Plumbing-Storm Water Run Off.

At a recent body corp meeting I objected to a vote/outcome on the acceptance of a quote to carry out plumbing to allieviate surface run off causing flooding that has directly afffected our unit, and the 2 units beside us, for many years now. After 18 months of investigation by a unit holder that volunteered for the task of finding possible solutions (the volunteer not occupying any of the flood affected units), 2 quotes proposing the same solution were made available to choose from.

Armed with calculations I had made (based on 1/20yr 5min ARI for our area, sourced from the 2003 Australian Standard-3500.3.2-the same information a hydraulic consultant would refer to in order to conclude an outcome), I established that the existing system was insufficient to carry the potential water load from our 170 square meters of roof area, draining via four 90ml down pipes into a single 100ml storm water pipe located directly beneath our unit, let alone any additional surface run off water plumbed in from our flooding back yard.

Regardless of the calculations I presented, the unit holders voted to continue with one of the quotes tabled, based on that they didn't think that diverting the extra flood water load into the existing plumbing would be a problem, or they guessed it would be ok. 

I objected to the extraordinary amount of time taken to produce such a feckless attempt, the fact that no consultation had taken place with any of the 3 unit holders directly affected by the flooding problem, the lack of detail provided in the quote, and clarified the responsibilities and potential liability of executive committe members voting to approve a potential problem causing solution based on guesses, rather than more acurate available information. Reluctantly the meeting deferred the vote, pending clarification of the quote and further investigation/consultaion I must now persue.

The body corp seem unwilling to rely on my calculations in regards the suitability of the existing storm water plumbing, but additionally refuse to engage a hydraulic consultant (at body corp expense) to allay any concerns.

The plumber insists he will not be accountable/liable should a problem be created by his quoted works, as he is taking direction on what work to perform from members of the body corp, and not a civil engineer or hydraulic consultant.

The flooding has only gotten worse over time and now reaches our back door, potentially undermining the unit foundations. The way the flooding occurs is not deemed flooding by insurance companies as it happens over an extended period of time, and in any case, we have no flood insurance for the unit complex.

The executive committee have no indemnity insurance against their actions from aggrieved parties.

An alternative I proposed, to run a concealed pipe behind our retaining wall from the affected area to the roadside gutter 80m away, has been rejected by body corp executive members due to the additional $2000 quoted cost. I'm unable to comprehend the approach of the body corp on this issue, as it is made up of understanding and articulate professionals, who have always been interested in finding suitable solutions via compromise to body corp issues that arise from time to time. Attempts to reason with them via sound argument based on fact have so far met with unwelcome response.

Where do I go from here, any ideas?

Cheers.