James Bailey is living in a caravan on his riverfront property after last summer’s floods destroyed his home, but he has been told he won’t be able to rebuild anytime soon. 

“Never in my life would I think I’d be living in a caravan, but again never in my life did I think I’d be flooded out either,” the 51-year-old said.

The self-employed gardener owned a shack-style home in the small town of Walker Flat, in South Australia’s Murraylands, on land which has been privately leased to him.

When he was told the shack was not salvageable, he took up the state government’s offer for a free demolition.

But when a consulting company came to assess the property to build him a new home, he was told that he and at least eight of his neighbours had been living on “undocumented” land, with their official boundaries not registered with the land titles office.

“They basically said, ‘we’re not going to survey it, because we don’t have the information’ and they’re not going to build it because of fear of litigation,” he said.

“I just have a mud map [informal map] pretty much … but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not 1960 anymore.”

Mr Bailey said because the dimensions of his property were not technically “official”, no surveying company was willing to determine the boundaries with the private owner of the land.

A copy of Mr Bailey’s land lease valuation, registered with Land Services SA, does not include the dimensions of his property.

A government spokesperson told the ABC there were dimensions registered for the entirety of the street, but not for each person’s portion of land on the street, which were all on individual private leases.

“The land title is for the entire allotment, which encompasses more than just the shack site [Mr Bailey’s property],” they said.

“As this individual specifically leases the shack site, the broader title is with the owner — or lessor.

“The lessee could have the building constructed by having a surveyor draft identification and building plans if consent of the lessor is obtained.”

The Mid Murray Council said it had no comment on Mr Bailey’s lease, as it was a private matter between the two parties.

Mr Bailey said if he had known he would be without a home for two years, he would never have agreed to knock down his property in the first place.

He said he was one of the first in line to have his new home built and believed he was about six months behind where he should be.

“I would say, you’d probably be seeing a footing and possibly a frame, maybe even the floor for the house to sit on right now,” he said.

The 51-year-old said watching his home disappear under floodwaters was like witnessing a “train wreck”, but conceded that the recovery process had been much worse for his mental health.

“People are going, ‘are you hanging in there?’ and I think that’s all I really can do, is just hang in there,” he said.

‘Compromised from the ground up’

Upstream, about 55 kilometres away in the low-lying town of Paisley, Terry Grant has also faced unexpected hurdles in his rebuilding journey.

During peak water flows down the river, the solar panels on his roof were the only visible sign of his home.

“Once the actual flood started to recede … yes, it was a s***load of mess,” the retiree said.

“[The building surveyor] just said the place is compromised from the ground up.”

Mr Grant also considered demolition, but recently-introduced regulations which state that new homes must be built above the level of a ‘one-in-100-year flood event’ have made that impossible.

“The ground is that wet that the councils are asking for soil reports 12 months after the flood, and then I’ll go 12 months after that and then it will just keep going,” he said.

“It will always be wet, so it wouldn’t matter if you waited five years — do a soil sample, the grounds are still going to be wet.”

The interim amendments to the Planning and Design Code were introduced post-flood to reduce the impact of any future flooding events.

Mr Grant has instead decided to strip the property down to just its frames and fix it up as best as he can so it can be used as a holiday home.

He and his wife built the house back in 2006 as the place to live out the rest of their lives.

“This is where we lived 24/7, we spent a great deal of money … now it’s worth nothing,” he said.

“I loved it — I repainted it all just before the flood, but it is what it is.