The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why do we manage flooding so poorly? > Comments

Why do we manage flooding so poorly? : Comments

By Chas Keys, published 10/1/2013

We have allowed the problem of flood vulnerability to grow - slowly but inexorably.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
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..
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 10 January 2013 11:42:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 10 January 2013 11:45:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 10 January 2013 12:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 10 January 2013 1:07:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Prompete, Thursday, 10 January 2013 5:33:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by 579, Friday, 11 January 2013 6:57:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prior notice would be helpfully indeed.

Check the barometric pressure differentiation between Darwin and Hawaii, that can give a reasonable indication of the PDO and the development of a La Niņa dominant trend, a fair indication of flood activity. Would be a safe bet that the flood will hit roughly the same river systems as before.

Just count the numbers back from the last flood and you may see a pattern. Ditto with El Niņo drought indicators.

Whilst prioritising funds for mitigation, one thing we can be assured of is that it WILL definitely happen again. Unless of course we take the advice of Flannery etc.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 11 January 2013 8:20:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prompete, "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"

The only reliance you can put on all insurers EXCEPT for the very, very, few ethical companies like Suncorp (who immediately did the right thing in the Brisbane floods) is that insurers will find every niggling opportunity to reject a claim.

We had flood insurance with another major insurer on a property that was above the 100yr flood line. In fact it had never ever been flooded, but flash flood it did and later it was inundated. Even where the Financial Ombudsman has found against this insurer, the insurer continues to delay finding more impediments to paying. Of course if and when the insurer does pay for some items in the scope of works, it has already determined it will be paying the lowest possible project home costs regardless that the home was constructed to a high standard of finish and insured by valuation. It does not feel obliged to follow its own insurance conditions.

Two years later and because repairs have already been done at homeowner expense (direction from government to repair or else), of course the Insurer is easily able to avoid the lion's share of the actual costs of repair. The insurer avoids the complex and expensive management and trades costs after the floods. No wonder the subject insurer is posting healthy profits and up since it ramped up premiums after the floods for claims it knocked back or has frustrated for two years.

No support from the federal government for members of the public of course.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 11 January 2013 10:14:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onthebeach. Point most definitely taken. I retract the (toung in cheek) advice to take heed of insurance company determinations, being in the position of sitting back here in Adelaide and not being involved or affected by those floods.

As you have found, to a far greater extent than I, have also been on the 'dud end' of an insurance claim.

I do however reiterate my concerns regarding 'advice' given by 'the experts' and touted by many in the MSM.

It appears that, once again, those paid extraordinary amounts of money to provide expert advice are not held accountable for the advice given. The federal support the public has received has been in the form of employing said 'experts' to advise on the handling of these things in the future.

My full support in your insurance prevails.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:30:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have my sympathy onthebeach, being flooded out must be almost as bad as being burnt out, & result in much more dirty physical work.

You must remember though, that mostly you get what you pay for.

I took my insurance from Suncorp, when they got too expensive, with their inclusion of flood on all policies. Living on the top of a hill I am not interested in subsidising the insurance those in flood prone areas. I can also understand that those in safe secure suburbs aren't too interested in covering those close to nature, & in danger from bush fires.

I am of course a little worried that the company offering the lower premium may be less likely to cover something I don't know about, but a saving of something over $1000 a year in premium has an attraction.

I see 579 is starting to wake up to economics with his statement, "When things are on an even kiel mitigation gets forgotten about besides it could be money spent on something that will never happen". Now if we can just get him to apply this new wisdom to the global warming scam, he may actually start to talk some sense.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You could pinpoint the next flood, who are you Houdine.
HasBeen GW is divided just like politics. It has been an excellent exercise to me, i will pay power no more.
Best not to live in areas likely prone to flooding, whether there has ever been a flood there or not. You don't have to be a GW addict, just say you are applying some common sense.
Elevation is everything, so before buying a block have a good look around.
Posted by 579, Friday, 11 January 2013 1:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy