Seems like theres a council out there very worried that they'll have to
pay for all the damage caused by their non maintaining stop banks and as
a consequence having their town and rate payers flooded out...
My advice to the residents and rate payers.
Sack the idle bastards.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 7:59:30 AM UTC+12, george wrote:

Seems like theres a council out there very worried that they'll have to
pay for all the damage...

With whose money?

...caused by their non maintaining stop banks and as

a consequence having their town and rate payers flooded out...
My advice to the residents and rate payers.
Sack the idle bastards.

"The Waikato Regional Council said the overtopping of the stopbanks was part of
the design of the flood system in the area.

"It would go against the flood system to put sandbags on those stopbanks because it would increase the risk of serious flooding in the township of Ngatea, it said."

(Radio New Zealand report 07/04/2017)

Of course, some might question the wisdom of building homes on a flood plain in
the first place. They might even have the cheek to suggest that those who lack
such wisdom deserve no help from anyone when they're too cheap and idle even to
insure their
homes.

But what would they know, eh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 4/10/2017 9:16 AM, jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 7:59:30 AM UTC+12, george wrote:

Seems like theres a council out there very worried that they'll have to
pay for all the damage...

With whose money?

Ratepayers money.
You know.
Those people who have to pay so much a year for councils to maintain infrastructure

...caused by their non maintaining stop banks and as

a consequence having their town and rate payers flooded out...
My advice to the residents and rate payers.
Sack the idle bastards.

"The Waikato Regional Council said the overtopping of the stopbanks was part

of the design of the flood system in the area.

"It would go against the flood system to put sandbags on those stopbanks

because it would increase the risk of serious flooding in the township of Ngatea, it said."

(Radio New Zealand report 07/04/2017)

Of course, some might question the wisdom of building homes on a flood plain

in the first place. They might even have the cheek to suggest that those who lack such wisdom deserve no help from anyone when they're too cheap and idle even to insure their
homes.

But what would they know, eh?

Those house sites were permitted by councils.
And those houses were probably built in the 1930s
And maintaining stop banks does not require sandbags at the last moment.
It requires that they be kept up to scratch and fit for purpose!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 10:02:49 AM UTC+12, george wrote:

On 4/10/2017 9:16 AM, jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 7:59:30 AM UTC+12, george wrote:

Seems like theres a council out there very worried that they'll have to
pay for all the damage...

With whose money?

Ratepayers money.
You know.
Those people who have to pay so much a year for councils to maintain infrastructure

Who'd have thought it, eh?

...caused by their non maintaining stop banks and as

a consequence having their town and rate payers flooded out...
My advice to the residents and rate payers.
Sack the idle bastards.

"The Waikato Regional Council said the overtopping of the stopbanks was

part of the design of the flood system in the area.

"It would go against the flood system to put sandbags on those stopbanks

because it would increase the risk of serious flooding in the township of Ngatea, it said."

(Radio New Zealand report 07/04/2017)

Of course, some might question the wisdom of building homes on a flood

plain in the first place. They might even have the cheek to suggest that those
who lack such wisdom deserve no help from anyone when they're too cheap and idle even to insure
their homes.

But what would they know, eh?

Those house sites were permitted by councils.

Whose intelligence today, one might think, seems no higher than it was then. This being so, then how do you explain (not excuse) this?

And those houses were probably built in the 1930s

So they're likely be tarted up rats-in-the-casvities dungers anyway and long since finished as fit and proper dwellings. Surely better that they be allowed
to collapse and be eventually washed out to sea, with their inhibitants installed in nice new
tower blocks in some dim-lit arse end of Auckland where, as everyone knows, it's all happening these days? Indeed, you of all people know that trivial parochial protests of sentiment and sense of place cut no ice with today's market-driven ideologies.

And maintaining stop banks does not require sandbags at the last moment.
It requires that they be kept up to scratch and fit for purpose!

Of course, but may I gently refer you to my reply to your council-permit reference?

As to the matter of uninsured properties, what kind of mentality lies behind such thinking - or apparent lack of it, do you suppose? "She'll be right," perhaps?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 10 April 2017 10:02:49 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 4/10/2017 9:16 AM, jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 7:59:30 AM UTC+12, george wrote:

Seems like theres a council out there very worried that they'll have to
pay for all the damage...

With whose money?

Ratepayers money.
You know.
Those people who have to pay so much a year for councils to maintain infrastructure

...caused by their non maintaining stop banks and as

a consequence having their town and rate payers flooded out...
My advice to the residents and rate payers.
Sack the idle bastards.

"The Waikato Regional Council said the overtopping of the stopbanks was

part of the design of the flood system in the area.

"It would go against the flood system to put sandbags on those stopbanks

because it would increase the risk of serious flooding in the township of Ngatea, it said."

(Radio New Zealand report 07/04/2017)

Of course, some might question the wisdom of building homes on a flood

plain in the first place. They might even have the cheek to suggest that those
who lack such wisdom deserve no help from anyone when they're too cheap and idle even to insure
their homes.

But what would they know, eh?

Those house sites were permitted by councils.
And those houses were probably built in the 1930s
And maintaining stop banks does not require sandbags at the last moment.
It requires that they be kept up to scratch and fit for purpose!

Did the stop bank fail due to lack of maintenance? I think it just wasn't high enough and the water ran over the top. When that happens it will inevitably erode away on the other side and cause it to then fail.

So perhaps it just wasn't designed to meet the level of flood. Or... perhaps the local authority was too slow in opening the stop bank on the other side to relieve the flood into rural land. Or perhaps the operation of the dam up stream was a cause? I
don't know but there's probably going to be a rather extensive finger-pointing inquiry to come.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)