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”
Stephen @Jan 12 7.48pm —–
as background [ which you may or may not know ], to Queensland Labor Party cover-ups and Hedley Thomas….
This is just one of the many secrets that the Queensland Labor party has been sitting on for the last twenty years or so .
The major secret involves law-breaking by members of that party while in government, when they destroyed evidence that a number of lawyers had requested be preserved for foreshadowed legal procedures—a breach by this government that is known about in archivist circles worldwide as one of the most egregious by any Western government..
In the process, Australian citizens, including children [ because the evidence had involved allegations of paedophile behaviour by staff in a government institution] were [ and have been now for more than twenty years] denied justice under the Australian law.
The reason for the shredding of the evidence was the anxiety of Queensland Labor politicians to protect their own pre-selections for candidature , by in turn protecting the alleged paedophiles, who happened to be members of the supremely powerful , very Left wing Australian union that holds complete control over pre-selection for Labor candidates in Queensland.
This matter has been the subject of a University Justice Project , and a submission by a group of Australia’s most prominent lawyers and judges, including a High Court judge, calling for a Commission of Inquiry with an Independent Prosecutor to investigate the prima facie case of law-breaking by a government.
The submission and similar calls by a Federal Government Senate Select Committee that investigated the matter, have been dismissed by the Labor government’s lapdog ‘watchdog’ Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission.
In 2007, when the person at the centre, and more powerful than Cabinet Ministers in that Labor government that destroyed evidence, was asking Australia to vote him into the Prime Ministership, many of us who knew about the shredding of the evidence, the damage to innocent people and the extraordinary cover-up, commented on blogs, and called for an inquiry and for the politicians involved to be required to answer to the Australian people for their placing of themselves above the law at the direct expense of the lives of ordinary Australians.
We who spoke out , and the one journalist who , on his blog, went out on a limb to try to get some justice, were subjected to an extraordinary onslaught of smear , vilification and all of the confected guilt by perceived association , name-calling and sly innuendo that we also get if we try to ask serious questions on some of the AGW blogs.
We were subjected , over the length of that election campaign, to vicious tandem attacks by a posse of journalists from The Australian, led by the same Hedley Thomas, who wrote this article on the flood information cover-up.
That was 2007, and you’ll note that even while he was vilifying us, he knew all about QLD Labor—-he had had this information since 2003 about this cover-up on the truth about the flood dangers.
All of Australia’s journalists, except for a brave one or two, have gone to great lengths over the last 20 years, to suppress the information Australians are entitled to, on this Labor government’s destruction of evidence—— so it’s no surprise that they also allowed them to suppress information on flood dangers, and on AGW science —- and actively help them to feed us lies and propaganda.
And it seems to me the person in the best position to know this is Hedley Thomas.
Hi memoryvault and Baa Humbug.
Thanks a million for the info, and thanks to Anthony’s website for the amazing writers and comments, I go to the school of higher learning every time I read these articles and the follow up comment’s. Isn’t the Internet an amazing thing? We really are an international crowd on the same path. I wish all Australians in Queensland a safe speedy recovery from the flooding and the politician’s who perpetuate this misery and hell. It seems no matter where we live in the world we get the same politicos from the left trying to screw us endlessly!
Cheers Ted.
graham g says:
January 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm
‘I cannot agree with any of Robert Ellison’s comments.’
Dear Graham,
I am sorry to hear – that I don’t try to be difficult – it just comes naturally. But neither you nor Pat have the foggiest idea of what you speak. The Wivenhoe dam was at 187% capacity as of this morning. Pat has confused the water supply capacity on an out of date website, as someone else did and I corrected, to the flood capacity. The dam went from 100% (full water supply level) to the 200% flood attenuation capacity as it was designed to do during the recent rains.
Pat quite foolishly assumed that the dam should have been at 50% of water supply capacity and the other 50% used for flood mitigation – and that the powers that be had unwisely used the flood capacity to store water because of the dreaded greenie influence and, therefore, Brisbane went under water. Damned greenies.
The design equation is the differential equation of storage.
Q = I – dS/dt – Q is the outflow, I is the inflow and dS/dt is the change in storage volume. Is the dam is full and they are releasing more water to maintain levels and safe conditions – then dS/dt is zero and outflow equals inflow.
No amount of inchoate political analysis – superimposed on a weird and wonderful flood analysis from Pat – can negate the physical realities.
But wasn’t this post about a secret squirrel flood report on Brisbane? Not about dams and greenies per se? I was just saying that I know from first hand experience during nearly 30 years as a flood engineer that flood levels in Brisbane were determined by the most respected engineering firms in Australia using standard modelling techniques developed by Engineers Australia over decades.
Anything else is just ratbag politics – anti-greens and anti-labor rhetoric as muddle headed as anything from the left. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Robert I Ellison BE(Hons) MEnSC CPEng RPEQ
I’ve owned four houses in my life, and the first criterion I always used when looking at a property was could it be flooded. I’ve never been wrong yet.
Robert
Engineering is about solving problems not washing hands. So I am surprised you made those comments.
I, besides the Human crisis, am concerned at the vast waste of water rushing out to Sea, that could be need in the Future.
Clearly, the political leaders that refused to drain the flood protection dam to its operating level, should NOW be in Jail.
I am a Canadian, and I have an emotional connection with Australia having travelled their twice on matters of the heart, to see a dear lady. Once, I saw myself as possibly spending my life there.
It’s a great country full of beauty, but the political beliefs of a lot of folks are more than a bit unrealistic. There seems to be a really strong segment of the population that believes whatever meme ABC News et al. is pushing at the time, and the country itself seems to be more comfortable with controls on free speech than many Western nations.
Fortunately, not all: There are some great independent thinkers from that country.
It saddens me not only that this report could have been suppressed and hidden, but that it was done so knowing it could endanger people’s lives, not to mention the minor matter of the properties they own, and their livelihoods.
But, lives! Perhaps as many as 70 of them snuffed out by willful suppression of a scientific report, based on peer-reviews science.
This is a
tragedyLatitude says
———-
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
———–
And you want to give control instead to those wonderfully efficient coporations; like property developed perhaps. I wonder how that would turn out.
Reply to Robert Ellison.
I respect your qualifications on these flooding matters. However,I am not ashamed of myself as you suggest . I also have engineering qualifications, but not in your field of expertise. I certainly would not want to go to sea in the same ship with you in charge..
187% of capacity for a dam prior to an know major La Nina event does not seem to me to be a sound flood mitigation policy, no matter how many times you repeat your statements from Engineers Australia. Sounds like a Titanic experience.
She’ll be right mate.!
Great article here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100071290/queensland-floods-but-at-least-the-endangered-mary-river-cod-is-safe-eh/
Just saw an ABC (government channel here) reporter interviewing a “water infrastructure expert” from the Aust National University about the Brisbane flood and other floods throughout Queensland. Two things I got from it:
1. the reporter made about half a dozen references to climate change implying the current flood has something to do with climate change – despite the fact they occur about every 40 years as per previous posts on this thread. I have now lived through 2 of them.
2. the expert said building dams does not assist with flood mitigation. Huh!? He went on to say the Wivenhoe dam which was built to mitigate floods after the 74 flood as well as increase water supply resulted in a decrease of 2 meters in the peak flood height. I find it difficult to reconcile his statement that building dams does not assist with flood mitigation. That 2 meters means 10’s of thousands of houses saved.
The ABC needs to have its tax payer funding withdrawn. I am sick to death of listening to rubbish like this. The ANU expert needs a revision course.
Regardless of the science, the Australian Government in collaberation with the MSM, abley supported by regular contributions from the likes of Flim Flannery, Robyn Williams et al will irrefutably link this tragic event to MMGW. The shell shocked and gullible populace will go along with the farce like the sheeple most of them are, and Climate realists, sanity and reason in Australia don’t stand a chance.
If Wivenhoe hadn’t been built the flooding in Brisbane would be twice as high as 1974 level. The only way this flooding might have been avoided is if Wivenhoe was near empty two weeks ago. Wivenhoe is a multipurpose dam. It is also used for clean water and electricity generation. The ideal level is 100%, but the reservoir can grow up to 225% of capacity before emergency spillway is needed.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/13/3111717.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/11/3110758.htm
The floods clearly won’t help the likes of Tim Flannery and other AGW catastrophists in their crusade. But it is too early to assign blame on political actors. For what it’s worth, the previously unpopular Bligh Labor Government in Queensland has so far come out well in this disaster.
pat says:
January 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm
It struck me watching footage of water flowing out of the Wivenhoe Dam 24hrs before the flood peak in Brisbane that it was possible that some sort of error had been made with the use of the dam as a water storage and flood mitigation device. Your timeline is interesting, I’d been reading reports from back in Oct that the threat of floods was possible given the intense La Nina.
I actually think that Anna Bligh has done a great job over the last few days and right now it’s unlikely that these sort of issues will be raised but I’m sure in the future this issue will raise it’s head. One mitigating factor is that following a 10 year drought it would take a brave politician to open the tap.
The fact is, any government that tried to implement the recommendations of this report would have been thrown out on its ear.
Queensland has always been very pro development and keen to increase population. Governments of all political persuasions have bent over backwards for these aims, supported by the voters.
If a government had placed huge swathes of Brisbane out of bounds for housing, it would have been crucified at the polls, accused of raising housing prices (by choking off land supply) and crippling economic development. Also, many of the inundated areas are very attractive to home buyers, precisely because they have rich alluvial soil – making for great parks and gardens – and river views.
It is just human nature at work, no conspiracy theories are required. I saw interviews today with homeowners whose houses had water up to the roof, saying they would ‘not be beaten’ and were determined to rebuild. I think they are idiots, but as long as it is their own money at stake, that is up to them.
Brisbane City Council has had a standing offer for 400 homeowners in low lying areas to buy their houses back for a long time. To date, 19 have accepted the offer. In a democracy, you can’t legislate against stupidity.
OT but a “urgent” OT:
I believe the all time coldest temperature measured on Greenland is -62,8 C
For days now, the prognosis for tonights temperatures says colder than this.
The last prognosis for tonights temperature says – 64 C:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/summit2.jpg
Follow the development of measured temperatures on Summit opdated all the time:
http://www.summitcamp.org/status/weather/index?period=week
K.R. Frank, and as allways, my gratitude for this site an everyone commenting and managing WUWT is beyond words
been through a Much lesser flooding, caught some nasty skin bug from filthy muddy water while cleaning up, had to throw out almost everything, whats ;left stinks for years of mould and mud, and then the insurers play silly buggers over terms like flood vs inundation… and refuse to pay. rebuilding a home on a pension income with no bank loans available die to age and pension… and there will be thousands with far worse damage and in the same situation or uninsured.
the loss of animals is glossed over, thousands have drowned.
the ultragreenecotards that wanted to keep all the land shut away to preserve whatever? what a laugh. nature cares not one whit!
any GM crop seeds would now be scattered far and wide, along with weeds and it will be interesting to see what rare species appear right out of the “so special” only place etc etc environments, thanks to? nature again.
damn, also means cane toads will have been washed down right through to sa with the water coming down.!
and to top it off. ruined land and equipment means we need to grow elsewhere fast!
so the SA govt and the MDB idiots want to limit the Murray irrigators and continue to charge for water in a…flooding river system thats pouring 90gig a day out to sea now, and thats before this water hits…and whats flooding parts of Vic and nsw NOW!
in colloqial aus this is called a Balls up.
some need to be placed balls up IN the water to bring facts home the hard way!
Baa Humbug says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:56 pm
‘Robert Ellison says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Rob thankyou for your comments which were obviously based on your hands-on experience.’
‘However I think your final paragraph was unnecessary. Anthony made no comment about the story. He put forward no opinions. All he did was to alert his readers to a story in the major national paper of Australia.’
As I say – I don’t mean to be difficult – it just comes naturally. I’m also a bit over fools, charlatans and opportunists. I can’t figure out what the purpose of the story is other than some idiot needed something to write about – it is sensationalist and nonsensical reporting during a time of crisis. The flood heights in Brisbane were calculated by some of the most respected engineering firms in Australia. Dozens of reports (that I have personally read) and multiple models and revisions over many years. This post has riled fools and conspiracy nutbags as you can see from some of the responses.
‘And yes this most certainly is relevant. This is the subject discussed by WUWT commentors (sic) on the australias-tragic-flooding-30-feared-dead post.’
The post was misleading, crass, incorrect and insensitive political posturing on dams in the midst of great tragedy. The death toll stands at 15 and dinkum Australians should think of the relatives and friends before turning it into a political troll about dams. The particular dam on the Mary River was technically and economically rubbish anyway. I have absolutely no more to say on this.
‘Whilst you’re here, may I ask, would you support an unfettered full blown Royal Commission into this extreme event (including the Rocky floods etc)?
If yes, what are the insights to be gained from such a commission?
If not, why not?’
Rocky’s flood is the 4th largest on record – it reached 9.2m. About a 1 in 96 year flood as I explained elsewhere. The Rocky flood gauge is shown here: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/gallery-fn7ik2te-1225983066348?page=45
The 1 in 100 year terminology misleads the public – major flooding can be expected in a 10 to 20 year (or even 3 times in a week) timeframe rather than happening once in a hundred years. So Rocky flooding was not extreme – the last big flood was in 1991. We have only a hundred odd years of good rainfall and flood records so record values of any kind can be expected quite frequently.
It always feels exceptional but the truth is that neither drought nor floods have departed much anywhere from the historic limits. Here is the average rainfall for 100 years – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rain.shtml – note the statistically insignificant trend upwards.
Much emphasis is put on regional analysis – this is a bit like examining entrails to divine the future. Don’t they know that weather is chaotic rather than deterministic? Forget I said that – last time I mentioned chaos someone said that I was using chaos the cover a warmist agenda and that God doesn’t play dice. I did explain nicely that chaos wasn’t just a word but one of the three great ideas, along with relativity and quantum mechanics, of 20th Century physics.
Everyone should do a post disaster analysis – it is part of doing it better in future – what went wrong, how can we do it better, what improvements do we need to make in flood warnings or emergency management, what infrastructure needs replacing or improving, are there additional flood protection measures that need to be put in place, do we need to demolish some older houses in floodplains. It is something better managed by local disaster management teams rather than amateurs and lawyers getting involved – perhaps in a Productivity Commission framework. Do you want to turn it into a shit fight on the philosophy of dams?
Already Barnaby Joyce is saying that Rocky in particular would be less flood prone with more dams. The Fitzroy Basin catchment is the second biggest in Australia. I think he is basically clueless – he is a f….. accountant. Much cheaper and infinitely more effective to relocate a few hundred people in Rocky to higher ground.
If you want dams for cotton – say so. I would suggest off stream storages and flood harvesting is an economically and environmentally better way to go.
I have an article here – http://sciencefile.org/SciFile/articles/articles-earth/2297-how-the-pacific-ocean-influences-global-climate-a-review-of-the-physical-evidence- (which I would be happy to post here?) which essentially says that we should expect 10 to 30 more years of more frequent and intense La Nina and all that implies. I have been studying this for decades – ever since Erskine and Warner introduced me to the idea of drought dominated and flood dominated regimes in the late 1980’s – something btw that is a cornerstone of Australian hydrology. It is not driven by carbon dioxide at all but by chaotic bifurcation in Pacific Ocean climate states. I think the fact that we shifted from a warm Pacific state to a cool state after 1998 is a prima facie case for a natural origin. It also has a spiffy new 1st order differential climate change formula you should look at.
We need to get our flooding act together because this is not the end of it by a couple of decades yet. Flooding and not drought will be the problem de jour for a while yet.
Cheers
Robert I Ellison BE(Hons) MEnSc CPEng RPEQ
graham g says:
January 12, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Reply to Robert Ellison.
I don’t know if you are willfully misunderstanding. The dam volume increased to 200% from 100% during the flood as it was designed to do for flood mitigation. Then you just run out of storage capacity in a very big flood.
Graham G. and Robert Ellison.
You might be be both qualified engineers with much experience in your relevant fields, however crucial environmental decisions are now made by activist academics and self interest politicians – both groups who have little thought about reality.
(I think that Robert Ellison may have already pointed this out).
The history of Brisbane floods shown on the ABC News website is interesting. Note the frequency of floods between 1887 and 1893 – four big floods in seven years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/infographics/qld-floods/peaks.htm
¨But wasn’t this post about a secret squirrel flood report on Brisbane? Not about dams and greenies per se? I was just saying that I know from first hand experience during nearly 30 years as a flood engineer that flood levels in Brisbane were determined by the most respected engineering firms in Australia using standard modelling techniques developed by Engineers Australia over decades.¨
Hi,
Could you explain how the engineers were so wrong?
Brisbane has a history of flooding, and indeed I know of
old timers who will point out streets, developments etc
and say ¨She will go next time we get a flood like ´74.¨
(Which has now happened)
And anyone can see that the new developments were
at a lower level than previous flood levels.
Is it a case of assessing the risk, the odds, or the
increasing needs of a growing population and just
needing the land.
Or is it the curse of the dreaded ¨modelling¨?
Stephen says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Why would there be a secret report to government on natural hazards?
Forgetting for the moment that nothing was done, I really cannot imagine why any researcher producing this report would want to keep it quiet.
The researcher can’t make it public. The client pays for it and does with it as they please.
Robert Ellison says: “disaster management guideline is to give a 1 in 100 flood immunity”
During the 1800 there were 8 Major floods in a 60 year period, 3 of which were higher than the 1974 floods. So the the 2 in 60 (not 1 in 100) event had a hieght of 8.3M and that is the value that should have been mitigated against and 1974 proved the point.
If there was a 1999 report that said the current protection was inadequate they have been proved correct and the “Numerical flood modelling” got it wrong.
LazyTeenager says:
January 12, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Latitude says
———-
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
———–
And you want to give control instead to those wonderfully efficient coporations; like property developed perhaps. I wonder how that would turn out.
=======================================================
Lazy, the governments only job it to protect us.
That’s not the job of corporations or developers and shouldn’t be.
In Live Oak, FL, on the Suwannee River there is a canoe base, Suwannee Outpost. Next to the outpost office is a pole with the major flood levels marked on it. The highest floods are way above the Outpost office roof. The Outpost office was designed to float 🙂