Crisis foreseeable

The water main smashed by an adjacent uprooted tree during last week’s gales is an expensive lesson for NPDC. This water main services about 25 per cent of the water requirements to the east of the city, but the ensuing water restrictions and health requirements affected about 80 per cent of the city.

This would not have happened had the council’s risk management plans been up-to-date and assiduously followed.

My roles as Manager Quality Assurance, NPDC during 2005/07 included the promotion and implementation of emergency management, business continuance and quality assurance systems for the infrastructure group. The primary theme of these activities is that of risk management – the identification, assessment and mitigation of hazards, natural and induced. Identification of risk often requires the ‘what if’ approach – i.e., what would be the outcome should such and such occur.

I know that the Water & Wastes department had excellent risk management plans and I know that the several pipe bridges carrying water mains had been identified as having potentially high vulnerability. Wind strike damage from broken and uprooted trees is not uncommon in Taranaki – we have several events each year. So, damage by wind-toppled trees in the vicinity of above-ground water mains is an easily identifiable natural hazard.

Mayor Holdom stated that the council had not identified the tree as a risk. He is correct.

Cr Brown stated ‘‘there were some incidents you could foresee and others you couldn’t. No one could have predicted it, so I don’t think we are liable’’. He is half right – or, half wrong. It is not a matter of prediction, it is one of adequate risk management, which involves risk removal and mitigation.

Cr Johnston said ‘‘it was an act of God’’ and suggestions that the area should have been cleared of trees were ‘‘ridiculous’’. I wonder to which vengeful pagan god he attributes this disaster and his utterance regarding the clearing of the trees is not only ridiculous, it is devoid of good risk management practice.

Cr Biesiek said the water supply had been identified as vulnerable a couple of years ago but opined that the chances of a tree falling on the pipe were slim – ‘‘it wasn’t a high risk’’. He is wrong. It obviously was a high risk – albeit unidentified. His timeline is far out. Some trees grow quickly – particularly pines. On what information did he base his up-todate risk management assessment?

Local authorities (under LGA 2002) have a legal obligation to assiduously protect the wellbeing of their residents, which is of primary importance. Adequate risk management of a council’s infrastructure, particularly water and sewerage, is an essential activity and one which finds much favour with the Auditor General. The LGA (2002) also contains information on what can happen if the Auditor-General determines that a council has been dilatory in undertaking the required precautions. (Abridged)

John Patterson

Oakura