<but we won't. profit is more important.>

Yes, but the profit you are referring to is the profit made from rezoning and developing flood prone land. It makes money for the people involved, but when it floods the result is economically devastating for the people and businesses affected. So it is really the case that the economic outcome would have been much better without the development. Brisbane would be a much better city were the flood prone areas instead made wetland reserves, parkland or sporting grounds. Then a flood would be far less of a catastrophe and there would be no need for pollies to talk about "Once in a hundred year" floods and rack up more public debt by throwing money around like confetti.

got this sent by a former Dam manager.

Subject: BRISBANE FLOOD - WHYDo we really deserve such stupid politicians?

Anna Bligh has had a feast over recent weeks because she has been dealing with one of the very few subjects in which she has expertise - media manipulation. She has a proven track record of gross incompetence in managing Queensland and our economy, but right now, she is the darling of the media. Why? Because she makes herself available for all media interviews, calls the interviewers/ journalists by their first names, and because she is genuinly upset (as we all are) with the nature and extent of the devastation caused by the floods......... and, my suspicion is, because she knows in large part, that her incompetence (and her predecessor's) has been one of the root causes of the unbelievable damage and loss that many Queenslanders have needlessly sufferred.

The great shame is that the current flooding of large areas of Brisbane should not have happened. They are a direct result of (past) Government stupidity; and it's typical of today's Governments.

In 1974 Brisbane was flooded slightly worse than this time, although the damage this time is much worse because of the advancement since then of Brisbane as a city .. Following the 1974 flood the Qld State Water Commission, which was made up of people who knew what they were talking about (hydrologists, geologists, geophysicists, meteorologists etc) recommended the building of a flood mitigation dam on the Brisbane River well west of the city. This was done in the form of Wivenhoe Dam about 50 Km west of Brisbane (wivenhoe&#8209;dam.jpg). At about this time Brisbane's water supply came from 3 small dams around the Brisbane area (Somerset, North Pine and Ennogera).

tbc...

In about 1980 because of the rapid growth of the population of Brisbane the State Water Commission started agitating for the State Govt to build a substantial water supply dam for Brisbane. The State Govt responded that they didn't need to as they had Wivenhoe Dam. The Water Commission pointed out that Wivenhoe was a flood mitigation dam and NOT a water catchment/supply dam and that the Govt needed to stop dallying and build Brisbane a water catchment/supply dam or they would have water supply problems by about 2000; they also recommended a few possible sites. In good political response the State Govt disbanded the State's Water Commission.

A few years ago Wivenhoe was down to < 20% capacity (515725296_03dbebda57.jpg), and we had severe water restrictions. The State Govt decided to re-establish a Water Commission. Unfortunately this time it was made up of totally useless bureaucrats, with no professional expertise and headed up by a less than useless bureaucrat. Their great plan was to build a water catchment dam ( the Traverston Dam) on the Mary River up the coast; this was some of Queensland's most productive agricultural land and was not one of the recommended sites from 20 years earlier. The Traverston Dam when full would have had a average depth of 10 metres and an enormous surface area - unbelievable evaporation as a number of experts pointed out and in a drought would become an enormous mud bowel. The State Govt spent millions of dollars surveying the area, buying back properties, alienating the locals and designing the dam construction before they had asked the Commonwealth Govt whether they could build the dam. In the end the Commonwealth Govt said no due to environmental reasons and all those tens of millions of dollars had been wasted. It would be a bit like you or I finding a nice block of land, spending thousands on having it surveyed, an architect design a house before finding out if the owner would sell it to us.
tbc......

The end result was that when the drought broke towards the end of last year, the dam filled and the water was stored; after all Brisbane was dependent on this water for it's supply. However, when the rains really came a few weeks ago ( we have been having almost non-stop rain for several weeks ) Wivenhoe (a flood mitigation dam) was starting at 110% full. Thank God the dam had been built to hold 210% of it's planned capacity before water started running over the dam wall and threatening dam wall integrity. It didn't take more than a few weeks and the dam was up to 198% capacity and the flood gates were opened (vfiles31371.jpg) (520430&#8209;wivenhoe&#8209;dam.jpg). That meant the end of a water mitigation dam because then everything that went into the dam had to be released to protect the dam's integrity. The end result is that Brisbane has had a major flood through a good part of the CBD and suburbs which wouldn't have happened if the dam had been at 20% when the rains started several weeks ago.

The problem was that the original Water Commission was right, Wivenhoe was meant to be a flood mitigation dam, in other words you want it kept empty so it can act like a buffer in the event of torrential rain. It was not meant to be a water supply dam, which you want to keep as full as possible for when there is a drought.

Don't you just love politicians?

Now was Sir Joh right

Nothing will happen in Q/L unless the BSA's can make money out of it , so you need to forget about Technics and find a way to allow corruption to profit from Dam Building , profligate Greed will then find a way to finance Labor Politic and the Millionaires that manipulate Qnsland for themselves .

It amazing to read the plaintive stories from Queensland whilst realising that much is self inflicted.

Why their Water Authority allowed developers to build on flood prone land, that in the original instance could be identified as having potential for floods of a greater frequency than say one in one hundred years, unless someone in authority was receiving some form of funnybusiness, is stunning in its stupidity to state the obvious.

Whilst dams are not ideal flood mitigation works, they should at least be augumented by such as retarding basins that then provide community with open playing/breathing space.

It would be interesting to learn of the Queensland Water Authoritys present policy is on control of flood prone land being developed and exactly how it is being imlemented.