By Hedley Thomas, The Australian
A SECRET report by scientific and engineering experts warned of significantly greater risks of vast destruction from Brisbane River flooding – and raised grave concerns with the Queensland government and the city’s council a decade ago.
But the recommendations in the report for radical changes in planning strategy, emergency plans and transparency about the true flood levels for Brisbane were rejected and the report was covered up.
The comprehensive 1999 Brisbane River Flood Study made alarming findings about predicted devastation to tens of thousands of flood-prone properties, which were given the green light for residential development since the 1974 flood. The engineers and hydrologists involved in the study warned that the next major flood in Brisbane would be between 1m and 2m higher than anticipated by the Brisbane town plan.
The study highlighted how the council had permitted the development of thousands of properties whose owners were led to believe they would be out of harm’s way in a flood on the scale of 1974.
The study was leaked to this reporter in June 2003 by a high-level public servant, who revealed that the local and state government at the time were less concerned with flood risks and more interested in seeing property development in low-lying areas.
“The flood immunity of properties is less than previously assessed. The average flood damages associated with flooding will be significantly higher. There are potential legal implications for council by allowing development to occur in higher-risk areas. As a minimum, developers and residents may need to be advised of the actual flood risk on their property,” the study says. “All elements of the study have been subjected to independent peer review because the key findings have significant implications for council.
“The major finding of this study is that the calculated one-in-100-year design flood flow . . . is about 1m to 2m higher than the current development control in the Brisbane River corridor. The simple option of saying that the current development control level represents the one-in-100-year flood level is not valid.”
Full story here
h/t to WUWT reader “Baa humbug”
Good government as usual then.
revealed that the local and state government at the time were less concerned with flood risks and more interested in seeing property development in low-lying areas.
=========================================================
and more interested in getting that tax money
I have a great idea, let’s give government even more power and control……………
……..since it’s been proven over and over how great government is at running things
Well a man come on the 6 oclock news
Said somebodys been shot, somebodys been abused
Somebody blew up a building
Somebody stole a car
Somebody got away
Somebody didn’t get too far yeah
They didn’t get too far
Grandpappy told my pappy, back in my day, son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree, round up all of them bad boys
Hang them high in the street for all the people to see
That justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys
You got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles well sing a victory tune
Well all meet back at the local saloon
Well raise up our glasses against evil forces
Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses
We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
Weve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets
It’s time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground
Send em all to their maker and hell settle em down
You can bet hell set em down
Toby Keith Beer For My Horses Lyrics
Sad, but not surprising, that pragmatic logic is trumped by emotional outpourings.
Science has been pitted against visceral response and gut-feel and has come off a poor second!
As pointed out by the late Douglas Adams, the well-meaning but fork-short of a picnic individuals would still be agonising about what colour a wheel should be rather than what it does!
Aliter, an asylum is even more dangerous when you’ve got rid of the doctors.
For those who’ve lost loved ones, I’m truly saddened.
Reminds one of the bush fire scandal, but without the mindless greeny angle: corrupt government, greedy developers, and a complacent public. It is the same everywhere – floodplains and development go hand-in-hand. I don’t think the businesses or home buyers are completely free of blame. We bought our home on a hill in Taringa with the thought that 1974 might be repeated, Wivenhoe or no. Right now we might be stranded, but we’d be dry.
On the other hand, two of the three places I rented in Brisbane are under water now, so I only really paid much attention to flood dangers when thinking of the long term investment. We are only slightly evolved from the chimps, so I think it is a bit unrealistic to blame us when we can’t think too far ahead. It’s best to just clean up and try to do better next time.
Sure, latitude. Private developers are so naive that they take anything the government says at face value. They would never build on a flood plain if they thought there would actually be any floods.
well the unburied report isn’t any more and people are likely to demand better flood control, even if some fish have to suffer a bit.
Maybe global warming admin had bought into the increasing plague of drought in Australia – a bit like the UK Met office which relies on AGW in their mild winter forecasts – snow is a thing of the past -and barbecue summers lasting a couple of months longer type of thing
This is similar to the story of Bangladesh and many other major urban centers around the world. Those places were natural flood plains. When population then were still small, easy for people to find other places to move up. Now with natural flooding, people blame global warming, rising ocean and other idiotic excuses.
They should have ruled that any structure’s ground floor be 50 cm above the level of the 1974 flood height. They would now be Australia’s heroes.
You can also blame activist individuals in local and state governments who put faith in prognostications from warminists like Tim Flim-Flam Flannery who pointed out that large rainfall totals across Australian cities (and Australia generally) were a thing of the past.
There are always examples of dwellings being built on flood plains etc. in all Australian cities.
Just been reading the expected Greenie “it’s climate change” comments. Unfortunately, the history books in Queensland report that this is an average flood for the Brisbane River. The recorded evidence of the really big floods show it can be MUCH worse. The tragedy is the near absence of prevention and mitigation in Queensland. This is typical, nearby is a mothballed desalination plant, built when the climate models predicted drought for the indefinite future. After loosing everything to a flood in Queensland, many years before the AGW, my subsequent homes have been in flood proof areas.
You think there might be a reason they call it a “flood plain”?
there are different causes for the flooding in queensland and new south wales.
however, the sequence for brisbane is as follows:
18 May 2009: Brisbane Times: Dam levels bring two-year buffer on water restrictions
The combined capacity of Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams is 59.02 pe
cent – just 0.98 per cent below the 60 per cent trigger point that would
allow the Queensland Water Commission to relax tough restrictions…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/dam-levels-bring-twoyear-buffer-on-water-restrictions-20090518-b837.html
instead of easing water restrictions as promised, the queensland premier used the fact the combined dam capacity had only reached 59.02% to go back on her promise.
in march 2010, the Premier decided restrictions might not be eased even if the dams reached a combined level of 100%. this was absolutely ridiculous and caused outrage as wivenhoe should never have gone above 40% according to some, or 60% according to others, as it was built precisely for flood mitigation.
8 March 2010: Courier Mail: Wivenhoe Dam ready for big spill in Brisbane
River
But Premier Anna Bligh and water managers say there will be no easing of
permanent water saving measures.
“We can’t be complacent and we must treat water as a precious resource not
to be wasted whether our dams are 50 or 100 per cent,” Ms Bligh said…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/wivenhoe-dam-ready-for-big-spill-in-brisbane-river/story-e6freoof-1225838427960
in october 2010, there was a new development:
14 Oct: Brisbane Times: No flooding reported, despite warnings
Brisbane City Council yesterday warned residents about possible flooding, due to a combination of water being released from Wivenhoe and a high tide…
“The amount of water being released today is less than what was released when the spillway gates were last opened in 1999..”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/no-flooding-reported-despite-warnings-20101013-16k4f.html
slightly different take:
4 Oct: Brisbane Courier Mail: Water released from full Wivenhoe Dam as Weather Bureau predicts more than normally active cyclone season
Minor releases occurred in 2001 but the last major release was in February 1999..
Of Brisbane’s big three dams, Somerset is on 100 per cent, North Pine 97 per cent and Wivenhoe, which was on 99.7 per cent on Friday, is full
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/water-released-from-full-wivenhoe-dam/story-e6freoof-1225933776732
to cut a long story short, when the january rains came, SEQ Water which manages the dams, have had to release huge amounts of water from wivenhoe (some say an amount equal to the waters flowing in from the catchment area) at the very time wivenhoe should have been taking the flood waters in. hence the brisbane river peaked and low-lying areas were flooded similar to 1974. we might as well not have built wivenhoe. it’s a complete disgrace, yet the MSM has been repeating the lie that wivenhoe (SEQ Water) has actually saved us from worse flooding.
11 Jan: Brisbane Courier Mail: Wivenhoe Dam to release 12,000 cubic metres of water every second
Earlier, a Seqwater source said the floodgates were opened to release 490,000 ML (mega litres) a day, up from 344,000 ML…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/wivenhoe-dam-gates-opened-wider-to-increase-flows-into-brisbane-river/comments-e6freon6-1225985753811
SEQ Water: Water Release Update (Wednesday 12 January, 08.00am)
Wivenhoe Dam
The Flood Operations Centre has begun an appropriate closure sequence to reduce releases.
The releases from Wivenhoe Dam have been temporarily reduced to 215,000 megalitres per day to allow the peak of Lockyer Creek to enter the Brisbane River.
After the downstream peak in the lower Brisbane River has passed, releases will be increased to maximum of 301,000 megalitres per day…
http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/home
btw i am not saying ALL the brisbane flooding was due to the above, but it is a major contributor.
Sorry to disappoint, but there is a greenie angle here. Our State Labor gov (left leaning) requires green votes to stay in gov. The Greens had the slogan “No New Dams” and so no dams were built for flood mitigation.
We now see the result of these policies.
And yes, I am a Brisbane resident.
RoHa:
No doubt, private developers would have built anywhere anyone had paid them to build. Perhaps the job of the government in this case was to ensure homeowners and insurance companies adequately understood the risks. Instead they covered up the risks.
Except this flood peak is 1m below the 1974 flood level. Again we see rapid fire accusations made in the midst of a crisis.
This is simply sensationalism at its worst. Designed to sell more papers but light on adequate researching and fact checking.
I always recall being told that Wivenhoe would reduce the expected flood level from a 1974 type event by 2 meters. In this instance, the rainfall and river levels above Wivenhoe were exceeded by approximately a 1 to 2 meters. The end result was a flood peak in Brisbane about 1 meter below 1974.
I don’t care what you think. Unless you want to demolish tens of bilions of dollars of real eastate and shutdown the central CBD, Brisbane will almost certainly on average once every 50 years suffer a devastating flood that destroys billions of dollar worth of property and costs lifes. Its part of what it means to be a city on a river.
Now I don’t care what you say about developers but when a 1 in 200 year flood event occurs, any city in the world is going to be devastated. There are things you can plan for to try and minimise the risk of loss of life and property but their are limits.
I do agree that controls on development are as strict as they might have been but be very careful how much blame you want to lay at their feet.
Dave in Exile and Baa glad to here you are high and dry, sorry for who is not. Comes down to the council saw tax money in them flood plains. Unfortunatly that happens in every city around the world and here in Austin Tx., they did not care if they could provide water services in the long term as in Australia with the water shortages and rationing, same here. And when it does rain and hard like yall, the flash floods come and sweep any and everything away even the idiots who try to cross low water crossings. Hope the death toll does not go up and the ones missing are found hanging on to a tree.
There can be no doubt that prevailing ‘expert’ opinion over the last fifteen years has been that the Australian Continent would get progressively drier. And interestingly as the drought progressed the louder and more hysterical this message was promoted.
Tim ‘ghost metropolis’ Flannery, who was voted Australian of the Year for his efforts as lead climate change scaremonger, relentlessly predicted water shortages for Brisbane and all major cities. This chimed perfectly with others (mostly on the ABC SBS) predicting the imminent ‘Death’ of the Murray Darling River!!!!!!!! and the Great Barrier Reef!!!!!
I sincerely hope they find evidence that the Queensland government neglected flood precautions because ‘expert advice’ led them to believe they were un-necessary in a drying climate.
Bureau of Meterology, CSIRO, Queensland Uni….some where someone wrote a report about this…please let it come to light.
Maybe stilt houses should be mandatory in flood prone regions.
Denying science because of short term (short sighted) economic concerns – when will it stop?
Business as usual.
David W says:
January 12, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Except this flood peak is 1m below the 1974 flood level. Again we see rapid fire accusations made in the midst of a crisis.
This is simply sensationalism at its worst. Designed to sell more papers but light on adequate researching and fact checking.
The 1974 ans 2011 flood levels are not comparable – it depends on tides. The 2011 flood could easily have been a metre or 2 higher given the right (or wrong) tide and surge conditions. If someone is basing a conclusion on the fact that the 1839 (?) flood height in Brisbane was a metre or 2 bigger – so what.
But I agree whole heartedly otherwise. I worked as a contract engineer for Brisbane Council doing flood reports. Numerical flood modelling (a very different beast to climate modeling) and mapping has been ongoing for a long time by many of Australia’s biggest engineering firms. I have read the reports and studied the mapping. Which is quite good and progressively updated through a reasonably good network of stream gauges. I have also designed developments for thousands of people in Queensland – as well as other major infrastructure.
The principle in the State Government (much as I might think that less government is always better on principle) disaster management guideline is to give a 1 in 100 flood immunity and to provide safe evacuation routes for a probable maximum flood. These are engineering design principles and not subject to the whim of a politician.
Sorry Anthony – I can’t see the point in this post at all. Repeating sensationalist journalism from The Australian is not a good look. It is not even a relevant post – why bother.
Cheers
Robert
Government planning cannot prevent natural disasters. It is up to the property owners to assess the risks of where they choose to live but they must be free of government interference to make reasoned decisions. If the government guarantees disaster assistance outside of savings lives or provides flood insurance below market rates they create the problem. The insurance market without government intervention will prevent these disasters on their own by making the price too high for people to risk living in these areas.
Moral of the story, don’t live in flood prone areas and don’t expect others to foot the bill for your mistake.
A little note to Anthony’s readers
Australia unfortunately suffers public leadership remote from electors and reality.
The country has effectively a one – party system with media, judiciary and a political caste helping themselves to a diminishing trough of inherited wealth and infrastructure.
The politicians are given seats through party pre-selection. I have not seen a notice of public meeting to select candidates or raise money for a major political party since the 1970’s. The representatives are therefore beholden to the party and the party beholden to benefactors. These benefactors are increasingly speculators in property developement and what is better scam than reclassifying a flood prone site to allow residential or commercial developement.
The current flooding in Queensland is a sickening display of a remote and corrupt ruling caste. Our monitors are filled with the sight of politicians filmed with the paid nodders behind them flown to the site of the latest interest purely for their own publicity.