North Wagga Submission for BMT Group Peer Review

NORTH WAGGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION MARCH 2021 | Fi Ziff
In Point 29 – WFRPA are concerned that “raising the levees could lead to decreases in property value and
increase in capital losses. WMAwater reply “noted as a social impact of assessed levee options in 9.2.1.
and 9.2.3. This might be a reasonable argument if the information they were relying on is accurate but it
is not and there will be no inundation through their homes until there is an event higher than a 1 in 100
flood. This argument is therefore misleading and skews the feedback. Regardless, the upstream properties
are located outside the levee system and they flood regardless of whether North Wagga is protected by a
levee or not. However, the most concerning thing is that nowhere in these two sections does it mention
the impact on property values in North Wagga. By its omission, the capital losses of a handful of properties
which flood anyway and will not see water through their homes, detracts from the fact that during an event
slightly higher than a 1 in 20 flood, 174 properties will see catastrophic, above floor level flooding.
The feedback reflects the false scenarios offered in the 2018 FRMP which are discussed in the body of this
report - Point 36 WFRP expresses concern that “if North Wagga levee is raised, increased development will
likely result behind that levee, which will lead to an increase in AAD. This is also addressed in M3.5 and
raised in Section 9.3 of the 2018 FRMP. If Council had discussed this matter with North Wagga residents,
they would have discovered that most Residents agree that over development of the village, once a 1 in
100 levee is built, is not appropriate. Residents value the open spaces they currently enjoy and they intend
to maintain it. Notwithstanding this, the argument cannot justify the consequences of the inundation of
174 properties in a flood event as low as a 1 in 20-year flood.
The selective feedback also detracts from the clear benefits of protecting North Wagga with a 1 in 100
levee for the Wagga floodplain in general. Outlined in Section 7.1.3.1 of the 2018 FRPMP, Table 28, is the
fact that North Wagga “is the largest contributor to AAD of any of the floodplain villages, and only
contributing slightly less than Wagga CBD despite having 17 times fewer dwellings. This large portion of
the AAD is a result of the more frequently occurring damages in North Wagga”.
In Oct 2017 the draft 2018 FRMP was publicly displayed and feedback submissions sought. Appendix M
records the submissions; however, it lists only a limited number of issues that were addressed in the revised
version. While there will be some duplication, the lack of transparency (not showing all issues raised in
submissions) suggests the submissions have been ‘cherry picked’ as to what is responded to.
For example, North Wagga resident Michael Friend’s submission (135) raised several significant issues, of
which only two were partially addressed in the revised plan. On page 14 of Appendix M, Michael Friend’s
criticism of the VHR proposal was partially addressed – the consultants have taken only the latter half of
the issue raised and ignored the concern around the rigour applied to arriving at the conclusion to progress
a feasibility study.
Similarly, on Page 37, Michael Friend’s concern with the multi-criteria assessment is only partially
addressed – dealing with a couple of specific examples of issues rather than the principle raised of each
criterion having the same weighting – e.g., technical feasibility has the same weighting on the overall
number as economic benefit.
There is also a consistent theme through the document that implies bias towards VHR and VP. Some
specific submissions have been referenced more frequently (e.g., submissions 60 and 139) – interestingly
these submissions strongly support the VHR and VP options and are strongly against any increase in the
Page 13 of 25