In March, Mr Lyders upgraded 190m of the floodbank after giving up on unanswered requests to the regional council for it to complete the work.
He believed raising the bank was intended as part of the Waipori flood scheme, which was completed in the 1980s. He contributed $25,000 to that scheme. Although his property was in the West Taieri ponding area and was designed to flood in a major event, the floodbank provided protection from smaller floods, he said.
However, the regional council was concerned about the impact the work would have on the integrity of the floodbank and had initiated court action.
It was charging Mr Lyders for a breach of the Flood Protection Management Bylaw for increasing the height of a stopbank without permission and under the Resource Management Act for doing the work without a resource consent.
The council had also issued Mr Lyders with a Notice to Remedy under the bylaw requiring him to reinstate the flood bank to its profile before the work was carried out, by November 9.
Council resource director Selva Selvarajah said the work carried out by Mr Lyders was extensive so the council had to act on it for several reasons.
By putting extra material on the top of an existing floodbank with its own cover of grass and compactness could affect the integrity of the existing bank.
"If the material is not keyed in properly, the material could slowly erode in any flood event and once the material is gone, the old profile could start to also deteriorate."
There was also the potential that by raising its height it could increase the flood risk on a neighbouring property.
It was important for the council to follow up actions such as these as people needed to be aware they could not change or damage a floodbank when they wished without permission.
Mr Lyders said this week that he would not be acting on the Notice to Remedy.
He had also issued the council with a $40,000 claim for compensation for the damage caused to his property in the 2010 flood because the bank was not at scheme height and had billed the regional council for the $2412 cost of the work, he said.
"It's totally ridiculous. The reason I'm fighting this so hard is I feel they are given unlimited powers and have the responsibility to administer it fairly. It's totally against natural justice."
The case is to have its first hearing in court on October 2.
