28 February 2012

Wivenhoe operators monitor flood levels

Wivenhoe Dam operators have opted not to ramp up water releases after levels failed to reach the expected height.

The dam was at almost 80 per cent capacity on Monday morning and rising, due to releases from the swollen Somerset Dam upstream.

Somerset Dam, north of Brisbane, is over capacity after several days of wild storms and flooding on the Sunshine Coast.

A Seqwater spokesman said the water in Wivenhoe did not reach the trigger point for larger releases as it was expected to do on Monday afternoon.

"The release strategy remains the same as this morning," he told AAP.

It means the bridge at Colleges Crossing at Ipswich remains open for now.

The Twin Bridges and Savages Crossing bridges may remain closed for up to a week.

27 February 2012

Wivenhoe Dam releases to cause minor flooding in the Brisbane River

Seqwater have advised that they will be increasing releases from Wivenhoe Dam later this evening.

This will result in the closure of Colleges Crossing from approximately mid morning tomorrow until Saturday at this stage. 


27.02.2012

25 February 2012

Flood class action lawyers woo residents in SE Queensland


CLASS action lawyers are targeting flood-hit areas of Ipswich and Brisbane with a direct marketing campaign to whip up support for a major suit against Seqwater and the Queensland Government.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and class action backers IMF (Australia) have distributed a flyer encouraging victims to register for a legal class action on a "no win, no cost to you" basis.

Flood victims are urged to sign up for an information pack if they "suffered loss or damage caused or contributed to by water flowing from Wivenhoe Dam between 7 January 2011 and 12 January 2011."

Goodna councillor Paul Tully, who lost his family home in the flood, received the flyer this week and said it was dropped off to thousands of households across the suburb, in both flood and non-flood areas.

Goodna was the hardest-hit suburb in south-east Queensland, with 600 homes destroyed.

Cr Tully said it was a bold move to maximise the number of claimants to put pressure on the government to settle any class action out of court.

"I support what they are doing because it may be the only opportunity for flood victims to recover their losses after their insurance claims were generally denied by most companies," he said.

The letter to flood victims is signed by John Walker, executive director of IMF (Australia) Ltd.

"If sufficient support from flood victims exists and IMF's investig- ations prove fruitful, then proceed- ings will be commenced," it says.

"This project offers a professional and properly resourced investigation with the costs and risks assumed by IMF, enabling flood victims access to justice where they have a viable claim."

Sign up at www.goodnaflood.blogspot.com.au 

25.2.2012

24 February 2012

Brisbane River Flood Class Action looms against Queensland Government


By David Stark
Secretary of FABAH
Flood Affected Businesses and Households Association


This week I discussed with solicitors for various insurance companies who would like to recover the substantial amounts paid to those insured, and to solicitors wanting to represent those not insured to recover their damages; all caused by the mismanagement of Wivenhoe Dam.

The Court will not want to hear numerous claims that deal with the same cause of action, and hence the likely need to form one class action, although in Queensland it will actually be a representative action, which is effectively the same as a class action.

Lawyers acting for the insurance companies will be paid by the insurance companies, who hope that if they win their legal action the Court would order the government to pay some or most of these costs.  The insurance companies run the risk that if they lose their legal action, they could have to pay the government's costs of defending the claims against it.

For those who were not insured, or were insufficiently insured, being part of a class action may lead to recovering some or most of your damages.  There are at present 2 bases of class action being contemplated that may suit you, and a third possibility now being considered - see below - of joining the insurance companies action. 

1. Lawyers acting for the uninsured will act on a 'no win no fee' basis, and for taking on that risk of no payment, the lawyers will charge an additional 25% fee if they win, paid from what the government is ordered to pay.  If the number of claimants is large these costs will be relatively small for each claimant, resulting in them recovering nearly all of their loss.  If the legal action is lost the claimants will not have to pay the government's costs of defending the claims against it, as this risk will be that of the lawyers.

2. Alternatively, the lawyers acting for the uninsured will have someone else funding their costs, such as IMF, which is a public company whose business is funding legal actions.  IMF will pay the lawyers, who will not be entitled to a 25% surcharge.  IMF take on the risk of the Court not ordering the government to pay all the costs if the legal action is successful, and the risk of paying the government's costs if the case is lost.  For taking on these risks IMF will be entitled to recover: the costs of running the case (mainly lawyers and expert witnesses fees); a management fee of about 25% of the costs of running the case; and a commission of about 25% of each claim.  The larger the number of claimants, the larger the total claim, the larger the amount IMF will earn to pay the costs of running the case.

Thus whether the lawyers acting for the uninsured are self funded or funded by IMF, if the case is won, the claimants will not recover all their claims, and if the case is lost they will not have to pay anything.  If the solicitors are self-funded, the claimants will receive more than if the case is funded by the IMF, because IMF's contract  will entitle them to commission of about 25% of the amount claimed by each person in the class action. 

Four steps will be involved in preparing for an application to the Court for an order that the government pay those it damaged.
1. that the government owed those flooded a duty of care 
2. that duty was breached
3. the breach caused the flood 
4. the amount of flood damage to each business and householder.

The first two steps are under active consideration by the lawyers, because the law of tort (wrong doing) in Australia does not necessarily mean that someone who causes damage will be held responsible, for example if they made an honest mistake.  The lawyers have generally satisfied themselves regarding steps 1 and 2, and are working on step 3.

Step 3 - to what extent the breach of duty of care caused the flood, will be largely for independent expert hydrologists and independent expert dam engineers to determine.  The evidence of SEQWater's Flood Engineers, and the evidence of all the experts who said the engineers complied with the manual, and that they did a good job has been shown to be faulty.  Hence there will be a need to obtain, and pay for, reliable independent expert opinions to convince a Court.

Step 4 - the extent individuals were damaged will require individual assessment.  Those who have been paid by insurers have been through this assessment, whereas those who  were not insured have yet to be assessed, although some form of assessment was undertaken when individuals applied for the payment from the Premier's Flood Relief Appeal.

Steps 1 to 3 above will apply to all three bases of class actions.  

Step 4  Insurance companies seeking to be compensated for the claims they have paid will ask the Court to accept that they have already rigorously assessed these claims, and hence their composite claim should be accepted.  This leaves a large administrative job to be done to assess the claims of the uninsured or under-insured, and this will apply to all three bases of class action.

Insurance companies class action

Lawyers representing the insurance companies are exploring ways by which the large administrative burden can be reduced so that the insurance companies would be inclined to accept uninsured or under insured into their class action.  If this eventuates, the insurance companies will be incurring a significant share of the costs of running the case, as well as accepting a significant  share of the risks of paying the government's costs of defending, if the case is lost.

If the claim was successful the uninsured or under-insured would essentially be put in the same position as if they had been fully insured for flood damage.

I will keep you posted of developments, but in the meantime I recommend waiting until the alternatives are clear, before deciding.

A political solution

If the Inquiry shows that the government mismanaged Wivenhoe, the government should immediately compensate those who were not insured or under-insured, and later consider whether it should compensate the insurance companies for paying claims for which they have received premiums.  With both sides of politics wanting our votes, both should now commit to paying for government negligence.  With government in care-taker mode, it would be appropriate before the election for Anna Bligh and Campbell Newman to make this joint commitment.  If the government of WA, on receiving the report that the government was responsible for burning people's property, can immediately apologise to those damaged and compensate them, why can't our government?

Please ask others who wish to be kept informed of a possible class action to email me at dstark@bigpond.com


22 February 2012

Class action lawyers hit flood areas with direct marketing

IMF (Australia) Ltd  & Maurice
 Blackburn Lawyers flyer being
 distributed across southeast
 Queensland.


Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and class action backers IMF (Australia) have flooded major areas of southeast Queensland with a direct marketing campaign to whip up support for a major class action against Seqwater and the Queensland Government.

A flyer has been distributed in areas of Brisbane and Ipswich badly hit by the floods of 11 January 2011 encouraging flood victims to register for a legal class action on a "no win, no cost to you" basis.

Flood victims are urged to sign up for an information pack if they "suffered loss or damage caused or contributed to by water flowing from Wivenhoe Dam between 7 January 2011 and 12 January 2011".

Goodna Councillor Paul Tully who lost his family home in the flood received the flyer this week saying it had been dropped off to thousands of households across the suburb, in both flood and non-flood areas.

Goodna was the hardest-hit suburb in southeast Queensland in last year's flood with 600 homes destroyed.

Cr Tully said it was a bold move to maximise the number of claimants to put pressure on the Government to settle any class action out of court.

"This may be the only opportunity for flood victims to recover their losses after their insurance claims were generally denied by most companies," Cr Tully said.

The letter to flood victims is signed by John Walker, Executive Director of IMF (Australia) Ltd and states:

"If sufficient support from flood victims exists and IMF's investigations prove fruitful, then proceedings will be commenced.

"This project offers a professional and properly resourced investigation with the costs and risks assumed by IMF, enabling flood victims access to justice where they have a viable claim".

22.2.12

20 February 2012

Goodna beats flood blues

FLOOD-RAVAGED Goodna has bounced back and topped the list for average house price rises in Ipswich, according to the latest quarterly figures from the Real Estate Institute of Queensland.

Goodna was the hardest hit suburb in south-east Queensland in the flood of January 2011 with 600 homes destroyed.

Property prices plummeted immediately with homes sold for as little as $100,000.

But the average price now was $272,000 - a whopping 32.7% jump during the past quarter.

Goodna councillor Paul Tully, who lost his own home in the flood, said the latest price rises were fantastic news for the suburb.

"We are slowly bouncing back from the devastation of 2011," Cr Tully said. "Businesses are getting back to normal and 90% of homes have been reoccupied. There is a new spirit of optimism in Goodna as the latest house prices boost the momentum of recovery."

Other suburbs to increase in value were North Ipswich (up 10%), Yamanto (up 8.8%), Camira (up 3.2%), Springfield (up 2.7%) and Raceview (up 2.1%).

Suburbs to decline in median house prices included Augustine Heights (down 16.7%), Bundamba (down 16.4%) and Brassall (down 7.4%).

REIQ chief Anton Kardash said the state's improving results showed it was beginning to recover from a devastating 2011.

"Last year was a very tough one in Queensland, with the series of natural disasters having a drastic impact on our economy as well as on confidence levels overall," Mr Kardash said.

"With the first anniversary of these events now passed, it certainly appears that Queenslanders are feeling more optimistic about the future.

"This is starting to have a positive effect on our property market."

20.02.12

Risk of Wivenhoe Dam collapse overstated, Ministers hoodwinked

Wivenhoe Dam
MINISTERS were misled about the risk of a dam failure at Wivenhoe during last year's floods, documents show.

A briefing note, drawn up for Water Minister Stephen Robertson by Water Grid chief Barry Dennien for an emergency Cabinet meeting on January 17, warned that floods like the one being experienced could "overflow the dam's storage compartment", with catastrophic results.

"Should this occur, the dam would fail and the resulting damage and loss of life would be at least 100 to 1000 times greater than that currently being experienced," Mr Dennien wrote.

But this was at odds with the facts known at the time and with published information about the structure of the dam.

Dam levels had already peaked on January 11 at a level almost 1m lower than the point at which safety features designed to prevent a dam collapse begin to come into play.

The first of these are "fuse plugs", safety valves built in to an earth embankment that erode to release water when the dam reaches a certain height.

These were added in 2005 as part of a $70 million upgrade of the dam, intended to make it withstand the biggest imaginable flood, thought likely to occur only once every 100,000 years.

The first fuse plug is designed to be needed only in an "extreme" 1-in-6000-year flood.

By contrast, the official Seqwater report into the floods describes a much smaller event, likely to occur once in every 100-to-200 years.

Mr Robertson told the flood inquiry this month that no decisions had been made on the basis of the briefing note at the Cabinet meeting.

But Ms Bligh made a series of public statements during and after the flooding in Brisbane and Ipswich in which she highlighted the dangers of the fuse plugs being triggered.

The briefing note, approved by John Bradley, then director-general of the Department of Environment and Resource Management and now Ms Bligh's top adviser, was requested by Mr Robertson and drafted over the weekend of January 15 and 16.

20.2.12

19 February 2012

Register now to be part of a flood victim class action


If you are a householder or business who suffered as a result of the Brisbane River flood of 11 January 2011, the following information is important to you.

The Greater Goodna Flood Group has been formed to assist local residents as part of the post-flood recovery effort following the disastrous flood.

Since the establishment of the Queensland Floods Commission in 2011 headed by Commissioner Justice Cate Holmes of the Queensland Supreme Court, the possibility exists of a class action against the dam operator and state government.

The class action would be prepared by one or more firms of leading lawyers on a "no win, no fee basis" with flood victims being able to claim for their losses arising from the flood.

There are 2 major law firms gearing up for a possible class action.

You may apply on line 24/7 to be part of any future class action with: IMF / Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

Another legal firm planning is a class action is Slater & Gordon Lawyers.  You can register online 24/7 at:

If you would like further information about a possible class action or how the Greater Goodna Flood Group can help you, email Greater Goodna Flood Group with your name, address and contact details.

18 February 2012

Floods Inquiry: After the deluge, the hunt for answers

Responsibility ... the management of Wivenhoe
 Dam has been minutely scrutinised in the wake
of floods that hit Brisbane and Ipswich.

Queensland's floods inquiry is raising the election stakes for Premier Anna Bligh, writes Rory Callinan.

Brisbane resident Ian Chalmers is usually a mild-mannered man, but last week outside the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, he snapped.

Shouting and swearing, the retiree confronted one of the inquiry's expert witnesses, flood engineer Mark Babister, who had just given evidence.

''Liar,'' Chalmers yelled at Babister who was leaving the inquiry chambers at the Brisbane Magistrates Court on February 10.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Babister ignored the outburst but it prompted the inquiry head, Justice Catherine Holmes, to warn members of the public not to harass witnesses.

The confrontation between the men says much about the $15 million inquiry delving into the complex systems of flood management, water release strategies, dam gate settings and inflows and rainfall forecasts.

Chalmers is not one of the thousands of flood victims whose properties or businesses were swamped on January 12 last year.

He is a retired civil engineer who helped oversee construction of the dam about which Babister had been giving evidence. And he was furious at Babister for suggesting that despite the flooding, the dam had been operated effectively.

''I just wasn't going to let it go through to the keeper,'' Chalmers told the Herald.

"I just didn't agree with what he was saying … If you let water out early you can get it through.''

These are claims the year-old inquiry seems unable to put to rest.

On January 17 last year, as thousands of Brisbane residents were still hosing stinking flood-mud out of their properties, the Premier, Anna Bligh, announced an inquiry to ''thoroughly and totally forensically'' examine how such catastrophic floods could occur.

With a state election in the winds, the Premier believed residents should know the full story behind the floods and was mindful of how her government's handling of the crisis would be received at the ballot box.

She appointed Court of Appeal Justice Catherine Holmes as Commissioner and two deputies, the former Queensland Police commissioner Jim O'Sullivan and dams expert Phillip Cummins.

The terms of reference were wide-ranging - dealing with everything from reviewing the preparation of flood warnings and rescue services to the performance of private insurers, the adequacy of forecasts and land planning and the effectiveness of flood mitigation systems.

The commission held weeks of hearings around the state and sifted through hundreds of submissions, but it was the operations of the dam system and flood mitigation that became the centre of attention.

The dams, Wivenhoe on the Brisbane River and Somerset on the Stanley River in the Brisbane Valley, were supposed to hold back flows and ease the flooding in Brisbane which had affected some 14,000 homes and properties.

Days of expert testimony were heard as the commissioners tried to gauge whether the dam operating manuals were followed and the flood well managed.

If it was proven the manuals were breached and the dams mismanaged, then flood victims and insurance companies could take legal action for compensation.

Counsel assisting the inquiry quizzed the four men who ran the Flood Operations Centre for South East Queensland Water, which operates the dams.

Did the engineers, Robert Ayre, John Tibaldi, Terrence Malone and John Ruffini, ignore the manual and allow the dam to overfill to the point it had to be quickly drained causing a flood to engulf Brisbane, the lawyers wanted to know.

And were records created after the fact to present their operations of the dam in a favourable light?

Or were the four merely hard-working professionals put under enormous pressure, who utilised the dams to the finest of margins for the best result?

The four all rejected any suggestion they had mismanaged the flood.

The key issue was whether they had closely followed the dams' operating manuals that demand specific dam gate-opening strategies when the water reaches certain levels.

The first and lowest release settings are W1 and W2 which aim to ''minimise disruption to rural life in the valleys of Brisbane and Stanley Rivers''.

The next setting W3 is designed to ''provide optimum protection of urbanised areas from inundation''.

And at W4, the release setting is designed to ''ensure the structural safety of the dams''.

During hearings in April last year, the flood operations engineers told the inquiry they had implemented strategy W3 on the morning of Saturday, January 8.

This meant the dam was supposed to be engaged in flood mitigation days before the flood peaked on Thursday, January 13.

But a situation report written by Ayre on the evening of January 8 suggested the lower release strategy of W1 or W2 was engaged, indicating that the focus was not on protecting Brisbane from flooding but on minimising disruption to the rural areas below the dam.

Ayre explained the contradiction as an accident where he had inadvertently recorded the wrong strategy and that the transition to W3 had occurred earlier in the day.

And at the time, the inquiry found no contemporaneous record detailing when the engineers moved to the W3 strategy.

It also noted that there was no discrepancy in the evidence of the three other engineers and Ayre's course of action.

Four independent experts brought in to review the report and locate any breaches of the manual concluded there was compliance with the manual.

In August, the inquiry released its interim report which called for a review of the manual aimed at ''resolving uncertainty about the manual's meaning and effect''. It noted issues with record-keeping.

The report also found the engineers had failed to comply with the manual because they did not use the best available forecast information to work out water releases.

But Justice Holmes noted the finding did not necessarily reflect upon the flood engineers operating the dams.

And that seemed to calm the public debate over the matter until last month when reports in The Australian newspaper alleged there was further evidence the dam had not been operated in the manner described to the commission.

The report cited emails and other reports which allegedly provided further evidence the managers were using the low-release strategy W1 on the crucial January 8-9 weekend.

Bligh moved to allow the inquiry to extend its reporting deadlines in order to investigate the allegations.

She also said she had decided to move back the date of the state election from March 3 to March 24, saying Queenslanders should be able to consider the report before voting.

The commission announced 10 extra days of hearings and the four flood operations engineers were recalled. Again they denied any inappropriate actions or falsifying of records.

Babister was also called back. The Sydney hydrologist conducted modelling to see if greater releases would have provided better flood mitigation.

He stated in his report that the dam engineers had to keep the dam levels low in case of a deluge which would have made the flood worse, and that there was little more that could have been done to have prevented the flood.

For observers such as Chalmers, however, who was not called to give evidence at the inquiry, the claim was unsettling.

''There are heaps of strategies that you can apply, some good some bad. All you have got to do is to start early,'' he says.

The emergency hearings have now finished and the inquiry is due to report on March 16, giving Queensland's voters a week to decide whether to reward Bligh for her government's handling of the floods or to punish them for not doing enough.

18.2.12

17 February 2012

Media Release: Flood Group slams Commission's secrecy plans

Cr Paul Tully - Greater
Goodna Flood Group
A flood group representing the hardest hit suburb in southeast Queensland in the 2011 flood has slammed suggestions the floods commission should censor information in its final report.

Premier Anna Bligh has supported plans to censor information if "it is in the interest of natural justice".

The Greater Goodna Flood Group has demanded an explanation how it could be in the interest of natural justice for the commission to cover up any information

Flood Group convenor Ipswich Councillor Paul Tully said: "There needs to be a full, open and accountable Commission - nothing more, nothing less. 

"Anything else will taint the Commission and leave a trail of suspicion in the minds of Queenslanders which will never disappear."

Cr Tully said thousands of flood victims in Brisbane and Ipswich deserved a "full, uncensored report, warts and all".

"All of the evidence and information needs to come out now, not buried in the government archives for the next 30 years."

Cr Tully, who lost his own home in the January 2011 flood, said Commissioner Cate Holmes had a duty to all Queenslanders to keep nothing secret.

"How could the public ever be satisfied the full story has come out if critical evidence and submissions are locked up in bank vaults, never to see the light of day," Cr Tully said.

17.2.12

Floods Commission could censor information: Anna Bligh


Premier Anna Bligh
Premier Anna Bligh says the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry will censor information only if it is in the interest of natural justice.
The Australian newspaper on Friday reported that any adverse references to key witnesses would not be published unless commissioner Cate Holmes agreed with them in the flood inquiry's final report, due on March 16.
The secrecy direction was not challenged by any of the lawyers at the inquiry and was supported by the state government's legal team, the report said.
The inquiry was reopened following media reports the commission missed key pieces of evidence about the potential mismanagement of Wivenhoe Dam.
Dam engineers have strongly denied orchestrating a cover-up.
Ms Bligh has also faced scrutiny over what she and her staff knew about the management of the dam when Ipswich and Brisbane flooded in January last year.
On Friday, she said it wasn't known whether there would be any adverse findings, and said no decision had been made about what information would be released by the commission.
"They have indicated that some material will not be put into the public arena if it breaches the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness," she told reporters.
"What the judge has to do is balance the public's right to know and openness and transparency with fairness and justice to some of those before the inquiry.
"I think Queenslanders expect that balance to be the right balance.
"So far we've had a commission that has been very open and put all of those submissions into the public arena, and I would hope that that is the spirit in which it continues."
She said the commission was completely independent.
"They don't get political interference, they don't get political direction and to do so would be illegal," Ms Bligh said.
The Liberal National Party's parliamentary leader, Jeff Seeney, said Ms Bligh hand-picked the commission.
"The responsibility has to rest with her," he told ABC radio.
He said Ms Bligh had used the commission as a political tool when she pushed back the election date, saying the outcome of the flood inquiry could affect the way people voted on March 24.
"There was a clear implication when she delayed the date of the election that somebody ... significant in the state election was going to be impugned by the commission."
He said the opposition had tabled a letter in parliament this week, from the commissioner, making it clear "they had no questions to ask (LNP leader) Campbell Newman and there is no issue for him".
"The premier back-pedalled at a million miles an hour."
www.news.ninemsn.com.au
17.2.12


COMMENT FROM GREATER GOODNA FLOOD GROUP: How could it possibly be "in the interest of natural justice" for the Floods Commission to censor or cover up any information.This needs to be a full, open and accountable Commission - nothing more, nothing less.  Anything else will taint the Commission and leave a trail of suspicion in the minds of Queenslanders which will never disappear. - PaulGTully@gmail.com 

Major cities at risk of Brisbane and Ipswich like flooding

Brisbane River Flood at Goodna 12 January 2011 showing
 the Ipswich Motorway under water.  In the centre left
of the picture is the pedestrian footbridge across the
  Ipswich Motorway to the Goodna Railway Station.

Experts say Australia is largely unprepared for another devastating flood, like the one which hit Brisbane last year.

Flood engineers say the huge floods that devastated Brisbane last year could also happen on a similar scale in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast and Newcastle.

They argue that thanks to Australia's three levels of government, flood planning around the country is patchy at best, allowing for houses to be built where they should not.

On Wednesday, ABC Radio's PM aired the first of a two-part look at Australia's flood planning. Now it looks more broadly at how well Australia is prepared for flooding and the battle between development and nature.

Last week Federal Minister for Emergency Services Robert McLelland stood on a levee bank as floods surrounded the southern Queensland town of Charleville. He liked what he saw.

"We've literally stood up on the levee bank - dry on one side - looking over the moving water on the other," Mr McLelland said.

"It unquestionably, unquestionably saved the town and I think from the long-term point of view of resilience, we need to methodically go through these areas that have been effected and look at mitigation steps we can take."

Talk to any flood engineer and they will tell you that is an admirable proposal, but they want more.

Steve Molino, a consultant who has advised on flood plain planning for 20 years, says places which have not flooded recently also need to be examined.

"You do need to look at the places that have flooded but you also need to look at the places that did not flood," he said.

"There's many places in Queensland that got out of the floods this year and got out of the floods last year scot free, but are at just as much risk of flooding as many of the places that flooded last year or this year.

"Those places need to be encompassed in any studies that are done."

And that is just Queensland.

Mr Molino says the potential flood risk across all of Australia is "huge".

Hayden Betts, who has a PhD in flood plain management and works for KPR consulting engineers in Brisbane, agrees.

"I'm not sure how many hydrologists and hydro-engineers there are in the country - must be a thousand or two. If they applied their mind to it, I think there'd probably be enough work to keep them going for a decade or three," he said.

Patchy preparation

But Mr Molino says Australia's flood preparation is patchy.

"We have places where there are good structural works in place; there are places where structural works are needed," he said.

"There are places where there is good town planning place; there are many places where better town planning is needed."

And therein lies the big problem - just who is responsible for planning and dealing with floods in Australia?

"The responsibility falls to local, state and federal government but it varies around the country," Mr Molino said.

Steve Opper, the director of community safety with the New South Wales State Emergency Service, thinks New South Wales has got the balance about right.

"Our situation I believe is extremely robust," he said.

"The State Emergency Service in New South Wales is unique nationally in that we control the management of floods in an emergency context all the way from state level to local government level.

"In other jurisdictions, quite often it might be just the local council that's responsible for planning and they may just not have enough expertise to do that."

Money is also an issue.

Take the problem of levees - the raised banks which can protect towns from floods.

Often state governments might provide the funds to build levees but then leave it to local government to do the maintenance.

"There are levees that have been built, have settled over decades and are now providing a lower level of protection than they were originally designed to provide," Mr Molino said.

"And there are many levees that have just been left to their own devices; there's been no maintenance undertaken on them and therefore there's cracks appearing in them, there's trees growing in them."

Then there is the problem of protecting our big cities.

Mr Molino points to the fact that there have been a number of one-in-a-thousand flood events in Australia in the past five years.

Luckily they have been in sparsely-populated areas, but Mr Molino says the damage would be far worse if a rare flood were to occur in a bigger city.

"If a flood of that frequency were to occur somewhere like the Gold Coast, on the Hawkesbury Nepean river or on the Georges River - they're major rivers running through Sydney - floods of that type of frequency, and they do occur around the world all the time, were they to occur in one of those areas, we're talking about tens of thousands of houses under water and many of those homes washed away," he said.

"And Melbourne is not immune. Melbourne has the Yarra and the Maribyrnong River and other rivers - as Melbourne expands - going into other catchment areas.

"The Torrens through Adelaide hardly ever flows, but it can flood.

"The Swan River in Western Australia.

"All our major cities have been built for historical reasons around rivers and on flood plains, so there are parts of our cities where we really do need to rethink whether those areas should be vacated and put over to other uses."

For Mr Opper, who has drawn up the plan for evacuating tens of thousands of houses in western Sydney, proper town planning is part of flood preparation.

"The balance between how much development we put in an area and the flood risk is a very complex one; between what you can achieve to create housing and places for people to live against the risk that you place when you live almost anywhere," he said.

Last year, the state and federal governments signed off on a national strategy for disaster resilience, which deals with floods.

It makes note that all levels of government must share the responsibility.

But some people believe that system does not work.

Dr Anthony Bergin, the director of research at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the Federal Government should be taking the lead.

"Now's the time for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role in natural disaster planning, particularly flood plain planning," he said.

"The new Federal Emergency Management Minister Robert McLelland needs to be arguing an economic case for disaster mitigation around micro-economic reform, because a dollar spent in mitigation - flood mitigation - does save somewhere between two and $10 in reduced disaster response and recovery costs.

"And this could be the opportunity for him to leave a legacy of national leadership around disaster management."

16.2.12

Floods inquiry secrecy order to protect key witnesses

Gailes Caravan Park adjacent to Brisbane Road
 Gailes and Woogaroo Creek in the aftermath
 of the Brisbane River Flood of 11 January 2011.

THE Queensland floods inquiry has drawn a veil of secrecy over its final legal submissions that will prevent any adverse references to key witnesses from being published unless commissioner Cate Holmes agrees with them in her final report.

Senior legal and government sources expressed astonishment at Justice Holmes's ruling as four flood engineers have already faced accusations from the inquiry's lead lawyer of concocting a "fiction" in an orchestrated cover-up of their alleged mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam before last year's Brisbane floods. 

The engineers have strongly denied the claims.

17.2.12

Wivenhoe Dam probe risks loss of public confidence

Goodna RSL Services Club at Woogaroo Street Goodna
 after the devastating Brisbane River Flood of 11 January 2011.

CATE Holmes and the $15 million floods inquiry she leads will only lose precious public confidence by resorting to secrecy over evidence that Queenslanders have a right to know.

The prohibition she has ordered prevents publication of the final written legal submissions of lawyers, including her lead lawyer, where they make adverse references to witnesses at the inquiry that she does not agree with.

17.2.12

16 February 2012

Queensland Floods Inquiry nearing end

Brisbane River Flood 11 January 2011
Civic Video Smiths Rd Goodna

The legal parties involved in the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry have until Thursday afternoon to make their final submissions on what happened during last year's flood disaster.

In the written submissions, the parties can object to the final submission made by the counsel assisting the inquiry or can raise an issue they believe should be considered in Commissioner Justice Cate Holmes' final report.

The report is due on March 16 and will make public the final submissions.

Any details in them that do not pertain to the findings will be edited out to protect anyone who may be falsely accused.

The inquiry was reconvened for an extra 10 days of hearings after media reports suggested it had missed key evidence about Wivenhoe Dam operators and when they moved to a water-release strategy designed to save Brisbane and Ipswich from floods.

Parliament was on Wednesday told Liberal National Party (LNP) Leader Campbell Newman had written to Justice Holmes, seeking advice on whether he would be implicated in the final report.

The LNP argues Premier Anna Bligh has suggested the report may be critical of the former Brisbane lord mayor - a claim she denies.

"I made no imputations and nor would I ever do so in relation to any commission of inquiry," she told parliament.

"None of us knew what the findings or conclusions of the commissioner were or would be.

"Any suggestion that I sought to pre-empt or impute anything to the commissioner or her inquiry is not borne out of any scrutiny of Hansard or the facts."

Justice Holmes' reply to Mr Newman - which said he would not be mentioned by name or position in her report - was tabled in parliament.

"Had any allegation been made against you, I would, of course, have given you the opportunity to respond," she wrote.

Ms Bligh ridiculed the LNP for one day questioning the commissioner's thoroughness and the next relying on her as an "authority for the character of Campbell Newman".

"Do you or do you not support a properly lawfully constituted commission of inquiry, led by one of Queensland's finest legal minds?" she said.

On Tuesday, Mr Seeney questioned in parliament how the commission missed key evidence and how the inquiry could "not be regarded as a total farce" after deputy commissioner Phil Cummins was asked to step aside amid conflict-of-interest allegations.

www.Brisbanetimes.com.au
15.2.12

15 February 2012

Queensland flood inquiry told of faulty Brisbane River model

Brisbane River Flood January 2011 at Parker Street
 Goodna facing south near the corner of Edna Street.

Just over a month before its report is due, an engineering company has told the Queensland Floods Commission the model of the Brisbane River is faulty. The model is used to predict river levels in differing water scenarios but the company says it's flawed.
Tom Nightingale

Source: PM 

Transcript:

MARK COLVIN: The report into Queensland's floods last year is a month and a day away. On Sunday a report was delivered to the Queensland Floods Commission that could have a major bearing on its contents.

Last week a key independent witness backed four dam operators, accused of not releasing enough water from a Brisbane dam ahead of the floods. But a local engineering company has come forward dismissing the modelling used to calculate flood levels.

Tom Nightingale reports.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Predicting the weather is a famously tough ask. Last January, people in Queensland had much more at stake than most, with heavy rain forecast and disastrous floods resulting. What four Brisbane water engineers could have reasonably predicted is a key to the Queensland Flood Commission.

STEFAN SZYLKARSKI: We have some concerns that the model that's actually used is really not able to accurately predict water levels.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Stefan Szylkarski is the managing director of the Brisbane branch of multinational company DHI. He's not commenting on what Wivenhoe Dam engineers could have predicted. But, speaking to PM from Singapore, he says a flawed model is being used to calculate hypothetical Brisbane River water levels.

STEFAN SZYLKARSKI: It could be higher and lower in different parts of the river. There could be many different outcomes but I think it's essential actually that a proper model is built of the entire river system.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: River modelling involves a virtual example of the river valley, and calculating water levels in different scenarios. Stefan Szylkarski is worried the inquiry will put too much stock in evidence given last week.

STEFAN SZYLKARSKI: Primarily, I think Mark's evidence - that's when really when I became concerned that maybe some of these levels weren't as accurate as they could have be or should have been - and I guess my concern is whether this goes any further.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: The Mark he's referring to is Mark Babister, an independent hydraulic engineer who appeared at the inquiry on Friday. His evidence used the river model to show water levels would have been lower with earlier water releases.

The Wivenhoe Dam engineers are accused of not releasing enough water in advance of the floods, causing the dam to spill too readily once heavy rains came. But Mark Babister defended the engineers, saying more releases were unreasonable, given weather forecasts.

(Excerpt from Mark Babister report)

MARK BABISTER (voiceover): To enact such strategies would have required foresight beyond that obtained from a measured consideration of weather forecasts.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Mark Babister also said more water releases would have made existing flooding worse

(Excerpt from Mark Babister report)

MARK BABISTER (voiceover): If we didn't have the rest of the rainfall that occurred, we would actually have made flooding significantly worse, worse than would have occurred probably without the dam at all.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Regardless of the commission outcome, Stefan Szylkarski says a new Brisbane River model is badly needed and won't come in time for either the report or the state election.

STEFAN SZYLKARSKI: It would actually require an additional survey of the Brisbane valley, so the whole project I think would be beyond six and up to 12 months.

MARK COLVIN: Stefan Szylkarski, speaking from Singapore to Tom Nightingale.

15.2.12

Premier Bligh denies smear campaign against LNP Leader Campbell Newman

Anna Bligh vs Campbell Newman

QUEENSLAND Premier Anna Bligh denies suggesting Liberal National Party (LNP) leader Campbell Newman would be implicated in the flood inquiry's final report. 

Ms Bligh announced on January 25 the election would be held on March 24, a week after the inquiry hands down its final report into the disaster.

In parliament today, LNP parliamentary leader Jeff Seeney accused Ms Bligh of resorting to "baseless smear'' and "innuendo'' to implicate Mr Newman, who was Brisbane lord mayor during the floods.

Ms Bligh denied indicating anyone in particular would be implicated in the final report.

"I made no imputations and nor would I ever do so in relation to any commission of inquiry,'' she told parliament.

"None of us knew what the findings or conclusions of the commissioner were or would be.

"Any suggestion that I sought to pre-empt or impute anything to the commissioner or her inquiry is not borne out of any scrutiny of hansard or the facts.''

Mr Seeney tabled a January 18 letter in parliament from Commissioner Cate Holmes, a reply to Mr Newman's letter of two days earlier, saying he would not be mentioned by name or position in her report.

"Had any allegation been made against you, I would, of course, have given you the opportunity to respond,'' she wrote.

Ms Bligh ridiculed the LNP for one day questioning the commissioner's thoroughness, and the next relying on her as an "authority for the character of Campbell Newman''.

"Do you or do you not support a properly lawfully constituted commission of inquiry, led by one of Queensland's finest legal minds?'' she said.

Yesterday, Mr Seeney questioned in parliament how the commission missed key evidence that was picked up by media and which led to an extra 10 days of hearings.

He also questioned how the inquiry could "not be regarded as a total farce'' after deputy commissioner and dam expert Phil Cummins was asked to step aside amid conflict-of-interest allegations.

Courier-Mail Online: www.couriermail.com.au
15.2.12

Flood Inquiry Shock: Last-minute challenge to key hydrology report

Brisbane River Flood 2011
Goodna Railway Station 12 January 2011
 looking east towards Gailes
A pivotal hydrology report backing the actions of the four Wivenhoe Dam engineers during last January’s deluge has been challenged in a submission sent to the flood inquiry last weekend.

Brisbane-based DHI Water and Environment Pty Ltd has delivered an 11th hour written submission challenging the report of Sydney-based hydrologist Mark Babister, and which suggests dam engineers were under-qualified.

DHI Australia developed the software model used for hydrology modelling put before the inquiry but now says the modelling was flawed.

“We do not believe the model as developed can be used in a reliable and transparent way to assess the impact of flooding in the Brisbane River,” the firm said in its submission.

“The model has been developed in a way that is not physically realistic and does not correctly represent the river hydraulics of the Brisbane River.”

The firm says the software is not at fault but the manner in which the Brisbane River was presented in the model was.

The submission also said that dam engineers in charge of the floods operations were required by the manual to have experience in hydrology , which it said was not enough.

“The manual should also require that engineers have suitable and extensive experience in hydraulics and applied river hydraulics.”

Radio talkshow host Gary Hardgrave has meanwhile accused two north Queensland councils of refusing to release a report of one of its emergency response workers compiled while working on the Lockyer Valley flood recovery.

The former federal minister said the Cassowary Coast Regional Council and Cairns City Council had not made reports into the Murphy’s Creek, Grantham and Lockyer Valley floods available to the flood inquiry.

15.2.12

14 February 2012

Bligh defends flood commission

Historic photo of the Royal Mail Hotel, 92 Brisbane
 Terrace Goodna surrounded by floodwaters, possibly
 taken during the 1955 Brisbane River flood.

Labor has tried to deflect parliamentary attacks on the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry by drawing attention to Liberal National Party leader Campbell Newman's role in last summer's disaster.

The LNP's parliamentary leader Jeff Seeney used parliament today to question how the commission missed key evidence that was picked up by media and which led to an extra 10 days of hearings.

He also questioned how the inquiry could "not be regarded as a total farce" after deputy commissioner and dam expert Phil Cummins was asked to step aside amid conflict-of-interest allegations.

The four engineers who operated Wivenhoe Dam during last year's floods have been accused of moving to a higher water release strategy later than stated, creating a fictitious final report for Seqwater and misleading the floods inquiry.

Some suggest that if more water had been released earlier, the dam would have coped better with the deluge that caused the Brisbane River to break its banks in the following days.

Premier Anna Bligh defended the inquiry.

When media reports drew the commission's attention to alleged discrepancies in the timing of water strategies at the dam, it had acted, she said.

"If they ... had failed to further examine the evidence, I think they could rightly be criticised," the premier told reporters in Brisbane.

"But they did what I think is the right thing.

"What we saw in parliament this morning was a disgraceful attempt by the Liberal and National parties to undermine the commission of inquiry."

In parliament, Labor went on the counter-attack over last January's flood disaster.

Ms Bligh said LNP parliamentary leader Jeff Seeney had issued a media statements in the past, calling on the government to hold more water in Wivenhoe Dam.

Furthermore, she accused the Brisbane City Council - then led by Mr Newman - of trying to release less water from the dam than engineers recommended on the Monday before the flood peaked in Brisbane.

Evidence submitted to the inquiry by dam engineer, John Tibaldi, stated that the Flood Operations Centre "attempted to accommodate" the council's concerns for five hours.

However, counter-evidence had also been heard that any decision on gate releases that day had been made prior to any conversation with the council.

Water Utilities Minister Stephen Robertson, who fronted the flood inquiry last week, was ejected from parliament for 10 minutes after becoming heated over the issue.

He angrily questioned the LNP across the chamber why Mr Newman would allow the council to advocate strongly for flood engineers to reduce the outflows from the dams.

Mr Newman said the allegations about council were untrue.

"This is the Labor Party seeking to throw the mud that I indicated yesterday would be coming my way," Mr Newman told reporters in Townsville.

Ms Bligh also said Commissioner Justice Cate Holmes was the only one responsible for the findings of the inquiry, and Mr Cummins' sidelining would not affect the outcome.

Talks over river flows

The inquiry has been looking at the timing of more rapid water releases from Wivenhoe in the lead up to Brisbane and Ipswich’s inundation in January 2010, and whether the state agency Seqwater submitted a misleading report on the activation of specific release strategies.

Seqwater engineer John Tibaldi last year told the inquiry about talks with Brisbane City Council on January 10, about three days before the eventual Brisbane River flood peak.

Mr Tibaldi said the official dam manual specified a maximum flow rate for non-damaging urban floods was 4000 cubic metres per second at Moggill, but the council called the flood operations centre at 12.45am on January 10 “and asserted the upper limit was in fact lower than that”.

In a statement to the inquiry, he said he participated in a conference call with the council about the issue at 9.38am that day.

“I did not think we could ignore it. For five hours after this call, we attempted to accommodate BCC’s concerns by maintaining the flow at Moggill at or below 3500m3/s, in accordance with Strategy W3 that requires protecting urban areas from inundation. However, by 2.30pm we decided that it was no longer possible to limit the flows to this level and we proceeded on that basis.”

In April last year, Campbell Newman’s successor as lord mayor, Graham Quirk, said the decision on how much water to release and when was “'totally” the role of Seqwater and argued it was “complete nonsense” to suggest the council instructed operators not to release water.

“Were there discussions with council officers? Yes,” Cr Quirk said at the time.

“There were absolutely no discussions with the lord mayor of the day, Campbell Newman, and no discussions with the CEO. They simply sought advice.”

Bligh Government staffers point out Mr Newman’s media adviser was one of the recipients of a January 10 email stating the council had persuaded Seqwater to review its release strategy in light of concerns over the impact of a 4000 cubic metre per second flood through Brisbane.

LNP staffers point to transcripts from Wivenhoe Dam engineer Terry Malone’s flood inquiry appearance in April 2011 in which he said the 9.38am conversation with a council staffer on that day was professional but the decision about looming water releases was in fact made prior to the discussion.

In the inquiry's August 1 interim report, Justice Holmes said she did not believe there was “anything untoward” in the way in which engineers made their “short-lived attempt” to keep flows to 3500 cubic metres a second, saying they were acting towards a goal of protecting urban areas from inundation.

14.2.12