22,000 homes in Brisbane flooded again, & this time they used the flood mitigation of the major dams correctly. When it rains here, it really does. Last time there was this much rain was 1894.

Just south of Brisbane we had 260mm here yesterday, giving 619mm for the month, 570mm in 6 days. To put that in perspective in 1993 & 94 we had less than 500mm for the full year.

Talk about a land of droughts & flooding rains. At least with everything so soggy, we aren't likely to get fires in the near future.

Now it is NSWs turn, with the system moving south.

I thought that we were told by the climate crooks and hysterics that we wouldn’t even get enough rain to fill the reservoirs. I wonder what lie they will dream up to cover this catastrophe.

Hasbeen,
Think they could do it a lot better. A day or two ago I hear an interview where it was pointed out that they don't empty the dams in advance even when reliable weather forecasts say a huge amount of rain is definitely coming. If they did there'd still be floods, of course, but maybe they wouldn't be quite as bad.

____________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
The climatologists, hydrologists and science communicators were saying that after years of drought, the ground was so dry and has the capacity to absorb so much water that normally drought breaking rains wouldn't be enough to fill the dame. Of course shouldn't take seriously "hysterics and climate crooks" who falsely claimed they were saying the dams would never fill again. But you idiotically fall for everything they say, treating them as experts while treating the experts as hysterics and crooks!

I wonder what lie they will dream up to cover this catastrophe.
ttbn,
I don't think they're lying so much as to trying to hide the fact that they really don't now anything ! But, in order to keep procuring funding from just as ignorant bureaucrats they have to waffle on with what they believe is intelligent waffle !

Watching the outflow of Wivenhoe Dam I'm dismayed at the waste of water which could have been directed inland by pumps driven by the enormous power from the overflow.
If only we had politicians to start such a project & the voter numbers to support it. Alas !
So, the flooding & inevitable incalculable damage to property & society as whole continues.

Interesting idea individual. Have you considered telling it to a your average sixteen year old year 12 high school physics student who also studies economics to get their opinion of it?

Basically individual, as any year 12 physics & econ student could tell you: your idea is a no-go if you wish it to generate more wealth than it would cost.
(And they could back it up the actual calculations, that you seem to be incapable of doing, with less than an hour's worth of background research on the internet)

Thinkabit; Undividual's idea would if part of a general scheme to run
the surplus inland be practical. I do not know the geography around
the damn in question but it might only need a tunnel as most of that
type of proposal require.

Individual,

Yes. They are lying to hide the fact that they know nothing (unsuccessfully); and they are lying to keep the funds rolling in (successfully).

They get away with their lies because politicians are also liars and/or corrupt, and most other people are too disinterested to bring the lot of them to account.

Individual,
Supposing more of the water was diverted inland: then what do you think should be done with it?
It may have escaped your attention, but in a La Niña year like this one, the inland gets more rain too. Most areas have had a wet February, and there's plenty more to come.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
If you don't know the geography, please consult a map. But I warn you: the Great Divide is much bigger than you think it is!

thinkabit,
I did say voters, not 16 year olds. Today's sixteen year olds will hopefully have more sense in ten years than todays 30 -60 year olds !

Aidan,
The distance is not a hurdle with today's technology but unfortunately mentality is the main hurdle for not starting decades-long ongoing work on future infrastructure & flood mitigation & literally self-funding long-time employment !

individual: It's not the distance that is the problem- it's the Newtonian physics concept of the conservation of energy and the fact that you have this great big thing called the Great Dividing range (which Aidan mentioned) that you have to push the water up over. Junior high school kids (ie: 13year olds) know about this concept and in senior physics they learn the equations to calculate the energy required (the essential equation here is real simple PE=mgh - it only involves primary school math).

But the real major problem is the Wivenhoe only spills infrequently and for a short time- for most of the time (we're talking years in a row sometimes) your turbine will be doing absolutely nothing! A high school student would realise this after a quick internet search.

It would make a lot more sense to capture the water that falls on the western side of the range when it does in volume that swells the rivers and use that. Such heavy rain/flooding usually happens more regularly then the Wivenhoe spilling.

And guess what, that is *exactly* what farmers do. For example, on the western side here in Queensland a lot of cotton is grown and the farmers build these massive dams (massive for a private endeavour- not so big for governments) called ring-top dams close to waterways. These dam have low-head high-volume pumps that pump water a short way (sometimes just 10's of meters) into them when there is river swelling/flooding rain events. Here's an example of such a dam being built (note the huge size- 3500 megalitres which is for just one farm! ): http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/story/4144793/digging-deep-for-dam-good-reason/

The Wivenhoe Dam is a duel purpose dam. It has a drinking water capacity of 1.165 million megalitres, plus a much bigger flood mitigation capacity of over 2 million megalitres. Before this rain event drinking water capacity was at less than 60%, and flood capacity was at zero. During the rain event 100% drinking water capacity was reached quickly, but flood mitigation never exceeded 90%. During this week SEQ Water will do a controlled release of stored flood water into the Brisbane River. This will not increase the flood levels, but it will prolong it for several days. The dam operated within capacity, and without it the flood situation would have been much worse.

Here on Moreton Bay we had over 700mm in 3 days, some locations received over 1300mm or more.

thinkabit,
Try thinking long-term. Think not pushing water over the range, think through it. There are many valleys & gorges that will facilitate the flow. Think towns & farming around a permanently flooded Lake Eyre as it was some millions of years ago. Think keeping the great Artesian basin full. The benefits are enormous. As I said, think long-term !

Great idea Indy.

Once my Seniors National Service is up and running, an inland tunnel about 100km long is a fantastic project for the old folk under my command. Yes, wonderful, we'll be using the "The Principle of the Ants", many hands make for light work. Two million senior natcho's, armed with nothing more than picks and shovels tunneling away deep within the Great Deviding Range, fantastic. A quick calculation, if each natcho' removes 1 cubic metre of rock per day, the tunnel will be finished in no time, say 50 years.

I got to give it to you Indy, your ldeas are brilliant, almost as good as mine.

One solution to flooding is to move the towns above any anticipated flood level where it is possible.
Another is to build massive levies and install steam pumps to remove water which falls within the town area.
A third is to raise the town entirely above flood level.
It would take a lot of money but it’d be money saved in the long term, and lots of employment.
There are plenty of examples where individuals have raised their homes above flood level, usually on a steel girder frame.

Indy, tunnels are *VERY* expensive. Just look at how much it costs to make the few kilometers of the cross-river rail train tunnel in Brisbane. And that's in the coastal plain not far below the surface where the dirt is soft, not boring through hard range rock compacted by being 100's of meters below the surface that you want to do.

However, even if you do tunnel through the high part of the range, which would require miles and miles and miles of tunnel, you still have to push water up hill to get to the western side where the farms are. Western Queensland is 100s of meters higher than the coastal side where Wivenhoe is (here's a picture to help you understand this: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Australia-TOPOGRAPHY.html ).

And what would you get from this project- a tunnel that you can only use a once or twice a decade for just a few weeks when there is major flooding on the Brisbane river.

Moreover, what do you do with this extremely expensive project that produces a very unreliable water supply? Well you let farmers have the water. Water which they probably don't need anyway or even want at that time- because when the Wivenhoe is spilling like it is now it is more than likely that western part of Queensland also had rain.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

And why do you want the farmer to have this undesired water? You want them to use it for farming. That is, you want them to produce low value stuff compared to the cost of input- ie., agricultural produce. There is no big money in farming- farms provide bugger all return on the cost of the inputs. Compare the profit return of your average farm business (indeed many farmers are lucky if they even make a profit each year) to that of a high value product producing business such as an engineering firm or some other professional business.

It would make way more economic sense to spend the billions you want to spend on your idea on educating the population, either in trades or professions, instead. With education spending the government would achieve a higher return from the investment.

In short your idea is completely bonkers!

thinkabit,
I'm trying to think what the World would be like now if the people who built the Suez Canal, the Canal of Corinth, El Camino etc etc would have been afflicted with the mentality you're plagued with !

Thinkabit,
Come to think of it, what we're facing right now is down to people with your thinking ! No effort yet demanding everything to be laid on for your convenience is what stopped progress over the past 50 years.

Indi pie in the sky mate. Yes a waste of water, & I'm sure the people of Brisbane would love to see it gone somewhere else, but the biggest pumps on earth could only harvest a small amount of it.

The riverina is 700 feet & more above sea level, & hundreds of kilometers away. The cost of pushing water that high & far is so great that it would have to grow gold to repay the energy costs.

Dalby wheat fields are 300 to 500 meters above sea level & 250 meters away. Again hideously expensive to pump water to.

Apart from that, the water is only available for a few days each decade.

This time they have handled the dam quite well, but inflows below the dam would still have produced a very similar flood if the dam had been able to stop all from above it. I had 550mm in 5 days, 260 of it in the last 24 hours of the deluge. Many places had more. Nothing was going to stop Brisbane being flooded with that much rain.

Even the low lying areas around local creeks were flooded. Those creeks flow into the bay, and have nothing to do with the Brisbane River. Once the rain stopped the water levels went down quickly in the local area. High tides didn't help those on the rivers flood plain.

Issy, the town of Towoomba is high on the top of the range and it floods, how high can you go.

Indy, remember our Seniors National Service motto, "Have shovel will travel".

There are no solutions to nature.

Indi pie in the sky mate.
Hasbeen,
Well, that's your view. Mine is more like pie in the face of developers, planners & bureaucrats & last but not least, indifferent voters.
You of all people are aware that since the '70's literally no projects for future infrastructure have eventuated because of Green lack of vision. This literally amounts to ecological & economic sabotage. Literally all water absorption has been obliterated & hardly any drainage has been given any thought. What a lot of people in authority, aided by voters haven't taken into consideration or simply can't see is, that we need to work with the environment not against it.
Stop building in low lying, flood-prone area for a start. Where flooding is deep rather than wide, widen the flow paths. This could be done by either diversion i.e. Bradfield type schemes or canal developments which would offer great real estate as a bonus. Anything to prevent water rising to such disastrous levels. Also, flood mitigation should also be before it gets to the dams & overfills them. There's so much that can be done to prevent the impact of these floods, from building on higher ground to building up the ground. Just imagine if the Dutch had the mentality of Australians, they'd be constantly underwater.

Actually, there might be a solution by way of climate lunacy - zero emissions and so on - which will impact on country areas much more than it will the cities by way of lost jobs, fewer farting farm animals (there is no end to what the nutters want to see disappear). There will be no one left to be affected by flooding.

Paul,
The solution in Toowoomba is as obvious as any where else, if it floods then it’s in the wrong place, shift it or lift it.
Tamworth, NSW, is a prime example, the city is mainly built on the river’s flood plain, as the city has expanded the newer developments are flood free as they are on what was considered undesirable land.
The very costly levies now protect the low areas but if they are breached . . .
Legend has it that the local tribe told the original settlers that they were building in the wrong place but more intelligent minds ptevailed.

Indy, remember our Seniors National Service motto, "Have shovel will travel".
Paul1405,
That's your motto, mine is "Have brains to think with, don't need shovel !"

How big is the

Elon Musk’s Not-A-Boring Competition winner announced
http://roadsonline.com.au/elon-musks-not-a-boring-competition-winner-announced/

>>A team of students from the Technical University Of Munich has taken first place in “Not-a-Boring Competition” – a tunnel construction competition designed by Elon Musk’s The Boring Company to help improve the speed of tunnel boring machines (TBMs).

The team, named TUM Boring, was one of the only two teams out of 12 competing to pass the strict safety inspections to qualify for drilling in the 30-meter competition segment. Swissloop Tunneling from ETH Zurich was the second team to pass the safety inspection and came second in the competition.

More than 400 teams had applied to take part in the competition, with 12 finalists invited to Las Vegas to put their TBM inventions to the test. After the strict safety briefing, however, only two of the teams were admitted to the actual tunnel boring round.

Competitors were required to drill a tunnel measuring 30 metres in length and 50 centimetres in diameter in around three hours with the TBMs they had built themselves. TUM Boring’s TBM drilled a 22-meter-long tunnel, while Swissloop Tunneling managed to dig a tunnel more than 18 meters long.<<

It may not be impossible, but it would be a big undertaking.
150km would take 2.3 years, even for a 50cm hole
But if you were able to have multiple machines doing multiple sections..
Or even one coming in from each each side for example, with junctions and access tunnels maybe.
It seems the technology here is getting better, and we're moving from non-viable to possible.

Don't they currently direct some of the excess to Atkinson Dam from Wivenhoe. Wivenhoe Dam seems to be located amongst hills 50 kms north west of Brisbane- surely there's a way of redirecting some of the flows elsewhere. I'll have to look at an elevation map some time of south east Queensland. Maybe they can direct some of the water in the direction of Emu Creek of course it depends on the elevation but I'm not sure 100 miles of tunnel is required- perhaps a few strategically placed explosives. Just looking at the map. There seems to be a few dams close by

If excess water can't be diverted then it must be accommodated ! Widen/deepen riverbeds, widen/deepen catchment tributaries, bore tunnels where viable/practical/sensible etc.
Stop looking at such projects as from the start money-making infrastructure. Look at it as infrastructure which will snowball environmentally & economically once it has started to move.
It has to be a Govt stimulus project to start off with which will very quickly create the base for economic sustainability as people move into areas alongside the projects' corridors.
Flood proof Real estate being the main drive. Diverting water will once again filter the outflows into the oceans & that too will have all sorts of benefits. Flood land needs to be created to prevent flooding but eventually this water will flow to where it has to flow into the ocean. More canals or wider riverbeds and/or diversions are the only mitigation available and, they create employment without the damage bills !

Greater/wider water distribution & associated moisture in/on the ground will also reduce bushfire incidence. Small lakes all over the place will provide fire-fighting supply. More water means less fire = healthier fauna & flora & more likely than not a healthier economy.
Inland Australia would become closer to what it used be with more water. As Canem Malum says; strategically placed explosives would do the job. It would improve Nature as more areas of cooler ground would prevent a lot of heat rising & on & on is the list of benefits from irrigation. We don't need huge dams, only more moist ground. Use whatever water flow there is to drive pumps as well as wind mill pumps. All very little energy requirement for such a network.
Just some forward thinking/vision by all is all that's needed.

One of the ‘benefits’ of irrigation is a rising salt table and all the associated detrimental issues.

is a rising salt table
Is mise,
How so ? Freshwater floats on saltwater. The more freshwater there is the more saltwater is kept down. I have actually displaced saltwater with freshwater in an old well.

Basic chemistry, fresh water mixes with salt water and the salt table rises, it’s not like oil and water.
Australian agricultural land is being affected at this moment.

Just Google ‘rising salt table’

Basic chemistry, fresh water mixes with salt water and the salt table rises,
Is Mise,
Even more basic is the fact that when you replace saltwater you're left with freshwater. What Google refers to is when freshwater injection is only temporary !
On-going irrigation with freshwater will gradually reduce salinity until totally displaced.
I think you're confusing irrigation with pumping out freshwater without replacing it.

Canem Malum, this rain event lasted 6 days, dropped between 600mmn & a meter of rain on most of the entire area from the NSW boarder to Maryborough, 360 kilometers of Queensland, then a couple of hundred kilometers further south into NSW. This following a very wet spring & early summer. Maryborough & Gympie both had minor floods a couple of weeks ago.

Every river, every creek & every little depression in the ground was full of water, there was no where to divert any run off to anywhere else. It was just pure luck that the majority of the rain stayed east & south of the Wivenhoe catchment until the last 30 hours, or it would have been a lot worse. Much of this flood is from runoff from below the dams, & the Bremer river coming in at Ipswitch from the south

Some areas around here, 60 kilometers south of Brisbane are only reaching their peak to night. Now we have a forecast of 40 to 80mm of rain tomorrow, & another 50 on Friday. This wont renew the main floods, unless a couple of big thunderstorms form & drop a real deluge, but will delay any reduction of existing water. My little river was 28 meters deep, 4 meters deep for 400 meters across my bottom paddock & almost a kilometer wide on the other side.

It & the Logan river are flooding far southern suburbs of Brisbane 65 kilometers south of the Brisbane river floods.

There is absolutely no where to send any of this water, unless you bulldoze the flooded area of Brisbane, & the Waterford Beenleigh area, to make them a water course. Not sure the flooded residents would agree to that.

Thanks Hasbeen for your feedback. Especially from what I understand about your engineering background. I get the idea that pushing the water back to the coast when that is where the water is being dumped is problematic along with the dynamics of the coastline. Usually I find that the storms don't hit Brisbane directly because of the topology around Brisbane- it's based in between mountains- so it tends to go north and south. Gympie does get cut off and split in half on major events. This is why I thought that pushing the water inland might be a better solution- the GDR seems to be a bit spotty and might offer an option similar to what Individual is suggesting- though I'm not sure of the cost of the pipe idea. St George can be particularly dry and also relatively flat til Toowoomba. Thanks again Hasbeen.

Woke up to an early morning thunderstorm in Brisbane. Only light rain, so all's good.

Something funny; watching the TV coverage of the floods when the studio anchor girl, asked the reporter on the spot. " Are they still expecting high tide at 8.30 tonight?"

What did she think ssomeone has control over the time of the tide.

Anchor girl; Jason are they still expecting high tide at 8.30 tonight?

Reporter; Nah Catrina, King Canute has been down and he's moved it to midnight.

Anchor girl; All those poor wet souls bobbing about in the water, our hearts go out to them.

Hasbeen,
The water over your property is simply insane ! 4 metres on flat ground. No amount of engineering can be of use in such conditions.
Looking at Lismore & all the other flooding around Brisbane on TV left me speechless.
Those poor people who lost everything must be helped at once. A national emergency levy must be introduced immediately & any insurance company baulking should have their assets impounded

Indy,

How do you propose a "national emergency levy" should work? Through taxation, who pays, and who don't? How is it operated, given Morrison's track record, money for marginal Coalition seats, bugger the battlers.

Individual,
So the solution to the millions of hectares of land affected by rising salt is to irrigate with fresh waster?
I’m sure that the CSIRO will be happy to know that.

Is Mise,
of course it can't be done if people who don't want it done put up every hurdle they can think of.
I'm totally confident inland Australia can be made as fertile as it once was with the help of people who want to better things not revel in status quo !

"national emergency levy"
Paul1405,
A permanent National Emergency Levy alongside a permanent Old Age Pension from every Dollar earnt & spent.
How does 2 Cents in the Dollar sound for a start ?

Indy to put it in perspective, I am on the Albert. A little short river with only a small catchment by comparison with most of our rivers. For most of the year it is about 150mm deep & 3 meters wide, trickling along in a deep gully about 22 meters below the plane.

In 1993 & 4 it was dry for about 4 months each year, with a little water flowing gently through the 3 meter deep sand & gravel in the bottom of the deep river course. Digging a 1.5M hole in the sand we could get enough water to pump for a few minutes to supply drinking water for our horses. Our dam was dry.

Right now everything is so saturated that if you walk around my house paddock, which is on the crest of a ridge 50 meters above the river flat, you leave little depressions 30 to 60mm deep, which immediately fill with water, that starts trickling towards the river if on even a minor slope.

It will be weeks before we could get a vehicle down to the river flat to start fence & diesel pump repairs if it stops raining now, & longer if we get the normal 100mm a month wet season rain. The forecast is for above average rain for the next 10 days.

individual: You are acting emotionally and not rationally.

To help the people with immediate necessities is decent community minded behaviour, there's nothing wrong with that. Eg: supplying emergency clean water, food, shelter, clothes.

But helping them rebuild/repair and refurnish their house with condition free government handouts is a a terrible idea. Because it will dramatically increase the moral hazard.

Forcing insurance companies to pay out when the contract doesn't cover flood is also a terrible idea because the insurance companies will never again offer *any* sort of house insurance to any house that has the slightest chance of flood damage.

If you really want to give people a freehand out to rebuild a destroyed house then at least do it on the strict condition that those that apply for the handout *cannot* rebuild in an area known to flood!
If they just need to repair the house and not rebuild then at least require that they have to sell the house once repaired (say within a year) and move to a flood free area.

However, for people who don't apply for any aid, they should be let to live wherever they like. But make it clearly understood that any future flood damage will be borne by them.

Indy,

Under your handout scheme, by how much will aged welfare be cut per fortnight, I would suggest $200 seems reasonable, What do you think?

Forcing insurance companies to pay out when the contract doesn't cover flood is also a terrible idea.
thinkabit,
I didn't say they should !
Paul1405,
I didn't say anything about any pay cuts, I said a Levy for every Dollar spent/made by everyone !

Are you woke people so utterly devoid of reason & integrity that you can't even read what's written in your haste to denounce others ? Are you so tight that you're against giving a pittance to help all ?

Hasbeen,
I'm gobsmacked on what I see on TV & what you tell us.
What can one say ?

For those for whom a next to nothing levy is too much of a sacrifice let me explain.
The funds should not simply be used to build/rebuild homes willy nilly, they should however be used to provide assistance by way of living expenses. I would like to see relocation assistance as rebuilding in presently flooded areas is an obvious futility. State Govt should provide land that is clearly not in risk of flooding. Such land should only have to be paid for by the next purchaser of the home, the relocated families should only have to pay normal Council rates.
I'd imagine that most of those who built in the flood areas did so because local authorities failed to prevent building there. Local Councils need to be made accountable after this disaster & any future subdivisions must have a Council insurance & in areas of potential once in a lifetime flooding, high set homes should be mandatory.
This is merely a rough idea of what I think could/should be thought about & those with far more experience than I should have no great difficulty in making changes for future subdivisions. Unless planning moves away from status quo I'm afraid these places are simply waiting for the next disaster.

Why not have a State Govt Lottery so that the selfish can also contribute in building new flood-free homes ? I'm talking normal 3-4 bedroom homes that people can afford to keep instead of those multi million Dollar mansions that most winners have to sell for a fraction of their worth ?
We need ideas to make our economy snowball. There's enough money out there it just needs to be spent here.

It is probably a bit too late to think of abandoning the homes in flood areas. Most have been there for over 50 years, & up to 100.

A quick back of envelope bit of math tells us that even in their flood depreciated state the 15,000 homes effected are worth at least 10 trillion dollars. A hell of a lot of money to find to replace them.

It is probably a bit too late to think of abandoning the homes in flood areas.
Hasbeen,
Yes, a tough ask but at the same time the only other option is to keep getting flooded. I imagine the insurance companies will soon put a stop to covering these areas so, those who decide to stay also decide to be on their own.
I live in an area where I can't insure my boat because insurance companies decided that they can't cover boats in cyclone areas despite most boats being stored on land during the cyclone season.
As harsh & tough as it is I think necessity will stipulate that future subdivisions will be well away from today's high water marks. Should we expect more such severe rains ? I think it may be prudent to think so & even if the water rises not as high again it'd still be worth the outlays of widening watercourses on an on-going basis. This would definitely alleviate a lot of potential damage & loss.

individual,
There are also the options of moving houses, raising them and levies.
The town of Adaminiby in NSW was moved to higher ground above the water level for the dam, small scale but it can be done.
Inverell, NSW, suffered a bad flood some years ago and many houses were later raised above flood level.
Tamworth, NSW, is an example of successful levee construction.

I do wonder at the sense of building underground railways beneath flood plains.

individual: "We need ideas to make our economy snowball."

Here's an idea: the free market! This has been shown time and time again to be the best idea to make the economy bloom. And under the free market there are no government bailouts for people for do stupid things with their money.
Eg, if you build or buy a house in a *KNOWN* flood prone area then, unless your so wealthy that it doesn't matter to you, you're an idiot. And you are being rightfully punished by the free market when you lose your investment- the smart person who sold you your house is doing society a favour by sending you broke!

Under the free market, it's not the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity but rather to protect people from other's stupidity. (This also applies to violence/harm- it's the government job is to protect citizens from other's violence not self inflicted harm/violence.)

I once moved a house from the Hervey Bay sight of a new Woolworths to a block on the Burrum river near Howard. It is a very viable option for well built timber houses with elevated timber floors.

In the US they have developed technology to move multi story brick buildings, currently beyond our industry, but I guess we could learn. Quite a lot of the older timber homes could be raised on stumps, as many have, to above known flood height.

I also moved my Granny flat from Hervey bay to here south of Brisbane. It is not cheap, but quite doable. When I say I moved them, I mean I commissioned professionals to do the job for me.

When it is down to officialdom which by the way, exists on the funding from permits & licenses it grants, then it must be officialdom that is responsible for irresponsible grant decisions.
Early this morning I spoke with a friend who grew up in a couple of these flood affected areas in the late 50's-early 60's & he told me that Lismore had massive flooding then as did several suburbs around Brisbane. He said because today's bureaucrats haven't seen a proper wet season they took it for granted when approving subdivisions on flood plains.
Now, that the climatic changes are somewhat going back to what used to be normal, the damage is overwhelmingly massive for people to comprehend.
He also said that rebuilding in these areas is nothing short of madness especially since environmentalists have blocked clearning grass & bushland which helps water to dam & slow & then rise.
I can't say anything because I haven't seen these places but listening to my friend it becomes clear that as per usual older people with personal experience who warned of this years ago were taken for granted by the environmental experts.
I feel for those who lost everything because the experts & the bureaucrats listening to the experts failed them..

And under the free market there are no government bailouts for people for do stupid things with their money.
thinkabit,
sounds good in theory however, take into consideration the conniving & it'll quickly dawn even on idealists that a free market does not function in reality. History has provided ample proof that because free means different interpretations to many, can't therefore not work as it does in the minds of the idealists !
Even the animal kingdom has hierarchies so, what makes puny idealists believe humanity doesn't ? Humans need pulling into line full stop !
And, a full stop to selling flood land to innocent people by callous developers with the sanction of corrupt local Govt bureaucrats. Today is Day 1 to make them accountable !

individual: "He said because today's bureaucrats haven't seen a proper wet season they took it for granted when approving subdivisions on flood plains."

As far as Brisbane is concerned, that's complete BS. The areas in Brisbane that are flooding are old suburbs. Some of them are the oldest- eg: brisbane city.

When people first established Brisbane nearly 200 years ago, they founded it on the river and then expanded up, down the river and then later on out from it. There have not been any major green field new land releases in the Brisbane area near the river for a very long time. And that is simply because there is no land left to subdivide.

To prove what I'm talking about (unlike individual who just sprouts crap of the top of his head without any thinking or background research):
This website lists the areas the that are suffering flooding that may impact buildings on the Brisbane River: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/community-and-safety/community-safety/february-2022-severe-weather-event-council-updates-and-impacts/brisbane-flood-inundation-map . I've listed them here along with their original dates of settlement/initial subdivision (as close as I can gather quickly from wikipedia- the very first settlements may be before this). As you can see that are all old suburbs:

Brisbane City - 1825
Bulimba - 1880
Hamilton - 1837
Milton - 1840's
New Farm - 1827
Newstead - 1840's
Norman Park - 1853
Oxley - 1851
Rocklea - 1884
South Brisbane - 1843
St Lucia - 1883
Tenerife- 1880's
Toowong - 1862
West End - pre 1873 ?
Windsor - 1854
Yeronga - 1854

The other reason why buildings in newer suburbs rarely experience flooding (besides not being next the Brisbane river) is because we've close to 200 years of data now. Indeed, we now kknow which areas flood anywhere in Queensland. Which is unlike when these suburbs above where subdivided. When these old suburbs where subdivided they didn't know how bad it could floor in freak 1 in 30 years, 1 in 50 year, etc. events.

thinkabit,
Of course there was less flooding then because there were far fewer buildings & built-up area that didn't impede & dam the flow of water !
For crying out loud, can't you see what's going on ?

There wasn't less flooding years ago and that's the point!! The areas that are susceptible to flooding today are the old suburbs and they've regularly flooded every 30+ years for the last 200 years.

The new suburbs, ie. those that you are claiming are the result of "today's bureaucrats haven't seen a proper wet season they took it for granted when approving subdivisions on flood plains", are the ones that DON'T flood.

Actually Indy the biggest flood was in the 1893s & again bigger than recent floods early in the 1900s, so the dams may be helping to some extent.

By far the most rain in South East Queensland since white settlement was in 1893. In my district it was 28% more than 1953, the next highest, which was 20% higher than in recent years.

A few years back some engineers were blaming the foundations of Captain Cook Bridge for recent flood levels, although some others reckoned that was wrong.

It's painfully obvious why some things will never improve.

Hasbeen,
I'm not disputing your information but I'm inclined to think that because of dams the surrounding ground is already so saturated that literally nothing more gets absorbed & water simply runs off & floods areas which didn't flood before due to lesser flow volume & faster run-off.
In any case, not building on flood plains will ensure less damage & fewer insurance claims which in turn would slow the pace of premiums rising to un-affordability.
Rebuilding if rebuilding is the only financial option has to change to high-set design. I have a neighbour who is preparing to build as we discuss this & he has built up his foundation by four feet whilst the home next door is at ground level & will certainly be flooded when next we have a normal Wet ! He chose 4 feet because he asked around & learned that the highest recorded flood covered his block by 18 inches. Another home some distance away is built up 10 feet including the carport.

JoNova on her blog has reproduced a graph by the Bureau of Meteorology entitled KNOWN FLOODS IN THE BRISBANE & BREMER RIVER BASIN. It shows that the flood in 1893 & an earlier one in the 1840s reached 8.3 meters, over twice as deep as the current flood at just under 4 meters.

God help the modern Brisbane if another of those should eventuate. 1893 was a wet year! Crohamhurst just inland from Caloundra had 2023.8, twice the annual rainfall, in five days, Brisbane had three floods in two weeks in February and another in June.

Wife and her girlfriend joining 'mud army' today. Not to clean up but make sandwiches and cups of tea etc. Good luck girls.

Building in potential flooding area must be planned far more critically from now on. Whilst there can never be a 100% guarantee for no flooding as in fact anything else, more practical & common sense will lessen the suffering & damage bill. Suburbs need to be designed in a more streamlined spread & most definitely high set homes will help. Water flow must be obstacle free & wherever & whenever the water courses should be widened. There is a challenge for town planners & especially engineers to start thinking if they want to leave a legacy not associated with carnage.
That is why I am a strong believer & advocate for gradually moving people beyond the GDR & particularly around the Lake Eyre basin. It will eventually happen but I think if the move is started now rather than wait till more natural disasters dictate a lot of mayhem & suffering will be eliminated & economical side effect benefits will automatically keep pace.

Good on them from me Paul.

Hi Issy,

No phone call, so must be going ok.

Hi Issy,

The wife said they were busy yesterday, lots of willing hands, said what a mess to clean up. People's lives have been ruined, lost everything. This clean up is going to take a long time. I don't know what Brisbane is going to do with so many people now living on the river flats and being subject to regular flooding.

ps; our trains have been out since last Saturday, been some bad damage to the Clevland line.

Paul,
My thanks to your wife and her friend, well done.
My son is OK as he’s above flood level but even so rising water table has been a minor problem

Individual,
This is going to require some big rethinking by government at all levels and widening the flow up river of the main and tributaries won’t work whilst Brisbane City is the downstream constriction,
Perhaps digging a supplementary outlet to the sea might be part of the answer, here’s where tunnelling may help.

Is Mise,
thank for your interest. I have previously suggested parallel water course developments which can double as high end canal development real estate to fund the bulk of the work.
That would work particularly well in Brisbane with its close proximity to Moreton Bay. Forget about fancy & over-the-top expensive tunnels when a literally self-funding waterfront estate could have rail & smarter road systems as neighbouring projects.
Speaking of tunnels, any word on any being flooded ?

The new suburbs, ie. those that you are claiming
thinkabit,
So, all these rooftops barely sticking out of the water on the news are 100+ year old homes ?

The Brisbane River through Brisbane is tidal, and with a huge inflow from up stream and urban run-off, coupled with high tides, flooding is inevitable. What were once rare events, but now with the impact of climate change will occur far more frequently.

The new suburbs, ie. those that you are claiming
thinkabit,
So, all these rooftops barely sticking out of the water on the news are 100+ year old homes ?

In the case of Brisbane, some are yes! But the others are buildings that have replaced older buildings.
Much of inner Brisbane has been rebuilt many times. Sometimes this is due to buildings having been destroyed by fire/flood/old age. But most times it is an economics thing- the land keeps raising in value so people replace them with taller and taller buildings. Even though they know they are building in flood prone areas. Note that this is *not* new green field development, but people rebuilding on existing sites. These days it takes literally just minutes to consult a flood map, which are freely and widely available, eg: http://floodinformation.brisbane.qld.gov.au/fio/ . So you can't blame the council if people are stupid enough to build on existing parcels of land where it is a *known* flood zone.

By-the-way: I use to live in a NewMarket in not far north of Brisbane City and in the 5 years I lived there I saw many buildings knocked down to make way for higher density dwellings. Some of those demolished were beautiful old Queenslanders (although sometimes they relocate Queenslanders instead of destroy them), some post war fibro-shacks (which themselves replaced Queenslanders), some were 1970/80's monstrosities (monstrosities in my opinion anyway) which made way for nicer buildings, etc. These buildings were replaced in the main for economic reasons.

individual: "I have previously suggested parallel water course developments which can double as high end canal development real estate to fund the bulk of the work."

So let me get this right. You've been complaining about people being allowed to create new suburbs by green field development of land near the river in the Brisbane City area recently (which is factually wrong as I've explained). But now you've come up with the "solution" for flooding by building canals for people to live by?

Hmm, do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

thinkabit,
you should thinkabit more. You remind me of that woman who was against dredging our harbour because making the channel deeper would lower the water level in other areas of the harbour & boats would get stranded.
Canal developments offer & accommodate spread for increased volume without raising the level dramatically.
Once you comprehend this you won't resort to use words like hypocrisy !

Diversion channels need to be deep, wide and straight, so around Brisbane, unless tunnelling is resorted to, there would need to be much removal of existing housing that is not a problem re flooding.

You really don't get it do you individual! Your canal will have to deal with *all* the flood water. This is means that it is going to have to be *BIGGER* than the Brisbane river itself. Look at a map to see how big the Brisbane river is- at Kangaroo Point in the middle of Brisbane it's about 200m wide.
So to build your brain-fart canal are going to have to forcefully resume land from orders of magnitude more people than what the floods affect.

Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

But not only that, the floods we've just had in Southern Queensland and Northern New South Wales in monetary terms haven't done much damage: it's just low billions (http://www.afr.com/politics/floods-damage-bill-set-to-top-2b-20220302-p5a0z5). And these floods are very infrequent, they occur on decadal timescales. To put this cost figure in perspective, the cost is projected to be about ballpark comparable with the amount that Australian's spend on coffee EVERY YEAR.

Your canal would be the largest civil works project ever undertaken in Australia. It would cost orders of magnitude more than the damage caused by the flooding. It would bankrupt the state of Queensland before it was ever finished. We simply couldn't build your canal realistically.

Tunneling the flood waters under the city wouldn't work unless you had gigantic pumps at the sea-end because the River is still tidal (ie: close to sea level) at the city. But of course we simply don't have pumps big enough for this.

thinkabit,
Not tunnelling under the city, there’s enough tunnels there now, but digging/tunnelling a bypass waterway.
Tunnels would be needed unless resumption of flood free homes could be tolerated, such a diversion needs to be straight for maximum effectiveness.

Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?
thinkabit,
No, I only see your insipid objecting instead of thinking how to reduce the degree of future flooding & damage costs.
Do you really expect me to put forward a fully comprehensive plan on a solution between each post here ?
I'm simply putting forward ideas that could possibly be feasible.

Issy, I am shocked at your suggestion. "TUNNELLING".

Where exactly, MY HOUSE!, which was safe and dry at flood time. Is my house in your firing line?

MY SUGGESTION!

BUCKETS.... available from Bunnings at 98c each. Combined with the frugal use of bathtubs the flood problem should be no more.
Should the bucket brigade fail, then Plan B can kick in! MOSES, I'll hold the umbrella whilst he works his miracle.

Plan C is to ridiculous to mention.

>>"Do you really expect me to put forward a fully comprehensive plan on a solution between each post here ?"

No, but it would be nice if you gave more than a fart's worth of consideration to the cost and practicality of your ideas before you post them. A child could tell you that they don't make economic sense, every idea of yours so far would cost more than the damage it spares. Nor are some practical/possible from an engineering point of view.

>>I'm simply putting forward ideas that could possibly be feasible.
No! There not feasible!

As I said in the last post, the cost of flood damage per flood is really quite minor in the big picture. We're talking low billions for these current floods in QLD and NSW- which for a state or country is not much. To repeat, we spend about the same amount *every year* on coffee's in Australia as what these recent floods are projected to cost. And floods of this magnitude occur only a few times a lifetime. For a solution to be feasible it has to cost less than the flood damage it prevents.

We do have a common man-made solution to floods- they're called DAMS. The reason dams work is because you don't have to build much to get a large return on the amount of water they prevent/delay from entering the flood zone. The dam itself can cover 10's to 100's of square kilometers in surface area for only 100's of meters to a few kilometers of dam wall.
For example, Lake Wivenhoe has a surface area of of about 11 square kilometers for a dam wall that is 59m high (at its highest) and 2.3km long. It has a flood mitigation capacity of 1.45 million ML = 1.45 cubic kilometers.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

However, the problem with flood mitigation dams though is that you need somewhere to build one. This means:
1) you need the right topography - the valley shape of the river has to be such that the dam will hold back a lot of water
2) the dammed area needs the right geology, especially where the dam wall is. It has to have the right sort of rock because water and earth interaction can cause massive geological instability problems.
For example, enough water in the wrong place can even trigger events like fault line slips (earth quakes). This, I expect, wouldn't be such a problem in Australia, but relevant to places with active fault lines such as New Zealand.
3) you need a large area of land that's cheap to buy without many buildings/man-made infrastructure up stream from the dam wall. Its pointless building a flood mitigation dam if you have to forcefully resume more buildings than what get flooded
4) You preferably want to be able to build the wall at a pinch point on the valley to minimize the length of the dam wall to reduce its cost

----

Paul1450: I love your bucket idea, it's so simple and obviously perfectly feasible. However, I would recommend that you don't go down the 98c wire-handled bucket route, but upgrade to the $2.50 buckets with the black plastic handles. These buckets are tougher/more durable- I'm speaking from experience here.

I've heard many people are getting stomach bugs due to sewage. But a "pig in a blanket" is heaven for those who haven't eaten for twelve hours due to flood cleanup- and just one more job to do before stopping for the day.

No! There not feasible!
thinkabit,
I'm certain that there were people such as you who ridiculed & denoucned the ideas of a Suez Canal or Panama Canal or the canal network throughout Europe, Australia's Snowy Mountains scheme etc. etc.
Well, thankfully there were people who thought of years ahead, way past their Superannuation performance, people with the benefit to their society in mind.
And, i suppose those who were against such projects just like you are now, didn't mind to hold their hands out for the benefits afterwards.
I don't know how many more times I need to say this but just for you I'll say it again;
Such projects are not to be looked at as a quick fix/quick buck scheme. They're on-going for many years, even decades. These schemes/projects are with the future in mind, not just the present. I'm certain we'll end up with settlements full of citizens with a far, far healthier mentality than you.

Hi TAB,

Indy has good intentions but is wide of the mark on the idea of a canal or tunnel through Brisbane to mittigate flooding. Regular flooding is something Brisbane is going to have to live with for years to come.

ps. I know what you mean about those 98c buckets from Bunnings. You get what you pay for.

Indy no one can afford a water harvesting project costing billions which is only going to be used at best for a few days once a decade.

As for draining the water away from Brisbane, at it's peak this flood, about half as much water as the 1840 & 1893 floods was a kilometer wide, & 60 meters deep, moving at about 8 knots. A channel to carry this much water would make the Suez canal look like a little creek.

For decades there was a continual dredging operation in the Brisbane river, extracting sand for use in industry around Brisbane. Green blob pressure got that stopped. I wonder if the river has then silted up reducing the capacity to carry these flood waters. Perhaps those flooded should be sewing the greeny activists that got the dredging stopped.

One of the things about science people is that we think that given enough thought any problem can be solved- it's often true- but sometimes in surprising ways.

Japanese American Physicist apparently Socialist Blank Slater- Michio Kaku in Physics Of The Impossible talks about Clarks Rules and Classes Of Impossibility.

http://bigthink.com/guest-thinkers/classes-of-impossibilities-the-internet-in-your-contact-lenses/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

Class One impossibilities are technologies that are impossible today but don’t necessarily violate the known laws of physics; Class Two impossibilities are those that are at the very edge of our understanding; and Class Three impossibilities are those that violate the known laws of physics.

The water problem in Brisbane is a difficult engineering problem- probably not at the same impossibility level as for example a Space Elevator or Dyson Sphere but certainly challenging.

Problem complexity often has an impact on solvability.

There have been some extreme fails for those that seek to tell people how to live rather than working with them for some outcome- such as political ideologies. It's been said- "many people agree on problems in the community - solutions not so much".

Communities are very complex even more so due to the policies of the "modern" age.

Hassy,

Gives us a break, and stop blaming everything on the Greenies. Brisbanes population in 1840 was less than 10,000 today it's 2.5 million about 250 to 300 times greater. As for your water flows through Brisbane in the 19th century, there is no factual evidence to claim they were greater or lesser than 2011 or 2022. Its all part of your anti climate change narrative.

I'm not claiming nor suggesting to solve the flooding problems of Brisbane. I am however, trying to plant ideas for those who can & have the interest to reduce the damage from the floods !

Green blob pressure got that stopped
Hasbeen,
same with our harbour ! I don't know what could legally been done about these gits !
Perhaps put them on a stranded boat at the out-going tide & let them get a taste for sandflies, sharks & crocodiles for a day & a night.

Good point about the dredging Hasbeen. Kudos.

Paul the water heights I quoted are from the Bureau of Meteorology official graph entitled "KNOWN FLOODS IN THE BRISBANE & BREMER RIVER BASIN". Do look it up, then you can apologist for suggesting I was not being truthful. I guess it is hard for any greenie to believe some people are actually truthful.

I know the Green Blob don't like facts, they tend to stuff up their lying scenarios, but these are official facts indisputable, until some arm of the Green blog manage to get them deleted. Meanwhile many of the really serious people have carefully archived them for the future, just in case they are altered as are previous temperatures to support the global warming scam.

From any perspective this February's rainfall has been extraordinary, but not unprecedented.

I received 619mm against an average of 123mm, quite a downpour.

However the official rainfall from the Bureau of Meteorology for Beaudesert, just 16Km away shows

550mm for February 1954 AND
674mm for February 1893.

I wonder if it was SUVs or Coal fired power stations causing this extraordinary rainfall 129 years ago.

What would be really extraordinary would be if it did not happen again, whether we burn coal or cattle dung to cook our dinner.

While the East Coast is drowning, Western Australia is in the midst of a record-breaking heat wave and Perth is at 40C for the fourth consecutive day and for the ninth time this summer. It was the turn of NSW to endure their worst bush fire season and heat waves only a few years ago.

Likewise there have been many record-breaking major flooding events, heat waves and climatic catastrophes overseas in recent years and I suppose such incidents could be considered examples of increasing weather extremes as predicted decades ago.

Arguing over symptoms rather than addressing causes is an interesting mental exercise but really just a waste of time and the chances are it will all happen again in another few years.

Of course it will happen again rache, just as it has in the past, in fact over 120years ago.

What do you think caused those floods, it certainly couldn't have been CO2.

To build tidal walls across the Brisbane River similar to London's, the cost would be around $6 billion. Another proposal is for the council to buy flood effected properties.

Hassy, do you still rely on that Old Fart up the road to give you all your weather info. You will go to your grave a climate skeptic.

rache said- "Arguing over symptoms rather than addressing causes is an interesting mental exercise but really just a waste of time and the chances are it will all happen again in another few years."

Answer- What is Rache doing to address/ understand the causes? Perhaps Rache could study hydraulic engineering for a couple of years if she disagrees with the experts and prove them wrong. Perhaps the answer is to move Brisbane- not a happy feel good solution.

The "cause" is too much water being dropped from the sky in too short a time- this is obvious- this is why engineers talk about symptoms. Maybe we could move the sky to a different location- maybe we can move the clouds- or the land to a different location- maybe we can change the slope of the land. If the sky is dropping water on a surface faster than the surface can drain the water away then the level of the water on the surface will rise and cause damage to the structures on said surface.

Maybe you could do a grid point analysis and modelling of Queensland and vary the water dropped per unit area per unit time on said surface and see if the water rises. Then see if the neighbouring areas/ paths have similar dissipation rates to determine the possibility of redirection/ remediation measures.

Maybe we could knock down all the fences on the property lines in Brisbane to facilitate better hydraulic flow across the land.

Maybe we could catch lightening bolts from the sky and store them in batteries.

The power of nature is often impressive- though at times rare and brilliant engineers have been able to change it.

Maybe off-hand comments can be just as useless and destructive as symptom analysis

the cost would be around $6 billion.
Paul1405,
That's peanuts over 25 or so years ! That's the change we get from the hordes of Public servants in questionable positions with no evidence of positive contribution !
Forget locks, widen/deepen the water courses.

Hi Indy,

There are many larger cities with rivers flowing through them. There are several that have flood relief systems in place. So there are practical ideas our there that Australian governments can investigate.

Lismore has a levee system.

Levees have a history around the world of failure. Perhaps if we got the Dutch to design & build them, they just might work.

Paul Anyone not a climate skeptic is a bloody idiot.

Yes I'll go to my grave a climate skeptic, along with my official bureau figures you chose to deny.

Better that than live & die a useful idiot.

a levee system.
Hasbeen,
We need a levy so we can do without dodgy levees. We have an insurmountable amount of rubbish so, why not mulch waste & mix with concrete sludge to make fill ?
You'd be surprised how much land could be built up in twelve months to provide solid foundations.

Hassy,

I put you in with the flat earth people, and those that believe the Moon is made of green cheese.

In the case of Brisbane, any flood mitigation project will involve incredible cost. Why should people who are smart enough not to buy properties in a flood zone be penalised though taxation to contribute to paying for it?

The best thing to do it just let the river be the river and realise that we have to adopt to it, not it to us. The best and most sensible course of action to take as a community is no action at all.

People who construct their houses/buildings on a known flood zone should be held responsible for their own actions and bear any loss themselves. We definitely should not offer any governmental financial assistance to people to rebuild if they are going to rebuild on the same plot (or rebuild at any other location that suffers form flood).

in above "adopt" should be "adapt"

In the case of Brisbane, any flood mitigation project will involve incredible cost.
thinkabit,
Only if Unions get involved & private consultants & Greenies & the EPA.

Rising sea temperatures means increased evaporation which in turn results in more rainfall - that's one obvious cause.

Flooding is exacerbated when populations build on known flood plains, which are increasing in size and building sea walls to stop coastal erosion is a temporary fix for the sake of preserving valuable real estate.

Lismore is known by locals as "the wok" for a reason and Sydney is much the same and simplistic options like raising a specific dam wall will not stop flooding when there are other rivers feeding into the same catchment area as happens on the Hawkesbury.

A solution would be to critically reassess where people are allowed to build and abandon various existing towns - neither of which are likely.

Meanwhile we just have to learn to live with the effects on allegedly non-existent climate change and have the same arguments all over again next time it happens.

A solution would be to critically reassess where people are allowed to build and abandon various existing towns
rache,
Yes ! We need people who know rather than experts to plan & make decisions.

individual,
A good example of people who know was Governor Macquarrie and his surveyors who surveyed the Nepean area in NSW.
Apparently the surveyors asked the local aborigines about the flood levels and laid out the farms using this information and their own observations.
The flood prone and rich ground was for agriculture, the next section for stock and the highest section for the house and sheds etc.
Later subdivisions messed it all up.

Good to see the Queenland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk telling ScumO' Morrison where to stick his "STATE OF EMERGENCY" for Queensland. Queenslanders don't want Morrison coming up here almost a fortnight after the event "GRANDSTANDING", looking for photo ops, and being a general nucense! As my Old Man would say; "That blokes all piss and wind, tell him to piss off!" I never agreed much with Howard, and even less with Abbott, but I can't say they weren't sincere, not like this shallow clown in charge at the moment.

ps: Dom The Dill in NSW might need to suck up to Morrison to keep his job, but our gal in Queensland is free from such restraints, and can speak her mind to the dick!

Well Well, that is interesting Paul. You believe the lady actually has a mind!

I guess it never occurred to you or her, that there are certain actions & expenditures that can only be undertaken when a state of emergency has been declared.

I didn't vote Labor at the last state election Hassy. You might have been impressed with Morrison inspecting the end of a council workers broom, or his silly look at pushing a floor mop (once) on a dry floor.

Want to put people who have suffered enough off side, then carry on like a clown, sticking your beak in, looking for photo ops, Morrison did it in the bushfires, now he's doing it in the floods. As for the State of Emergency call, in NSW the Fed's are paying $3,000 to flood victims in 3 politically sensitive shires, whilst ignoring others just as badly impacted.

Top marks to both the QLD government, and the LNP Brisbane City Council. On the Monday after, that's one day, the BCC had diverted every council worker and every piece of equipment that could be directed to help out. Where was Duttons Dads Army when needed, it took them over a week to get boots on the ground, it took BCC less than 24 hours. If Australia gets invaded don't send in the army, send in the council workers!

If anyone was grand-standing on that particular issue, it was the Qld Premier not the PM.
As one of the Army chaps said, this was considered a national emergency from the beginning.
Qld & NSW are State Emergencies, it's not the whole Nation as yet.
It is National so far as help provided goes.

Paul I know you in your fantasy world will find it hard to believe, but nothing would make me vote LNP when they have adopted the ridiculous Net Zero garbage. In fact nothing could have made me vote LNP once they elected Turnbull. Any party that could have him as leader is not worth considering.

Hassy, we have something in common, we both didn't vote for Labor or the LNP. Like me, you must have voted Greens.

Indy, I didn't see the Priemer "inspecting" the end of a broom, or "pretending" to push a floor mop. AP was out there seeing first hand the impact of the floods, no broom no mop unlike Morrison with his grandstanding.

Why are those in marginal LNP electorates being paid $3000 by Morrison, while neighbours down the road just as badly impacted $1000. eg Lismore and Ballina.

Isn't it a matter of Coalition held areas vs Labor held ?
I would not at all be surprised if Labor is deliberately not co-operating so they can portray the picture they're portraying now ?
Don't forget that 95% of the bureaucrats manipulating the situation (funding/other Govt assistance) are Labor cronies !

With Morrison refusing to chip in unless he is given "grandstanding" rights, the Labor State government has come up with $771 million in flood relief for Queenslanders. We don't need Morrison inspecting brooms or declaring a national emergency a week after the event.

Do try to be honest occasionally Paul. Her ladyship & company have come up with a greadieos plan to spend a FEW hundred million of our money AGAIN on those flooded AGAIN, but only if the commonwealth pay half of it.

Of course the conniving lady refused Morrison's offer of a disaster deceleration which would have opened the floodgates of taxpayer money from the commonwealth, so she could later make this offer.

Actually I am probably wrong about who's scheme this is. I doubt the lady is smart enough no matter how much indoctrination she's had, to come up with such a scheme. That would come from the labor brains trust, the experts in false impressions, having absorbed all the Green tricks & lies very well.

Pity Pauline wasn't cunning enough to counter either machine, I wonder if Palmer might be smart enough to counter the propaganda. He at least is playing the buffoon less this time round. I wonder if it has all been a long term strategy he has been using?

God knows we don't have anything that looks like a party likely to do a useful job for the majority.

Hi Hassie,

Regarding the floods in Oz?

I recently spoke to an architect/town planner who's
spent many years in the US. He is amazed at how
our planners don't plan for future events - they
only throw money at maintenance after the events
like floods have happened. They're more interested
in clean-ups than in prevention.

He spoke about Greater Los Angeles Basin having seven
reservoirs , three huge flood control basins, many small lakes
concrete lined canals and the Los Angeles River which
was dug out and lined with concrete and in its lower
reaches is 100m wide and 60m deep.

In Louisiana the Mississippi River has built up banks of up to
6m high above ground level.

After so many decades of floods in Oz maybe we can learn
something about what to do and how to prepare for flooding?

Hassy,

Morrison found hundreds of millions for Queensland overnight. Must be an election in the air.