Beach errosion

Last Sunday night coastal areas were hit with monster waves generated by a low pressure system hundreds of kilometers off shore. Te Awanga, Haumoana and Clifton, all part of the Hastings District were the most affected.

The Hawke's Bay coastline is built from shingle bought down by the various rivers and distributed along the foreshore by tides and waves. Every so often large swells arrive and this process is accelerated so what might seem like stable ground suddenly starts moving, sometimes being eroded, and some times being built up.

The problem is decades ago houses were built on the foreshore when the sea seemed not be be a problem, and now many are right on the edge of the beach having lost most of their frontage to previous storms.

Several batches and sheds have already been destroyed, and the process can expect to continue forever, unless or course we have another 1931 type tectonic event when perhaps the land might be lifted higher instead of dropping lower as happened last time.

Anyway people with houses in the area do what most of us would do in similar circumstances. They try to make their houses safe mostly by building protective walls.

In doing so they have come up against the policies of the Hastings District Council and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council both of whom seem to favor what is rather delightfully called a managed retreat, meaning abandoning their properties.

The Dutch might be interested in this ohilosophy.

Of course it's very easy to support such an idea when it is not your house being threatened.

The residents not unsurprisingly disagree.They want to build protective barriers. The Hastings District has ruled these structures require resource consents before work can even start. One local who had rebuilt a wall originally built by a previous owner, was recently taken to court and fined.

The locals also believe the solution is a series of groynes along the coastline. Of course ratepayers might no be so keep on paying for what some think is a battle that cannot be won. Some in the wider community believe those who choose to live by the sea cannot expect the wider community to pay for their protection.

The councils seem to agree yet this approach seems inconsistent with their decisions on other similar matters.

For over seventy years the Heretaunga plains have been protected by stockbanks or levees built during in the 1930's during the depression and unquestionably valuable farm and cropping land has been saved from inundation from foods, especially during Cyclone Bola in the late 1980,s when the water was within centimeters of coming over the top. In 1989 responsibility transferred to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

Another valuable asset protected with man made fortifications is the Port of Napier. Few if any would contest the value of the port to this area, but the massive concrete blocks, boulders and other engineering works are there to prevent the sea disrupting activities. As it happens the port is owned by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

Thirty years ago Westshore was a very pleasant beach. Not any more. Some claim port development has caused the erosion. The Regional Council seems to have accepted some responsibility and over recent years huge quantities of shingle have been trucked at great expense from Marine Parade to Westshore to replace material eroded from the beach.

Elsewhere retaining walls and other barriers to the elements are normal practice for protecting roads, airports, and just about anything else we consider valuable.

In just a few hours last Sunday night the the road to Clifton recently built to replace an earlier road was all but washed away again. How much did the new road cost, who paid, and what happened to the managed retreat policy?

One point that has become apparent from the latest assault, is that if the group of 21 houses at Haumoana disappear into the sea, the road to Te Awanga will be threatened. Protection might be cheaper than building a replacement for the several hundred homes that will be cut off, as a new road could involve the purchase of some rather pricey land financed by ratepayers.

As long as the residents are fighting the battle with their own money they may be doing the wider community a great service. It seems quite unreasonable to load individual citizens with monstrous consent costs when all they are trying to do is protect their houses with fortification built on their own land at their own expense.

For the moment council officers seem to be enforcing their entrenched views by placing every possible obstruction in the way of these people.