Now, now, Individual watch your BP. "be quiet(Paul)", this little green pixie shall never be silenced!
I want it known, Indi, may I call you Indi, never ever said BOOT CAMP, I said BOOT CAMP. However Indi, I distinctly remember a post of yours where you advocated a 'camp' of sorts in North Queensland for those aged between 19 and 21, that is a lot of people, did you not advocate that? If I'm wrong I apoligise in advance. I just wanted your take on how you would see those camped out in North Queensland doing their non military national service, fairing with 800mm of rain bucketing down on them during a cyclone.
Divergence "Perhaps the cure is to hold the councillors who approved the development personally responsible for any property damage due to flooding" If you start holding councilors personally responsible, people who in the first place most likely acted in good faith, and on expert advice, then who would run for local councils? no one its would not be worth the risk.

"""
but at what cost, how do we pay.
"""

It's about time parasitic, fool government started making some rules for their own. Like jailing politicians that approve buildings in dangerous places to enrich their own pockets and preventing people from clearing vegetation from around their homes to prevent fire from burning them down.

And to the people that build there. If you want to live in a place that can cause you harm, why should the smart have to pay for the stupid? I chose my place of residence wisely to avoid such dramas. And now you want me to pay for your own lack of vision and risk? There's something very wrong with this picture?

I believe state governments, local councils and Town planners have much to answer for.

e.g. why did Brisbane city council allow housing subdivision and houses built BELOW the 1974 flood level? Did money change hands from developers to councilors?. All councils have contour maps that show flood prone areas, so why are homes and businesses allowed to be built in these areas?

I live in a high fire risk area but I have taken the necessary precautions to safeguard my home and all at my own cost, but I do not receive any discount from insurers. My home is my refuge and i will stay and defend it. Why are councils not sued for not allowing clearing of house blocks? Some actually had preservation orders preventing removal of trees and actually stopped roadside clearing and firewood gathering. One Vic bloke was prosecuted by his council for clearing his block, the fine was $100,000. Yet his place survived the fires.

Can you actually imagine the town planners in Canberra approving suburbs adjoinig thousands of acres of pine forrest. Unbelievable! and they have Uni degrees. That is exactly what they did. The forest was on the west side as well!

All this has been known for 60, or more, years, yet they still do the same things. Do people not consider flooding, or fire risk, when they buy?

How come people do not have insurance? Most houses have a morgage and the lenders require the home be insured. Is this not enforced, I could not imagine not insuring my home.

Just a few things to ponder. I really feel for those that had homes flooded on council approved subdivisions. To me there is no excuse for this to happen. Councilors should be brought to court.

runner,

Don't you think it's about time you stopped parading your ignorance?

You obviously equate lots of rain with no global warming.

(Never the mind the increased frequency of extreme events)

Others have said it differently but I agree - If an area has had flood or fire problems in the past nothing is surer than it will happen again if you are stupid enough to buy or build there then why should the taxpayer compensate you for your stupidity?

Next they will want to pay for the millionaires properties in Queensland that are being eroded by wave action. NO NO NO.

Poirot don't talk garbage, there have been less extreme events in the last 10 years than at any other tine in recorded history. Even green sources admit this.

Those in Brisbane & Ipswich can thank Campbell Newman for forcing Brisbane Water to release water from Wivenhoe, when they didn't want to. This allowed them to keep the dam shut during the period when most of the water from the rest of the catchment was coming down.

Well done Campbell. Of course it is easier when you have recent history to use to help your decision making. This alone should seal the result of a group action against dam management last time.

Yes we should help, but just once. It is up to people to make a move now with help. Any who chose to stay should be on their own in future.

The area where dad & I built our Bathurst house flooded in 1953. Dad had high foundations, & we did not get water through, but almost all our neighbours did.

That house was extended in the 60s, but in 2001, when I was there, all the homes had gone. A worse flood had brought government assistance to move all but a couple of brick on slab homes to a safe area.

Yes it would cost heaps, but better one big heap, than lots of small heaps.

Many towns could be protected by levee banks, which is not a practical solution for Brisbane now but could protect many areas much more cheaply than relocation of entire towns.