In the past 10 months, courthouses in Oamaru and Balclutha have been closed because of earthquake risk. Parts of the courthouse in Dunedin have been similarly shut. And, last month, the ANZ closed banks in Kurow, Oamaru and Balclutha citing the same reason.
Such reports are becoming common throughout the country. Last week, the Otago Regional Council added to the debate with a warning, among other things, that an earthquake could liquefy the Taieri Plains, turning it in to "one big soggy puddle", knocking out pumping stations which could flood the whole plain. In addition to these concerns, the council warned restrictions were needed on where houses and businesses could be built on the plain, saying conflicting hazardous management legislation had led to residential development in areas likely to flood and that associated landscaping and land forming could accentuate flooding issues.
There is little of surprise in the report. Of course a massive earthquake, tsunami, flood or even severe weather event could devastate low-lying areas, leaving a trail of destruction and damage, and breach some infrastructure defences. Humans cannot beat Mother Nature. Rather, it is a matter of determining acceptable risk - a decision people make every day - while keeping such hazards in perspective. We cannot and should not be living our lives fearing the end is nigh - but nor should we be so complacent as to think we will never be threatened by extreme weather.
While the council is quite rightly doing its job warning of the threat, ultra-restrictive decisions should not be made at the expense of common sense. There are already reports of home builders facing lengthy and expensive investigations to ensure building platforms will not be flooded even in areas which have not flooded in living memory. Yet, building has been allowed in other areas recently flooded. How can this be?
The most concerning aspect of the council's report was the claim that conflicting hazard management legislation had allowed residential development in some flood-prone areas. Flooding is easily the most common threat to those living on the Taieri, yet development has been allowed in known flood-prone areas. Unquestionably, correcting this situation has to be a priority - and such areas should in future surely be easily and quickly identified.
After all, it is logical that building be prohibited on some parts of the Taieri. It seems inconceivable that homes have been allowed in areas on the north side of the Silverstream, parts of which were inundated by floods as recently as 2006 and 2007. Conversely, the council is also reportedly starting to question whether there should be greater controls on permitted land use by farmers on some parts of the Taieri because of the risk posed by natural disasters. The suggested controls would end long-standing management practices and, for all intents and purposes, make farming such land unmanageable - surely not the intended outcome.
Risk management is, undoubtedly, difficult. Becoming more risk adverse is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, provided it does not go too far. For while there is little doubt the public is complacent about the threat of natural disasters, there must be a balance between being overly cautious and managing normal day-to-day hazards.
And another thing
Many people "play up" when away from home. Unfortunately for Queenstown, its reputation as a party town attracts more than its fair share of visitors who, to put it mildly, burn the candle at both ends. The combination of thrills, spills, late nights and plenty of booze turns too many otherwise most welcome tourists into drunken, violent thugs. Police say a large percentage of such hooligans are Australians. As is often the case, the greatest shame is perhaps that the acts of a mindless minority casts a pall over all.
