A plan to reduce risk?

LETTER

Respectfully Andrew, your reply (June 7) is a fob-off. Your sea wall is incomplete. The log yard is exposed on the Kaiti Beach side and also the port side. It looks like you have about 3m freeboard above MHWS (mean high water springs), so any tsunami event above that is free to tear right through your log yard.

From GDC’s CDEM Group Tsunami Contingency Plan 2017: “The district has experienced 16 local confirmed tsunami since 1832. Four of these were regional from the islands. The two largest tsunami had heights of 10 metres and 5-6 metres respectively. These were generated on the Ariel Bank in 1947 approximately 70 kilometres off the coast. A small earthquake preceded both of them with the waves impacting on the coast about 30 minutes later.”

Risk posed by logs in the lower log yard has been specifically identified (page 2), but nowhere else in the Tsunami Contingency Plan is managing or reducing that risk mentioned. In fact, the logs disappear from the Roles & Responsibilities for Eastland Port (pages 15 & 16).

Moving water is destructive, but as we have seen recently, water driving large heavy objects is significantly more so. The logs are a known and identified risk close to a highly populated area; do you have a risk reduction plan or not?

Chris Shaw

Respectfully Andrew, your reply (June 7) is a fob-off. Your sea wall is incomplete. The log yard is exposed on the Kaiti Beach side and also the port side. It looks like you have about 3m freeboard above MHWS (mean high water springs), so any tsunami event above that is free to tear right through your log yard.

From GDC’s CDEM Group Tsunami Contingency Plan 2017: “The district has experienced 16 local confirmed tsunami since 1832. Four of these were regional from the islands. The two largest tsunami had heights of 10 metres and 5-6 metres respectively. These were generated on the Ariel Bank in 1947 approximately 70 kilometres off the coast. A small earthquake preceded both of them with the waves impacting on the coast about 30 minutes later.”

Risk posed by logs in the lower log yard has been specifically identified (page 2), but nowhere else in the Tsunami Contingency Plan is managing or reducing that risk mentioned. In fact, the logs disappear from the Roles & Responsibilities for Eastland Port (pages 15 & 16).

Moving water is destructive, but as we have seen recently, water driving large heavy objects is significantly more so. The logs are a known and identified risk close to a highly populated area; do you have a risk reduction plan or not?

Chris Shaw

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Do you think Simon Bridges will still be leader of the National Party at the next election?