Kerre Woodham: Have we not learned from slash damage and flooding?
In the wake of the Motueka valley flooding with warnings that Australia's bomb cyclone is set to bring severe weather conditions to New Zealand, we're on weather watch. Not just the media, although looking at the television screens in my studio —one on BBC talking about the heat waves in Europe and another on Sky News from Australia talking about severe wind, rain and surf in eastern New South Wales— globally we appear to be on weather alert. There will be people living in flood prone areas, people living near streams and rivers, people living in coastal areas, they’ll be understandably wary as the heavy rains come down. What used to be a part or seemed to be a natural part of the weather cycle —summer brings sun, winter brings rain— now seems much more ominous than that. The gentle patter of rain on the roof is replaced by a kind of unease in certain areas. Deluges can be devastating, especially when you combine swollen streams with slash, the debris left over after forestry plantations have been felled. For years, rural communities especially have warned of the extreme danger that slash can cause, and in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023, the government revised the standard slash management rules. But interestingly, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council found that the piles of woody debris that dammed bridges, blocked riverways and littered beaches in the wake of Gabrielle contained only a small portion of forestry slash. The Council report found the make-up of the debris deposited at more than a dozen sites consisted of a mixture of pine, willow, poplar, and other native timber and debris could not be identified. In all but one of the surveyed sites, there was little evidence of slash, indicating that the majority of pine came from erosion of hillsides and stream banks. It was a different story in Tairāwhiti next door, in Gisborne, where forestry slash was widely blamed for much of the damage caused by the cyclone. The government of the time ordered a ministerial inquiry into forestry practise and slash. So slash can sometimes be blamed for everything, it's the culprit. But as other people have pointed out, it's the fact that it's damn near impossible to dredge rivers to get the silt and the natural debris out of rivers, that also caused problems. It's the fact that we're building near flood prone areas, that are known to be flood prone areas, time and time and time again. But why are we continuing to allow forestry plantations on erosion prone land? I understand why we thought it was a good idea after Cyclone Bola - forestry plantations went into the hills there because that provided employment to locals, and the trees were supposed to hold the hills together. But now we know the dangers of slash and of erosion, where the pine trees aren't doing the job of holding the hills together, where you need different kinds of scrub and bush and grasses and trees to be able to do that. Why are we still allowing them? A) to be grown there and B) to be harvested? When we know that every winter, every time it rains, every time there's the heavy deluge, the local community is at major risk of flooding, again, and again, and again. How have we not learnt from the so many instances of slash and erosion bringing down the trees, smashing the fences, damaging the bridges, causing the incredible flooding events that we see just about every winter? We can't keep doing the same thing time and time again, can we? The farming community around areas that are so badly affected by the erosion, by the slash must get so frustrated knowing that they're having to go out and rebuild fences that will just come down again, if not next one to the winter after. So what do we do? We can't, surely keep doing the same thing again and again, because that in anybody's language is sheer stupidity. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
New Zealand