Call for clarity around flood clean-ups

West Coast Regional Council members have called for greater clarity for landowners doing their own emergency flood works.

In recent months council compliance staff have investigated efforts to divert rivers, creeks and streams outside allowed 'emergency works'.

Councillor Brett Cummings, a goldminer, raised the issue again at the Resource Management Committee meeting this week.

In particular, he queried the approach by compliance staff following the reported impact of Jones Creek in Northern Buller on adjoining landholders, and what was being experienced in the mining industry across the region.

A staff member had been "going around and telling people they can't put a digger bucket in the water".

Cummings cited the case of a Notown miner who needed to divert a creek to build a wall to protect mine workings after a flood.

"Once again he was told ... that he was not allowed to put a digger bucket into water. But how do you shift a creek back to where it was ... without putting your digger bucket into the water?

"No one is getting a clear description of what actually people are allowed to do."

Cummings said diverting the Wanganui River at Hari Hari earlier this year was the first practical step in order to build a protection wall.

Yet the council staff member was telling miners the opposite, he said.

Someone needed to pass on the correct information, he said.

"We need a list so if somebody rings up you can say, 'you can do this, you can do that'."

Committee chair Stuart Challenger said there was such a list but it was the interpretation which needed more clarity.

Council chair Allan Birchfield, also a goldminer, said the interpretation of permitted activity rules was a problem.

"I get rings all the time from people before they'll every do anything, frightened of doing anything in case they get prosecuted. I just say, it's a permitted activity for emergency work.

"There just needs to be a more common sense interpretation to allow people to protect their property," Birchfield said.

Acting planning and science manager Rachel Vaughan said there was brevity under the law to undertake emergency protection work to mitigate the effect of a creek breaking out.

Councillor Peter Ewen said he agreed and emphasised that a practical approach was needed.

"Short of a digger getting into the river, what's the digger meant to do - levitate?"

Councillor John Hill of Buller said a one-page flyer with information would be practical.

However, the issue for affected landowners about the extent of permitted works at Jones Creek had been going on for months, he said.

"They've dragged me along there to show that there are ... physical adverse effects, and it's continuing. So when does the emergency stop?"

Cummings said the council needed to be up front.

"If the council doesn't do something proactive, people are just going to go behind their back."

Council strategy and communication manager Nichola Costley noted the issue had been raised at meetings previously, and information on permitted activity for flood damage had subsequently been circulated through media releases.

"There is information available on the website and also provided to councillors to assist with queries coming from the community," Costley said.

Consents and compliance manager Colin Helem, speaking to his monthly report, said he had investigated with staff what had unfolded with the Notown incident.

The miner had contacted council late on a Friday and said he was looking at doing a creek diversion. A compliance officer visited and the diversion went ahead.

Helem said permitted activities were allowed in the wet bed of a watercourse to maintain existing structures.

"When people do contact us all we can do is give the affected party advice."

The council was fielding a lot of inquiries about the rules for river and stream diversions but often the advice it had to give to inquirers was "what they did not want to hear".

Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air