Flood information - links

[ozbob]

ABC News 24 is doing live coverage of the flood report.

Premier has just received the report - live.  Premier will now examine the report and make comment ASAP (around an hour or so).

Reporters have it too, so expect some swift reports from here ..

[ozbob]

Report recommends CMC should investigate conduct of Wivenhoe Dam flood engineers - only a recommendation.

Wivenhoe flows in exceeded its mitigation capacity.  Report is 700 pages long ..

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Flood report handed down

[ozbob]

Direct link to report --> http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/11698/QFCI-Final-Report-March-2012.pdf

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Dam engineers referred to CMC as flood report handed down

[ozbob]

The only winners out of this will be the lawyers.

Queensland suing itself ...

Guess you can forget about any significant infrastructure in Queensland.

[Golliwog]

The only winners out of this will be the lawyers.

Queensland suing itself ...

Guess you can forget about any significant infrastructure in Queensland.

[#Metro]

I wonder if the people who built on the floodplain and lived there are "negligent".
Heaven help us all, ambulance chasing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulance_chasing

[ozbob]

I wonder if the people who built on the floodplain and lived there are "negligent".
Heaven help us all, ambulance chasing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulance_chasing

No that will be the urban planners of Councils, councils sue state, state sues councils, councils sue councils, punters sue councils, punters sue the state, state sue's itself ... and so it goes ..

Won't end for years and years is my guess, and highly likely another flood will come along and throw a wet blanket over them all again anyway. Best bet is to either get off the floodplains, raise your house or accept the fact that you will get wet again, and who will they sue then?  Themselves .. ?

[ozbob]

Premiers presser coming up on ABC News 24 ...

[#Metro]

It was "an act of GOD"

SUE GOD!!

[HappyTrainGuy]

It was "an act of GOD"

SUE GOD!!

"You got it!"

[Golliwog]

It was "an act of GOD"

SUE GOD!!

Been and done: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/plotsummary

I won't spoil the ending for you though.

[SurfRail]

If the government was responsible for what would have been a measurable difference leading to significant loss, then of course they should be sued.  That's what litigation is for - to redress a wrong.

[Jonno]

Govt will never build a Dam in Australia again.  Enviromental impact and down-dam flood liability have ensure that.

[ozbob]

" Seqwater has its own commercial insurance and it will be through their insurance that they work through any claims against them .. "

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/three-dam-engineers-in-cmcs-sights-20120316-1v9fk.html#ixzz1pFV72BhS

[ozbob]

There is a very sad mind dynamic at play here.  Prior to Wivenhoe flood mitigation was limited to Somerset, which really has minimal mitigation capability.  Wivenhoe was built as both water storage and mitigation. Wivenhoe controlled rain events similar to 1974 events in 1992 and 1999.  In 2011 the rains were much heavier and inflows >> than storage capacity.

The other factor to bear in mind is that Brisbane River flooding is impacted by Bremner, Lockyer and Stanley rivers as well as lower Brisbane.  There is around 50% of inflows into lower Brisbane that don't come through the Wivenhoe dam.

Brisbane is built on a flood plain.  That is a reality, and if you build on flood plains you will get flooded.  The notion of Wivenhoe saving Brisbane from future floods became a myth, and then a belief. Councils compounded this belief by allowing development on flood plains. 

Flood modelling in a perfect world may show some minor variation in levels, but I actually doubt it will be carte blanche for massive class actions.  The fundamental issue is if you build on a flood plain you get flooded.  In 2011, if Wivenhoe was not in place I think flood levels would have been higher than 1974 levels and probably approaching 1893 levels.

[SurfRail]

Firms like Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon really do get up my goat.  If you want to find firms to pin the epithet "ambulance chasers" on, look no further.

The really big and reputable firms in this country don't go anywhere near crash and bash or negligence stuff anyway, contrary to what TV says.

[Stillwater]

I wonder how much the flood victims will receive after these companies gouge out a fee from whatever payout may be forthcoming?

[#Metro]

Firms like Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon really do get up my goat.  If you want to find firms to pin the epithet "ambulance chasers" on, look no further.

The really big and reputable firms in this country don't go anywhere near crash and bash or negligence stuff anyway, contrary to what TV says.

Trilby Misso?

[somebody]

In 2011 the rains were much heavier and inflows >> than storage capacity.

In fact inflows were less than capacity.  I posted the figures a while ago.

However, they were greater than the combined flood compartments, although even compared to that I don't know if I would say very much greater.

[ozbob]

In 2011 the rains were much heavier and inflows >> than storage capacity.

In fact inflows were less than capacity.  I posted the figures a while ago.

However, they were greater than the combined flood compartments, although even compared to that I don't know if I would say very much greater.

The inquiry report suggests that it was apparently.

[somebody]

Total capacity of both dams combined is around 3400GL.  Inflow from the 2011 flood was around 2500GL.  Total flood compartments = 1900GL.

Ball park figures.

The inquiry report suggests that it was apparently.

Reference?  It's a pretty big report.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Total capacity of both dams combined is around 3400GL.  Inflow from the 2011 flood was around 2500GL.  Total flood compartments = 1900GL.

Ball park figures.

Still doesn't account for the water already stored in the dams from the heavy rain prior and the inflows of water from other areas, catchments and rivers. Ie One example is the Northside (Parts of Kedron to Gympie) flooding on the 9-10th prior to the Brisbane river/Ipswich area flooding but cleaning up was already well under way before the Brisbane River broke its banks on the 11th.

The cargo container that hit the bridge which stopped services from running.

For reference normally its about 4m to the road and about 6-7m to the actual river level.

[ozbob]

No idea, was a media report.  But you have confirmed in flow >> available capacity, bear in mind the start point.  1992 had a lower start point.

Also check out page 522, interesting modelling showing the mitigation effect of the dams.

[ozbob]

During a flood situation, Wivenhoe Dam is designed to hold back a further 1.45 million megalitres as well as its normal storage capacity of 1.15 million megalitres

http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/source-store-treat-supply/dams/wivenhoe-dam

[SurfRail]

Firms like Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon really do get up my goat.  If you want to find firms to pin the epithet "ambulance chasers" on, look no further.

The really big and reputable firms in this country don't go anywhere near crash and bash or negligence stuff anyway, contrary to what TV says.

Trilby Misso?

Mr Misso was actually a very nice Sri Lankan gentleman who passed away not too long ago. 

There are a few other firms in their tier (eg Shine Lawyers) but they aren't quite on the same level of excess as the big boys of class actions.

http://thingsboganslike.com/2010/04/15/127-slater-and-gordon/

[SurfRail]

I must admit I'm not inclined to read it, but the tenor of it seems to be:

1. The manual was rubbish and most of the problems and recommendations identified are purely government related and not to do with the "Gang of 3".
2. They don't blame the engineers for doing their best, and note there would most likely have been flooding anyway if they followed the manual in a different way.
3. They do blame the engineers for being unreliable narrators.

A lot of the sturm und drang seems to be that the engineers are being offered up as sacrifical lambs, which I don't agree with at all.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Riverwalk reconstruction must be overseen: commission

[somebody]

During a flood situation, Wivenhoe Dam is designed to hold back a further 1.45 million megalitres as well as its normal storage capacity of 1.15 million megalitres

http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/source-store-treat-supply/dams/wivenhoe-dam

That is correct, with an additional 524GL in Somerset.

So there is a level that they could have dropped the dams to and prevented the flood in the Brisbane, if not the Bremer & Lockyer.  Would it have been prudent to do so?  Flood inquiry's interim report seemed pretty clear that it wasn't prudent to do nothing.

[BrizCommuter]

During a flood situation, Wivenhoe Dam is designed to hold back a further 1.45 million megalitres as well as its normal storage capacity of 1.15 million megalitres

http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/source-store-treat-supply/dams/wivenhoe-dam

Actually, not quite. That was the case before the auxiliary spillway (fuse plugs) were built. The fuse plugs blow at 200% capacity, as opposed to the theoretical 225% capacity which is when the dam will start to be overtopped.

Even when incompetently operated, Wivenhoe still took 1m off the peak flood level in Brisbane's CBD.

[somebody]

Even when incompetently operated, Wivenhoe still took 1m off the peak flood level in Brisbane's CBD.

Ooh, and that's acceptable?

BTW, between the 67m normal Full Supply Level and the 74m W4 level, there is 910GL, with about 173GL in Somerset's flood compartment if the target line is followed.  A further ~180GL actually went into Wivenhoe above 74m in Jan 2011.  Makes the 291GL from dropping Wivenhoe by 25% pre-flood seem fairly significant.

Measurements of flows in the other rivers have a level of error, so it's impossible to know exactly what would have happened.

[somebody]

I must admit I'm not inclined to read it, but the tenor of it seems to be:

1. The manual was rubbish and most of the problems and recommendations identified are purely government related and not to do with the "Gang of 3".
2. They don't blame the engineers for doing their best, and note there would most likely have been flooding anyway if they followed the manual in a different way.
3. They do blame the engineers for being unreliable narrators.

A lot of the sturm und drang seems to be that the engineers are being offered up as sacrifical lambs, which I don't agree with at all.

My understanding is that the CMC is to investigate whether they fabricated evidence to the inquiry.  Or something like that.  I'm not expecting anything more than a slap over the wrist, but hey, I'm not a lawyer.

[somebody]

No idea, was a media report.  But you have confirmed in flow >> available capacity, bear in mind the start point.  1992 had a lower start point.

Also check out page 522, interesting modelling showing the mitigation effect of the dams.

I was going to provide a bit more detail, but this is stupid.  The modelling has been done by experts, and they say that if Wivenhoe had been dropped as proposed in 2010 combined with appropriate updates to the manual the city gauge peak would have dropped 60cm, and 1.3m at Moggill.  Not sure if they studied Ipswich but I can't imagine that it would be significantly less than Moggill.

Not sure if that modelling included dropping Somerset as proposed or not.

[Golliwog]

...because dams can be operated with 20/20 vision of the future flows. Dropping water out earlier may have given us the extra capacity we needed for this flood, but that would just be chance. Rainfall patterns could have been completely different which could have led to more/less rain.

My opinion of this is that yes, the dam could have been operated a bit differently during the peak which could have lowered the flood levels, however given the situation they were in I am quite happy with how it was operated. When I'm a bit less busy (hopefully after monday) I might be able to read a bit of the report and see some of what they have to say, but remember that theres still a large portion of the Brisbane River catchment that the dam doesn't protect us from.

[somebody]

...because dams can be operated with 20/20 vision of the future flows. Dropping water out earlier may have given us the extra capacity we needed for this flood, but that would just be chance. Rainfall patterns could have been completely different which could have led to more/less rain.

My opinion of this is that yes, the dam could have been operated a bit differently during the peak which could have lowered the flood levels, however given the situation they were in I am quite happy with how it was operated. When I'm a bit less busy (hopefully after monday) I might be able to read a bit of the report and see some of what they have to say, but remember that theres still a large portion of the Brisbane River catchment that the dam doesn't protect us from.

Not at all!

I'm talking about something that was proposed in 2010, in response to predictions of an unusually intense wet season, to an unprecedented scale.

It just wasn't proceeded with, for reasons not easily understandable or explained by the inquiry except that the public servants were against it.  The report talks about being concerned about "inertia" on this point.

So it was predicted.

Anyway, this isn't what we are here to talk about.

EDIT: I would have to add that I was very surprised that the dam wasn't dropped in 2010.  I can remember talking about it at Xmas time.

[BrizCommuter]

Just an idea. Raise those rural bridges that the engineers seemed to be over-protecting. 

[somebody]

Just an idea. Raise those rural bridges that the engineers seemed to be over-protecting. 

I believe there is an E-Petition to do so regarding Colleges Crossing.

Mt Crosby Weir & Fernvale Bridge are already 10m high or so, these are the ones that are in contention regarding Sunday afternoon/evening.  It wouldn't pay to raise the former, and I'm not sure about the latter either.

[somebody]

No idea, was a media report.  But you have confirmed in flow >> available capacity, bear in mind the start point.  1992 had a lower start point.

Also check out page 522, interesting modelling showing the mitigation effect of the dams.

I was going to provide a bit more detail, but this is stupid.  The modelling has been done by experts, and they say that if Wivenhoe had been dropped as proposed in 2010 combined with appropriate updates to the manual the city gauge peak would have dropped 60cm, and 1.3m at Moggill.  Not sure if they studied Ipswich but I can't imagine that it would be significantly less than Moggill.

Not sure if that modelling included dropping Somerset as proposed or not.

I want to add one more thing:

The flood commission has tacitly found that the advice not to lower the level in 2010 was wrong, by saying that in the same situation it should be done.  Are you saying that the flood commission is wrong on this point?  Or my interpretation is wrong?

[ozbob]

Huh,  it is obvious that if Wivenhoe had been lower then there would have more buffering capacity, I don't think anyone is disputing that.

The system as it was, was overwhelmed. Nothing will change that.  It is highly likely that Brisbane will flood again even if Wivenhoe started off with 10%.  There is a mind set that Wivenhoe will save Brisbane, when nothing is further from the truth.  It depends on where the main falls actually occur.  A scenario like 1893, serial Cyclones/weather events is also possible.  Wivenhoe is a potentially a lethal weapon, let it overfill and then massive flooding.  This would have been at the back of the mind of the operators.

I saw the two things separately.

1.  The dam should have been lowered immediately they had the briefing towards the end of 2010.  It wasn't.  SEQ Water management have escaped scrutiny so far ...
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/wicked-weather/expert-warns-that-cyclones-rain-and-flooding-are-on-the-way/story-e6freorf-1225939565460

2.  The operation of the dam in the December/January crisis.  Peak capacity was 186%, at which point all flood gates pouring out water.  Just imagine if the inflows had have continued ...  and they had not dumped the water.  The inquiry said that this phase of the operation was near pefect.

It is this dichotomy that many cannot grasp.

Hydrologist Tony Weber, of eWater Cooperative Research Centre, said flooding would depend on where the rain fell.

``If it falls, say, in the Bremer and Lockyer rivers, we will have very little control over flooding,'' Mr Weber said.

``But if it falls in the Upper Brisbane and Stanley River catchment, we have some limited control ... but we shouldn't be looking at the Wivenhoe Dam to save us.''

Former flood task force director and professor of civil engineering Colin Apelt said Brisbane sat on a vast flood plain and the risks were still high.

``People have been lulled into a false sense of security,'' he said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/wicked-weather/expert-warns-that-cyclones-rain-and-flooding-are-on-the-way/story-e6freorf-1225939565460