North Wagga Submission for BMT Group Peer Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NORTH WAGGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION MARCH 2021 | Fi ZiffCommittee members who would deflect to the matter of complacency about evacuation. Finally, DrWoods was advised by the then representative of Wagga’s Office of Environment and Heritage, that herrole on the Committee was merely to convince the community to accept the report.The economic needs of the North Wagga community are tangible, quantifiable and effect approximately221 households, however Council has never sought this information and consequently it is not consideredin the 2018 FRPMP. The 2009 FRPMP also omits this information. The matter of “Intangible FloodDamages” is raised in Section 7.2 of the 2018 FRMP, however it merely describes the types of intangibleflood damages, such as the social impacts, explaining that they are too hard to quantify and so contrary tothe 2005 Policy, they are not considered. Council never sought this information either. The Multi-CriteriaAssessment, designed for the purpose of assessing intangibles such as the social impacts of flooding onResidents, also omits this critical information. The legitimacy of the conclusions reached andrecommendations made in the 2018 FRMP is therefore called into question.While the 1 in 100 Main City Levee will not prevent ‘the big one’ from happening and eventually the entireWagga floodplain will be inundated, occupants of Central/CBD have enjoyed a flood free period for over57 years due to adequate protection. This affords them a level of comfort, enabling them to get on withtheir day to day lives, to plan for the future and not be constantly worrying about whether they will floodor not. Life on the other side of the river is starkly different.Had the social and economic needs of the community been considered, as intended by the State PolicyGuidelines, the benefit of alleviating the unsustainable emotional and financial trauma with properprotection in the form of a 1 in 100 levee would be clear and would far outweigh the arguments usedagainst it, regardless of their legitimacy. To have 174 properties inundated in an event slightly higher thana 1 in 20-year flood, which increases to 215 in a 1 in 100-year flood event is not ethical when it can so easilybe avoided.(2) Critical feedback from all prior community consultation conductedin the aftermath of the catastrophic 2012 flood, all favouring a 1 in 100levee for North Wagga, is omitted and in its place targeted feedbackthat has been specifically cherry-picked to skew it towards a foregoneconclusion contradicting Residents’ express needs.The 1 in 20 levee and the VHR and VP Scheme, as possible flood risk mitigation options for North Waggahave been presented to the community since the 2012 catastrophic flood and have been categoricallyrejected for sound reasons. So how is it that these options are now the recommended solutions for NorthWagga?Following the 2012 flood, residents pleaded with Council for a higher levee and they committed toinvestigating a 1 in 100 levee option for North Wagga. As part of this process, feedback was gathered anddocumented during official community engagement meetings held in March 2015. The results, detailed inthe 2015 Council PSRP-7 Report, demonstrate majority support for a 1 in 100 levee for North Wagga andminimal support for the 1 in 20 levee (9%) and Voluntary Scheme (0.8%). This information was presentedPage 10 of 25
NORTH WAGGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION MARCH 2021 | Fi Ziffto the then Mayor Kendall at the Policy & Strategy meeting on 15 th July 2015. We understand MayorKendall was a member of the Floodplain Committee at the time and that this information was notpresented to the Committee for consideration.The reasons for the rejection of the VHR & VP Scheme and 1 in 20 levee, of which Council are fully aware,are as follows -(a) The 1 in 20 levee is not high enough and trauma brought about by the threat of regular flooding is notrelieved; (b) many elderly people cannot negotiate stairs if their house was to be raised, and don’t wish torelocate because they have been living in the village their entire lives and it would be too traumatic; (c) themajority of people do not have the necessary funds to contribute to house raising. We understand Lismoreresidents were required to outlay the entire amount and apply to Federal and State governments forreimbursement; (d) Many of the houses are brick and cannot be raised; and (e) many younger families arefifth generation in the village and do not wish to be relocated.At the time WMAwater’s 2014 Flood Model Revision report was on public exhibition, our resident Mr.Laurie Blowes heard Councillor Conkey advising attendees at a public Community4Wagga meeting at theInternational Hotel on 16th May 2014, that “he cannot justify spending any money in North Wagga”. Twodrafts of WMAwater’s Flood Model Revision Report had already been issued by this time, in February 2014and March 2014 respectively, clearly favouring a 1 in 100 levee upgrade for North Wagga. Around the sametime the author of the report Stephen Gray met with Residents to discuss the findings. It was understoodthat a 1 in 100 levee in North Wagga was the most favourable solution because the effects of it were notsignificantly more than what the 1 in 100 Main City Levee already has upstream on only a handful ofsparsely located properties. Councillor Conkey’s comments suggest however that rather than act inaccordance with State Policy and expert advice, designed to protect Residents like us, Council were intenton acting in accordance with their own agenda to spend as little, if anything on North Wagga.In May 2015, Council initiates an on-line survey about levee options for North Wagga. At the time, ourrepresentative Dr Jenny Woods was advised by Council that the open meetings held earlier, preventedresidents from speaking up against the majority who supported a 1 in 100 North Wagga levee and adifferent format is required. The results of the on-line survey were compiled by then Council staff memberLauren Pezet, who confirmed with our representative Dr Jenny Woods that 75% support was given for a 1in 100 levee.Under normal circumstances, that is, if Council were genuine about their investigations of adequate floodprotection for North Wagga, the consistency between the two community consultations would allayconcerns around the validity of the engagement process. However, the results of both surveys wereomitted from the 2018 FRMP, leading Residents to believe that because they did not reflect the conclusionCouncil was seeking, they were discarded.In May 2016 the Special Rates Variation was implemented by Council to raise its third share of funds forthe levee upgrade project. By this stage the two official community engagements sessions resulting inmajority support for a 1 in 100 levee for North Wagga had taken place; the 2014 WMA Report favouringthe 1 in 100 levee for North Wagga had been finalised; and Council’s Report PRSP-7, recommending a 1 in100 levee for North Wagga as “socially and economically favourable” had been presented to Council.However, the total funds to be collected over a five-year period only included the cost of a 1 in 20 leveePage 11 of 25
Page 1 and 2: NORTH WAGGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIO
Page 9: NORTH WAGGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIO
Page 25: NORTH WAGGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIO

North Wagga Submission for BMT Group Peer Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?