will halt the growth of their climate forcing (Appendix A13), they are not being pursued globally. Actions at citizen, city, state and national levels to reduce GHG emissions provide valuable experience and spur technical developments, but without effective global policies the impact of these local efforts is reduced by the negative feedback caused by reduced demand for and price of fossil fuels.

    Our conclusion that the world has overshot appropriate targets is sufficiently grim to compel us to point out that pathways to rapid emission reductions are feasible.

    …
    On the other hand, if large fossil fuel emissions are allowed to continue, the scale and cost of industrial CO2 extraction, occurring in conjunction with a deteriorating climate and costly dislocations, may become unmanageable. Simply put, the burden placed on young people and future generations may become too heavy to bear.

    • weka 9.1
      21 July 2017 at 6:35 pm

      That’s a reasonably clear and easy to understand position in the quote.

      I doubt that we will get meaningful CCS industrial tech (esp that doesn’t cause other problems), so best we get moving then.

  10. CLEANGREEN 10
    21 July 2017 at 7:54 pm

    Agreed WEKA,

    These councils are not serious about climate change at all.

    They have all grasped at the government’s own road freight policy of building more roads and letting rail die.

    Rail moves one tonne of freight one km 5 to eight times less fuel used than a truck and emits only a fraction of greenhouse gasses .

    Our beaches in Gisborne are all loosing a metre of beach front every year now so inside five years the road that carries trucks north along the coast State highway 35 will be under the sea!!!!!!!

    Maybe then they will wake up?

    Same in HB where Hastings District Council has it’s beaches facing high erosion is also building link roads for trucks.!!!!!!

    When will they ever learn,
    When will they ever learn.

  11. Jenny Kirk 11
    21 July 2017 at 8:23 pm

    Good post, Weka.
    But we cannot blame local councils for inaction. Quite a number of them are trying to effect change, but property owners (usually reasonably wealthy and able to argue against change in the Environment Court) won’t let them.
    Our local council, Whangarei, has been investigating the effects of climate change for some time now, but when they finally went around to the coastal areas to explain the likely adverse effects to residents, guess what ? People didn’t want to know, and they object to having their coastal property labelled as being hazardous or subject to erosion or sea flooding.
    Similar response from North Shore residents when I was a councillor there years ago, and did a survey about the likelihood of coastal erosion and went to talk to residents about it. Again, they did not want any “markers” put on their property maps.

  12. Sabine 12
    21 July 2017 at 8:57 pm

    There is no way local government could pay out all of those that live coastal and in flood plains to move.

    One day its simple gonna be take this money now and leave, or stay for as long as you can/want and get nothing and charged for the cost of an emergency evac should you need one.

    Now, on the other hand, what can be done about all the roads that are build right along the coast line? oh well, thats for another time.

    • weka 12.1
      21 July 2017 at 9:23 pm

      Slips are going to be one of NZ’s biggest issues. Not just coastline roads, but inland roads that will be unusable with big rain events, or quakes. I see a time coming when we can’t afford to repair them. Fuck National and their idiotic prioritising of resources.

      • greywarshark 12.1.1
        21 July 2017 at 9:42 pm

        Thank goodness for horses. The darling animals will be back in our hearts again.
        Instead of washing the car in the weekend, it will down to the paddock, climb on a box and brush down the nag.

  13. exkiwiforces 13
    21 July 2017 at 9:00 pm

    Those poor folks at Matata seem to be on a bit of a hiding ATM. I was reading a about this wee town some mths ago about the ongoing earthquakes in that neck of the woods and boffins were starting to think there maybe a hot-spot developing under or near Matata.

    • weka 13.1
      21 July 2017 at 9:21 pm

      Is it near Edgecumbe? (I don’t know the NI very well).

      • Macro 13.1.1
        21 July 2017 at 10:13 pm

        Its about 10km away (in a straight line) or a 15 min drive down the road. So yeah its near Edgecumbe.

      • exkiwiforces 13.1.2
        21 July 2017 at 11:59 pm

        Sorry if I have confuse you, I was using the map as a reference as it jog my memory on the article that I seen and if my memory serve’s me it also in a the Taupo rift zone. Its a lovely area to visit BTW, but that was back in the 90’s.

        • weka 13.1.2.1
          22 July 2017 at 12:08 am

          all good, I was just wondering if it was related to the Edgecumbe quakes.

          • exkiwiforces 13.1.2.1.1
            22 July 2017 at 1:01 am

            It didn’t say, but if Matata is in the Taupo rift zone which I think it is, then they are going to have a few problems in the future. In a rift zone what usually happens when the earths crusts stretches was causes the subsidence in the earth crust and if that’s the case, and then you throw in climate change ie rising sea levels then you are going to have problems down the track. If you look at any topo map you would see a lot drainage canals which means they are likely to a high water table and some places are former swamps aka the easting parts of Christchurch. Its a interesting place Geo Tech wise and interesting place to do Tactical Exercise With Troops (TEWT’s).

  14. greg 14
    22 July 2017 at 7:45 am

    you wouldn’t want to own coastal property anywhere these days worthless in the era of climate change

  15. JustPassingThrough 15
    22 July 2017 at 8:48 am

    And we think we have it bad in Auckland …

  16. Ray 16
    23 July 2017 at 3:06 pm

    Meanwhile, …

    Back at the ranch and 30 km along the coast is the proposed Te Tumu development at the Kaituna River cut, including marinas, hospitals, medium density housing all on coastal frontal sand dunes;

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiojdzTtJ7VAhXBErwKHROxC-gQFgguMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lowerkaituna.co.nz%2Fuploads%2FTeTumuSG_presentationMar15.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHtyUw8Y3rLb3wZB6MEjxZdHG8upQ

    The recent funding announcement from National explicitly mentioned the Te Tumu development.

    Ray

Links to post