Parts of Dunedin are at high risk from flooding as more downpours hit the city in the future. Photo: RNZ/Tess Brunton
A Dunedin resident fears insurance for his flood-prone home will become harder to get as more severe downpours hit the city over time.
About a dozen Dunedin houses have been red stickered since last week's storms.
Flood-affected resident Brendon Hollander said he has a feeling that insurance will become more expensive from the impacts of more flooding.
"One of the very first things they said to us over the phone was that our no claims bonus will automatically be halved. It's not been said to us, although we have slowly but surely noticed a steady increase in the cost of house and contents insurance and that sort of stuff. I guess you'd have to be a fool to think that it wouldn't be that it wouldn't increase," Hollander said.
He said he knew about the flood risks when he bought the property, but believed it would be safe with the right infrastructure.
It comes more than a year after the government introduced its land categorisation plan to Hawke's Bay where those living in flood prone areas under category 3 were considered "high risk" and unsafe to rebuild on.
The Insurance Council said in June last year that under all categories, everyone would be entitled to get their insurance after Cyclone Gabrielle.
But then-chief executive Tim Grafton said moving forward it would be highly unlikely for those living in category 3 to be eligible for insurance for residential homes.
Meanwhile, another South Dunedin resident said the city council needed to work on improvements to the area's drains and other infrastructure to handle severe weather.
Stratuss Svensson's rental on Bradshaw Street was yellowed-stickered after floodwaters rose underneath the house and drenched the floor.
He said this level of damage should not be happening.
"In my eyes the council should be doing something to stop this from happening, because I believe it's not the first time it's happened in South Dunedin and I believe it happens quite a lot in this low lying area.
"So I think the council should really look into spending some money and getting that sorted and getting the infrastructure to handle big situations like this," Svensson said.
Earlier this year the government rejected a plan to offer $130 million to help buy out low lying flood-prone South Dunedin properties as part of its climate adaptation plan.
But councillor and Infrastructure Services Committee chair Jim O'Malley said it was worth revisiting.
There had been a request to Treasury for the fund under the last Labour government, he said.
"I think the number could be refined if we went into a proper decision."
O'Malley said there was a commitment from the council to stay in the area for at least the next 100 years.
"But as the events of the weekend showed, large events can overwhelm you on an area that's as flat as that and there'll be need for moving houses around in the future but rather than go out and buy those houses and move them now before we've done all the planning, the plan was to simply be in the market as houses turned over."
He said the area had a high turn over of properties because there were a lot of rentals.
It was a way of investing into a decision that would be made in about 20 years time, he said.
Government buyouts?
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the initial response to the disaster was a matter for local councils.
More broadly speaking, the Government was working on a national climate change adaptation response.
The most important thing was consistency, she told RNZ's First Up.
"To have a clear consistent framework that we can apply fairly because anything we do in these areas has precedent an implications for other parts of the country.
"We're very conscious that whatever we do in one region we need to be consistent when it comes to other regions."
Willis said parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee had recently delivered its cross-party report on climate change adaptation.
The government would respond before Christmas, she said.
"This is about fairness ultimately, that we don't do for one group of people what we then can't afford to do for another group of people."
