From
Operator of dam ‘invented’ rain data
EXTREME rainfall so rare it happens on average once every 2000 years has been “invented” by the government operator of a major Queensland dam as part of its explanation for releasing huge volumes of water that caused most of Brisbane’s January flood.
The claim by SEQWater in its official report that a “one-in-2000-year” rainfall event occurred over the Wivenhoe Dam at a critical stage on January 11 has been widely reported in the media and cited by senior public servants to justify the near loss of control of the dam at the time.
But no such rainfall event was measured by any rainfall gauges. Instead, the claim was manufactured by SEQWater after it modelled the rapid rise of levels in the dam, repositioned rainfall data to an area immediately upstream of the dam, and then doubled it.
After extrapolating in this unusual way to achieve an extreme number, the SEQWater report states: “Rainfall of this intensity and duration over the Wivenhoe Dam lake area at such a critical stage of a flood event was unprecedented.
…
The technical report by SEQWater shows it relied on a manual gauge of dam levels, not the actual rainfall in gauges, to extrapolate data to claim the occurrence of a one-in-2000-year event.
However, in doing this, SEQWater disregarded the data from a nearby electronic gauge, which showed dam levels lower than those in the manual gauge.
Full story here
=================================================================
My heart goes out to the people of Queensland and in particular, Brisbane, where I visited last year. Heads should roll over this. h/t to WUWT reader Betapug
UPDATE: Reader Frank K points out this article by skeptical cartoonist John Cook in ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/01/17/3114597.htm
The headline:
The essay was also posted on his antithetically named “Skeptical Science” blog:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OK-global-warming-this-time-its-personal.html
He’s right about one thing, this event IS personal, and preventable. And, I’m willing to bet there will be scads of very personal lawsuits by people who have been grievously harmed by the government ineptitude in managing the dam.
If Mr. Cook has any integrity, he’ll retract his story. But, I doubt he will.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One last thing I would add.
At the time the duty engineers were looking at these gauge readings the dam level was approaching 75m on the manual gauge going up at a rate consistent with previous readings. The automatic gauge was starting to show inconsistent readings and, if you read the event logs and summaries, is positioned in a place where it would have a tendency to provide unreliable readings when there are significant inflows into the dam. I would presume this is why the manual gauge is also present, to provide more accurate readings when these circumstances arise.
So at the time, the dam was approaching a critical level where the first of the fuse plug embankments on the dams secondary spillway would have been activated. This would have resulted in a rapid 2000m3/sec increase in the release rate which would have had serious consequences downstream. Under these circumstances you would not ignore the manual gauge which is providing the readings that show a potentially more damaging situation.
Again it comes down to reading the SEQ Report thoroughly and putting yourself in the position of the duty engineers at the time. Something very few people could do given very few people would have the knowlege and experience the duty engineers present had (a combined 120 years of experience).
Terry Skinner says: “If I was not now retired I would now be looking into major subrogation claims against these jokers. In practice this would mean their liability insurers having to make major payouts down the line.”
The Queensland Government, I believe, didn’t carry any disaster insurance, (the only state that doesn’t), but relies on the feds to provide disaster funds, so all the reparations will have to come from taxpayers for their (govt) stupidity.
Ah the curse of the dual purpose dam. It cant be both water storage AND a water sink safety mechanism without perfect knowledge of the weather. Climate has nothing to do with it.
Come on OZ, get this sorted, all this “correctness” is now starting to show through into real life. The Poms have just won the Ashes!
There is something crook going on down under. Its time to get a grip!
Just how on earth did you end up with a Welsh UK PC PM?
Come on OZ, we are the old country, why are you overtaking us in the PC, CAGW Stakes? This is not where you should be. We are old and senile, you guys still have a chance, time to repatriate your PM, Barry is waiting.
James Sexton says:
March 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“I’m still trying to understand the concept of a “more intense drought”. What does that mean? “AHHH!!!! THE LACK OF RAIN INTENSIFIES!!!! AHHH!!!”
No James, it means a “Drover’s Breakfast” which consists of nothing more than “a piss and a bloody big look around”
David W
You are a bit over the top in criticizing wuwt for posting this. It’s up to such as you to put the record straight if that’s what is called for, and you may have just done that (I can’t help retaining a bit of skepticism on topics touching weather records. Don’t forget the agw bunches response to the flooding. Do you buy into the once-in-2000 year flood?). It might be helpful for an expert like yourself to comment on whether this was a 2000 year event. Note Anthony’s heartfelt concern for the folks in Brisbane.
@R.S.Brown March 28, 2011 at 9:37 am
Queensland has a Professional Engineers Act which makes it a criminal offence for anyone who is not a registered PE to give an engineering service (this includes analysis of engineering data such as rainfall and runoff). The Act specifically states that it applies to the state. Thus if a government minister or senior public servant who is not a registered engineer required the dam to be 100% full (or other operational level) at the beginning of what is classified as the rainy season they are likely to have committed a criminal offence. This also applies to the top management of SEQW the operator of the dam. For registered engineers there is a code of practice and sections of the act stipulating competency. A registered engineer operating the sluice gates would need to be competent in assessing the safety of the dam and the likely affects of dam releases. He would need to put the safety of people before any political considerations ie he would need to disregard any diections given to him by anybody who is not a registered engineer. The act outlines procedure to penalise registered engineers if someone makes a complaint.
There is no doubt that there has been a failure of operation of the dam. An enquiry has been set up. A number of people should be found guilty of providing engineering advice when not registered but most likely there will be some sort of political whitewash. It is likely that some engineer will be made a scapegoat and deemed incompetent be wrapped over the nuckles by being registered for a short time.
Sorry in the last line I meant deregistered
Didn’t the Qld. premier, a week or more before this event, override the guidelines on the level at which water was to be released and insist on it being sequestered, presumably to hoard it against the oncoming droughts caused by AGW? Isn’t that where blame should be focused?
Of the two sorts of dummy in play here, the dam operator’s variables seem more innocent than The Australian’s correspondent.
You distort we deride says:
“Of the two sorts of dummy in play here, the dam operator’s
variablesincompetence seems moreinnocentat fault than The Australian’s correspondent.”There, fixed it for you.
Cementafriend. The dam operating manual specifies the full water supply level of the dam at 67m and has done so pretty much since the dam began operation.
It is worth noting that this dam went from full supply to 15.2% FSL in the space of less than 6 years last decade prompting a water crisis that the QLD governement spent billions attempting to resolve. In 2007 they released a report looking at proposals to actually increase the FSL from 67 to 69m (or further) to further drought proof SE QLD.
That some people are suggesting that it should have been dropped to a 64m FSL (emptying 25% of the water supply for SE QLD) because we were in a La Nina shows a poor understanding of the impact of La Nina conditions in QLD. In fact a poster on our Weatherzoen forums looked at the impact of the past 9 La-nina events in SE QLD and discovered only 4 had produced above average rainfall.
Gary, I am certainly not an expert in this area although I have done a considerable amount of personal research. The computer modelling that was performed to arrive at the 1 in 2000 year rainfall intensity was based on inflows calculatedon the basis of the manual gauge reading. Whilst Mr OBrien disputes the manual gauge was providing a correct reading, I’m inclined to believe it was (as a post above alludes to). I think any uncertainty must reside around what consitutes a 1 in 2000 year event in SE QLD given we have only 150 years of rainfall data. You could also argue any computer modelling must have an inherent degree of uncertainty until tested and proved reliable which couldnt be the case for this particular modelling.
Having looked at the rainfall data actual observations, I can understand the degree of scepticism given the highest record rainfall during the 12 hour period was 410mm at Mt Glorious, however there were gauges that recorded much higher rainfall rates over shorter periods in the vicinity so I highly the suspect 12 hour rates well in excess 410 mm could have been recorded in some unguage areas with the rapid rise in dam level during that time providing back up circumstancial evidence.
So I would certainly agree the 1 in 2000 year modelling is far from proven but the assertion that the rainfall rates over the dam were extremely rare is difficult to disagree with and this was certainly a major factor in determing release decisions at the ttime the peak outflow from the dam was occurring.
Historical records show way, way more rain has fallen in the Brisbane River catchment than the 2011 event.
For instance it is a FACT that in February 1893, 100 inches ( 2500mm ) fell in 4 days in the upper reaches of the Stanley which flows into the Brisbane R, above Wivenhoe. Included in this fall was 36 inches ( 900mm ) in a 24 hour period, a then Australian record.
No dam, Wivenhoe or otherwise would have stopped this. It is on public record what resulted in Brisbane from this, and apparently there was a bigger flood in the 1850’s according to river heights, but no rainfall measurements were taken back then.
So it has all happened before and will happen again ( and by the way there was no AGW then !!!! ).
What has always intrigued me is after the Wivenhoe was commissioned in the 70’s, blind faith has been put into this dam protecting Brisband from everything, and allowed the development of the big Southbank set up in Brisbane, which was a couple of feet under in 2011, but 25 FEET UNDER in 1893..
Firstly about the “only property damage” in the Brisbane flood. Yes it was only property damage and we are all bloody thankful for that. We had enough deaths upstream thank you very much.
We’re Queenslanders and property and buildings we can and will rebuild and replace. Fires, floods or cyclones, we’ll stand amid the wreckage, roll our sleeves up and build it anew. It’s the loss of our people that we find harder to bear. Houses and cars are just things and easily replaced, but people are fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, who are irreplacable.
For those who take exception to the “only property damage” I ask a simple question. After a flood would you rather have your house gone and know your family is safe or have your house intact and be wondering where your family is?
David W. As a Brisbanite I would very much like to see the details of the presentation you gave. Most commentary is either short on fact or long on political spin. Have you posted a version anywhere?
To those in the international community who are concerned for our goverance, don’t worry too much. Victoria has moved away from the Greens. New South Wales has obliterated the Left and the Greens in the election last weekend. Queensland is next. After the next election we will led not by an accountant or lawyer, but by a hands on engineer.
Federally, Julia and her bunch are on life support and showing no brain activity. If we didn’t have laws against euthanasia someone would pull the plug. Either way, the current government doesn’t have long to live. After that we’ll pass around the hat and send her to somewhere she’ll be appreciated, like Britain. 🙂
A panel of hydrologists and engineers has categorised the Brisbane River flood as a “dam-release flood”, meaning it was largely the result of massive releases. Official SEQWater data has highlighted concerns the operator held too much water for too long in the dam over a few critical days before the flood, then released extremely large volumes.
I hope Aussies plan on watching this case with both eyes. These hydrologists and engineers know what happened, but I would be relieved to know there are plenty of amicus briefs filed (or the Australian equivalent) and a fairly cold-blooded team of lawyers who want to throw the book at those responsible for destroying homes, property and infrastructure. Can someone bring a terrorist charge against this dam operator? If this catches the Aus attention, this event will go into the history books; if this does not provoke public interest, then there will be protracted arguments and a cased thrown out on a technicality years from now. I wish you all swift justice down under.
Roger Knights says:
March 28, 2011 at 5:17 pm
As I understand it that is correct. The dam has two rated capacities as it were, 100% which is the level intends to supply water for domestic, commercial and agricultural use and a further higher capacity of 200% intended to protect from flooding downstream.
It was originally intended that once the dam was at 100% the levels would be reduced to 60% as providing adequate reserve for its purpose and should have been by the middle of last year except the Qld govt, did not allow this on the grounds of the danger of water shortage. So the dam was held at 100%. If it had been kept at 60%, it could have coped with the water inrush much better.
Over the weekend in question the dam’s chief engineer fearing flood conditions requested authority to open the spillways urgently to cope with coming floodwater. He got no reply because there was nobody on duty over the weekend to authorise it. Had this been done there would have been little or no flooding downstream.
Instead the dam reached danger levels so the sluices had to be opened causing a disaster.
This is not the only scandal involving water management there, such as the Snowy Hydro release. it is what happens when you put water management in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats instead of the engineers on the spot who understand what needs to be done.
Kindest Regards
Go to Google Earth at 27.32S, 152.35E to find the dam. Note that the smaller North Pine dam is some 22 km to the East and at lower altitude – 104 down to 41 m above sea level. The North Pine dam in turn is only 15 km from the sea.
Surely it should not be difficult or expensive to engineer a Wivenhoe overflow pipes system that takes surplus water to places other than Brisbane suburbs
@David W says:
March 28, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I’m sorry, but even if the operators had 2000 years experience between them, that doesn’t mean they handled it correctly. If you’re so current on the facts, why not ask for a guest post and put up some maps for those of us who aren’t Aussies.
What’s with these Southern hemisphere greens? They really hate people don’t they? Remember these are the same types who prevented underbrush culling that lead to the recent massive fires.
crosspatch says:
March 28, 2011 at 10:19 am
The data are sent to a secret prison deep in the Queensland wilderness where they are tortured until they tell the “truth”.
Unfortunately our data protection laws in Australia – “in defense of the right of data to express itself freely without coercion of any sort”. Are in their infancy.
In fact – data has been known to go missing at the back of Pubs, and then found strapped naked to a telephone pole with rude words painted on it’s body.
In Australia – unfortunately – anything goes.
Gerald Machnee says:
March 28, 2011 at 3:44 pm
If I recall correctly, the water should have been released earlier when the first forecasts of significant rain were received.
I’m on the gold coast and remember at the time wondering why they kept the dam levels so high with all the rain about before the Brisbane river flood.
That’s all I can say on the matter without becoming irrational.
David W. ,
Sorry that you are offended and forgive me I’m newer here: Let me get this right there was a flood right? The flood was because of a very high volume release from a dam under the control of someone right? What tools would have availed the controllers of said dam from causing this high volume release? Why exactly should anyone that received damage from these actions be consoled and convinced that the BEST methods were applied swiftly and accurately to minimize the damage?
Mark D. The inflows into the dam for this event were close to double the inflows from the 1974 Brisbane floods which occurred before the dam was built.
The flood peak for the 1974 event was 5.45m whilst the flood peak for the 2011 with almost double the inflow was 4.45m.
The modelling based on inflows suggests the flood peak for this event without the presence of the dams would have been 7m which would suggest the dams mitigated a large proportion of the flood event since minor flood level at the Brisbane city gauge is 1.7m and tidal conditions alone at that time would have at least pushed the gauge to that level.
The maximum inflow into the dam for this event was aproximately 11,500m3/sec where as the maximum outflow was 7464m3/sec.
I’m sorry people were impacted by this event. My own property was also and I was without power for close to a week. Where people have suffered significant loss questions should certainly be asked. But it is wrong to start pointing a finger of blame and start name calling before you are in full possession of the facts.
With regards my presentation, once I have added audio to it I will endeavour to post it on youtube. At the moment it is in powerpoint form and a very large file (close to 250mb) and my skills at Broadcasting on Youtube are very limited.
Again, with regards earlier releases, if you do not have access to the specific forecasts at the time which were all indicating the likelihood of the heaviest rainfall fall moving South of the catchment then you are in no position to assert they should have released more water earlier. The tremendous loss of life that resulted from heavy rainfall in the Lockyer Valley which is below the catchment should at least give you some indication of how dangerous releasing water into areas below the catchment would have been at that time.
If they had released more water earlier into a saturated lower catchment, already highly prone to flash flooding coinciding with forecast heavy rainfall and a number of lives were lost as a result of that release, the condemnation and criticism would today be far greater than that come from people whose properties were damaged by floodwaters under the current scenario.
The lawyers thing isn’t really the Aussie style. Nobody really benefits from that kind of approach (apart from the lawyers of course).
David W says:
March 28, 2011 at 3:21 pm
In fact I am so disapppointed in the manner you have reported this I’m not sure I really trust your site or your judgement any more.
===========================================================
David, before you give up on WUWT please consider the following:
1. Anthony put up the article without comment except that his heart went out to the people of Brisbane., and heads should roll over this. Heads probably should roll, but whose heads?
2. You weren’t moderated to the spam bin, as would happen at some sites if you were critical.
3. I suspect that most of those reading this thread, including me, don’t know a damn thing about dams (sorry, couldn’t resist). You obviously do. Therefore I, and I am sure others also, put a lot of weight on what you have said.
You have provided thoughtful balance, and made me think. That’s what I come to this site for, not the endless “it’s worse than we thought” comments.