Forgive me but this update is a bit extended. It contains four parts, all of which are really important to understand for this campaign.
Firstly, I received a phone call from Jody Aufrichtig this evening, unsolicited. It wasn’t very pleasant. He told me that I had defamed him and he would be suing me for defamation. He has told other people as well that he will be suing me. That’s all very peculiar because it’s not clear to me what he feels defamed about. Criticism is not the same as defamation. And why would I defame someone whose surname translates from the German as sincere, honest and genuine? You go figure…
But actually, what this smells, feels and looks like is a SLAPP suit, as in Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. It’s a common practice by the rich and powerful to try to intimidate communities, tie them up in expensive lawsuits and distract them from the campaign that the rich and powerful find troublesome. It was recently used by the Australian Mining Company MRC to harass environmental rights activists defending the rights of the community of Xolobeni threatened by mining interests, which the community has opposed for 18 years.
Clearly, Jody thinks he can distract us from our campaign by coming up with a nonsensical accusation of defamation.
But one thing Jody doesn’t realise is that we live in a Constitutional democracy that protects the rights of citizens to be active participants in matters that affect them. Not surprisingly, Civil Society has responding by launching a joint advocacy campaign known as Asina Loyiko - United Against Corporate Bullying – and we certainly aren’t going to stop because of trumped up charges of defamation that have no basis.
Secondly, we received some good coverage in the Argus today. However, one small correction to Marvin Charles’ article is that it is not the case that the petition “has been given to the Department of Environment Affairs and Development Planning.” We have not handed over the petition yet – it is very much still open, so please sign up and encourage others who feel strongly about this to do so as well.
Thirdly, one of our supporters asked us to change the petition heading to recognise that our campaign is not against the existing facilities, whose amenities are enjoyed by a good number of people. He is correct. A number of jobs will be lost and the golf course, restaurants and conference venue will all disappear, as will the chiropractice next door, should this development go ahead. I said I would add this point to the update, so here I am sharing this insight with you.
Lastly, I want to share with you why there is a hole in Jody’s bucket. The hole I am referring to is the gaping hole(s) in the hydrology report prepared for the BAR.
Why the River Club’s Hydrology report is faulty:
We live in times of increasing climatic variability. Cape Town nearly ran out of water in in 2018 as a result of prolonged drought. We nearly had to dip into our underground water aquifer to survive the drought. At the same time, extreme weather events are likely to increase as are our sea levels on the coast.
The River Club’s hydrology report prepared for the BAR claimed that the massive infill required to construct the 150 000 m2 building complex on a 14.7 ha site will not materially increase the risk of flooding for the nearby residents. The River Club is on a flood plain and the areas floods regularly (see above). Essentially, what the report tries to say is that it already floods a lot so it will only flood a little more with this massive development.
However, the hydrology report has a number of major flaws. It fails to make explicit the assumptions and conditions for its modelling; it relies on data from a 2010 study to model the impact of sea level rise, when we know that more recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest that sea level rise from Climate Change will be higher than thought in previous reports. We also have recent data suggesting that Cape Town will be more sensitive to the impacts of sea level rise. The hydrology report actually makes no effort to study sea level rise at all, commenting that an “investigation of the impacts of sea level rise is beyond the scope of this study, however it would be in the City’s interest to undertake further modelling to assess how climate change and sea level rise impacts could be mitigated.” Yet the report comes to a conclusion that the River Club development will have negligible impacts on flooding without having accurate data on sea level rise.
The PRASA shunting yards provide the escape route for floodwaters in the event the River Club area floods, but these are areas known to be highly contaminated with toxins from years of rail offloading. The figure above, taken from the hydrology report, highlights the areas most affected by flooding and shows clearly that it is the contaminated shunting yards that are affected. Flooding will disturb particles in the soil and may result in recirculation of toxic materials in flood waters and migration of these materials to other parts of the flood plain. The entire report avoids any comment on how floods that may have been expected to occur every 20 or 50 years, will now be likely to occur at shorter intervals. Lastly, the report takes account only of the surface area to be paved but not the underground concrete bulk (parking, foundations) which will prevent retention of water and so aggravate flooding.
Most importantly, the report claims that “the modelled impacts in terms of increased hazard and damage to properties are insignificant and can be considered negligible.” But that is a strange claim to make when we know that the hydrologists approached local homeowners in Ossian Rd nearby to discuss the implementation of flood mitigation measures to be paid for by the developer. If the developer is willing to pay for remedying risk or consequence of flooding, how exactly does that comprise ‘negligible’ impacts?
Lastly, there are a number of environmental policies which this development appears to contradict. The Climate Change policy of the City of Cape Town notes that “If the City makes major development and investment decisions now… without considering climate change adaptation or mitigation, it risks compromising the safety of Cape Town’s communities and businesses and locking itself into unsustainable investments.” The policy goes on to emphasise that Cape Town’s natural ecosystems should be “protected, managed and made resilient so that they can act as effective buffers to climate change impacts and provide benefits of ecological infrastructure in support of current and future physical infrastructure.”
This has been affirmed in the recent court judgement on the Phillipi Horticultural Area where the judge ruled that both City and Provincial governments had erred by not considering climate change and the impact of any development on the aquifer. A recent research study from UCT by noted by Fahad Aziz and Kevin Winter suggested that “water from the Liesbeek … could be used to raise groundwater level though infiltration of floodplains and ultimately to recharge parts of the CFA aquifer.” While the City’s Climate Change policy argues that “Ecological infrastructure can be used as a significant resource for building resilience while conserving ecosystem integrity, for example, the use of natural river and wetland systems to reduce flood risk can provide a sustainable drainage system while holding water for future supplies” this development makes no concessions to the need to respond to this policy.
Further, the hydrology report acknowledges that the proposed development is not consistent with the City’s Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and would require the City to make exceptions to (a) permit development within the 20-year flood line area where there is obstruction to the free flow of water; and (b) to permit develop and infilling to within the 50-year flood plain. The ‘exceptional circumstances’ are not advanced in the report other than to refer to specialist reports regarding the “geomorphological, maintenance, social and economic aspects.”
And finally, the Western Cape Climate Change Response Strategy highlights the need for "well-managed natural systems that reduce climate vulnerability and improve resilience to climate change impacts" However, the development on the River Club site, as currently proposed, will do the converse – increase vulnerability and reduce resilience.
Conclusion: It is evident that flooding in the area will increase if the development goes ahead, which will also mean the opportunity to bolster the aquifer will be lost. It is also seriously concerning that such flooding may mobilise toxic materials in water recirculated. The development requires substantial departure from existing policies. There is no plausible justification why these exceptions should be permitted. There are actually lots of holes in Jody's bucket.