Can the Country be held responsible for flooding caused by floods? The question arose this morning before the administrative court, at the request of a family whose house took on water several times on the banks of the Afeu river. The public rapporteur explained that the community could not be blamed for damage to property, except in the event of failure to maintain public works… In this case a wall to secure the banks that has collapsed for years. The Country is also seeking to “rationalize” its action in this area, by condemning owners who block cleaning easements and complicate the action of the Equipment services.
The rainy season is slowly arriving on Tahiti, and for some riverside residents, it is also a time of risks and worries. Like this family from Papeari who “lives in constant fear” of a flood, and who was on the benches of the administrative court this morning to point out the responsibility of the Country in its situation. This couple built their house between 2015 and 2016, with a valid building permit, near the banks of the Afeu river. The problems began the following year: flooding “right into the bedrooms” in 2017, then again in 2021 and in November 2023. “We had 1.20 meters of water in the house” says the owner. Obviously furniture was lost, the woodwork remembers it, and humidity has taken hold for a long time. Other surrounding areas are regularly affected, more “not as much” since the houses are on stilts. What this family’s building permit “recommended”, but did not impose in 2015.
Not responsible for the floods, but responsible for the works
But why blame the authorities for these disasters? Because a few dozen meters upstream from this land, a bank protection wall guarantees certain other neighbors not to be affected by floods. And it could also protect this family if the wall was not collapsed in places, fractured in others and even opened over 8 meters after forgetting to “close” the structure. The local residents are categorical: it was the Infrastructure services which built it many years ago. Long enough for the administration to initially assure that it was not the cause. Testimonies and certain official plans show the opposite, and the official discourse ended up changing its mind. The public rapporteur of the court, who recalls in the preamble that the Country which is not in principle responsible for damage to private land, therefore considers that the community can well be blamed, in this specific case, for lack of maintenance of a “public work”.
But the magistrate suggests that judges only recognize “the harm of anxiety” of owners who “do not sleep” on rainy evenings, for fear of having to urgently take the children to shelter. If it is followed, the Country will have to restore its wall. The rapporteur, on the other hand, rejects, for lack of supporting documents, their request for compensation for material damage, estimated at 4 million francs, not including the funds paid by the insurance, on a single occasion in 2023, when the Country had declared a situation natural disaster throughout the area. 200,000 francs instead of 4 million, it is difficult to say that the couple left the court fully satisfied, even if “the main thing is that this wall is redone so that we are protected”. And that the judges' decision will not fall until January 14.
The Country in full effort to “rationalize” its river management
No comment from the administration, except that the riverbank developments represent a permanent effort and investment by the Equipment department. Another case heard this Tuesday also gives a taste of the pitfalls that can be found on the ground. This time it is Polynesia which is in charge, to condemn a resident of a riverside, near Tiarei, to a major road fine. He is accused of having built a fare, without authorization, on the part closest to the watercourse of his land. However, as in many valleys and river mouths, there exist in this area, along the public river domain, “cleaning easements” invisible on the land, but clearly present in the land register, on which the owners cannot build. The idea is to leave the field free to the authorities and the equipment, precisely to ensure the maintenance and development of the banks.
The Country has not always enforced these obligations, but is, according to its representative in court, in a “great effort to rationalize” its management of rivers and cleanings. Hence this request for condemnation: the fare in question obstructs passage, and therefore endangers the maintenance of the river estate, and the safety of all residents. The public rapporteur agrees: a fine and an obligation to restore under penalty are recommended. Several other procedures of this type could be transmitted by the Country to the court. Which also promises a lot of disputes from the owners.
Related News :