KEY POINTS:
Despite cries of despair from the residents of Kaeo and other settlements in the far north, the Government will not offer them much compensation.
This policy is consistent with previous flood events.
Take the case of Gisborne, twice hit by severe floods in 2005. The then Agriculture Minister
Jim Anderton said criteria for government intervention in such cases was that the event was rare, extreme and economically significant and that government assistance was vital for recovery.
The policy may seem harsh, but it is sound. A crucial point about understanding why floods occur is that it is not only natural events that cause them. They are also the product of social, political and economic behaviour. In fact, most disasters are a mix of natural hazards and human action.
Living in a flood-prone area is voluntary. As a result of prior flooding, the places affected by floods are generally known. Clearly, heavy rainfall is implicated in causing a flood disaster, but vulnerability to flood loss is generated by building on flood-prone land.
On the other hand, areas that are at risk from flooding often offer considerable benefits for farming and industry, such as fertile alluvial flood plains or low-lying land in valleys or near rivers and harbours.
The recent flooding that affected Kaeo is not unusual, nor was it as bad as might occur in the future. But there are lessons to be learned from the experience. They point to a number of practical and policy measures than can be promoted to manage risk and reduce costs.
Where the risk is clearly high people could be guided towards adopting appropriate land use practices, for example:
* Replacing buildings with parks on flood-prone land.
* Classifying land according to flood risk and regulating land use accordingly.
* Relocating flood-sensitive activities.
* Altering land use or ceasing certain activities in high-risk zones.
* Making flood insurance mandatory with the view that insurance premiums will work with market forces of cost-benefit.
* Or simply bearing the costs of floods, which may include establishing locally resourced and financed restoration funds.
The costs and benefits of mitigation measures also need to be carefully considered. A problem with large-scale investment in and reliance on embankments, channelling and similar measures to ameliorate the impact of flooding is that they can induce a false sense of security.
These measures prevent the river in peak flow flooding naturally in depressions which detain water, releasing the flow in the river, thus preventing the river reaching danger levels further down stream.
An alternative is to do nothing in the hope that relief money from the Government will be forthcoming. Relief aid generally works to ensure that the same people and areas will be affected again and again, since it discourages taking action to avoid, reduce or mitigate future occurrences.
There are also issues of fairness and freedom of choice. Should a homeowner who lives on a flood plain reasonably expect to receive reparation from the Government when the inevitable deluge occurs?
The expectation of government aid distorts the true climate resource potential of an area or region. What is an unacceptable risk in one place, where there is no chance of government relief when a flood occurs, may turn out to be quite an acceptable risk at the same place where there is an expectation of financial bailout or government compensation package.
Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from the Northland experience. They point to a number of practical and policy measures than can be promoted to manage risk and reduce costs. Otherwise, as the number of new buildings and the value of developed land increases, the cost of flood disasters will continue to grow.
* Chris de Freitas is an associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.
