You say that Wivenhoe Dam was completed. No it was not. Stage 1 was done and taxes collected on land development and in rates for Stage 2 but Stage 2 to complete the dam was never done. Government is silent on that. The additional taxes were introduced and never taken away, just continually increased. Where did the money go? U of Qld civil engineering students of Joh Bjelke Peterson's time and later would remember the non-existing Stage 2 from their lectures.

On the other hand government published flood maps that apparently took the full planned effect of Wivenhoe into effect. We have a property that flash flooded and then went almost totally under. It was under for days. This property was above the 100 year flood line on government maps. After the floods the maps were changed.

The article did not say, but it was over-population from the federal government's continual record migration over decades that forced higher storages in Wivenhoe (and associated dams) removing its flood mitigation capacity. That and the stupidity of the Greens who opposed the building of dams. Both federal Labor and Greens manage over indulgent migration policies and the previous Qld State government (Anna Bligh) along with other State governments especially the previous NSW State government slammed the federal Labor Greens government for its "Big Australia" policy. It was to no avail.

continued..

cont.

We the exasperated and over-taxed citizens don't manage floods poorly. More examination is needed of the growthism policies of a federal Labor/Greens government that refuses to consider the risks it creates but refuses to acknowledge. For instance the risk of over-stretching infrastructure and the water and energy available. Another example would be the corrosive effect on policy, planning and management in this case of the limited water resources, of 'positive' affirmative action policies and political patronage in appointments, that have seen skilled engineers replaced by generalists who put personal ambition ahead of impartial professional advice to government.

It is a joke isn't it? Ambitious, clueless managers advising politicians who would spend money collected for water infrastructure to plug overspending elsewhere. Meanwhile the feckless feds continually ramp up migration against the will of the electorate and without concern for the effect on State infrastructure they are not responsible for.

Politicians serve their Party machines and do not represent their electorates. That is the root cause of the problems identified in the article.

Some good arguments there Chas, but you avoid the major one.

Even when we do do something to mitigate the threat of flood or fire, we make the same dam fool mistake. We give the management to bureaucrats, advised by academics.

We all know that only the less capable continue to work in the bureaucracy. The best & brightest have long ago been head hunted by private enterprise. We also know that the plodder, no matter how incompetent, who doesn't actually pee in the corner of the office, will climb the ladder, being promoted to their 4Th or 5Th level of incompetence.

Is it any wonder that these incompetents fail the first time they have a real emergency to deal with.

The deadly dithering at head office, during the Victorian fires, & sitting on an overfull Wivenhoe all weekend, to avoid making a career threatening decision, are just a couple of examples of this lack of ability.

Until the top jobs go to real experts, recruited from outside, & paid suitable salaries, you are just kidding yourself if you expect any better.

Engineers deal in facts, are concerned about community benefit and and plan long term. Their impartial professional advice may not be political. Worst of all they deal in numbers.

Far better to have sycophantic generalists who know who is paying the tab.

A good post with many points to consider. Your point "By any measure it was a bad flood period in eastern Australia, though far from unprecedented." Is a very well founded observation. yes, there was nothing unprecedented in the event.

There is very little by way of "weather" and the Australian "climate" that we are unaware of, have experienced before at more intense levels and cannot 'predict' to a greater or lesser extent, including the annual cyclones/ tropical storms (althought these events have been trending slightly downward over the past 60 odd years, both in frequency and intensity (according to BOM and NOAA), and the annual wildfire events we are currently experiencing. Drought, also, is a common and predictable occurrence.

However, as observed by Hasbeen, "Even when we do do something to mitigate the threat of flood or fire, we make the same dam fool mistake. We give the management to bureaucrats, advised by academics." Not only do we give the management to those identified above, but they are 'advised' from the very highest levels of Government, those that are specifically appointed as "experts", ie, Flannery and Steffen for example, who, despite the historical evidence to the contrary, assured the Government and, more importantly, those managing the dams operation, that all these dams will never fill again!

Spare a thought for those with the hand on the leaver, coming out of a crippling drought, and being inundated with all the expert advice, lauded at length in all the 'reliable' media (ABC) that there will never be enough rain to fill the dams again.

I would suggest that the insurance companies, those that have a little dotted line on the map wherein those that build inside the line will not get flood insurance, are a better mob to listen to than the Flanneries and Steffens

At what point are these 'experts' held to account?

Prior notice would be helpful, where is the next flood going to hit, and when. Same with droughts.
When things are on an even kiel mitigation gets forgotten about besides it could be money spent on something that will never happen.
Or at least that is how it is seen by oppositions.