 |
| John Craigie in front of his house at Pine Mountain which was flooded in the January, 2011 Brisbane Floods. |
JOHN Craigie knows more than most about the devastating Brisbane River floods of January last year.
Much of his spare time is still spent examining data and evidence about the contribution of releases from the nearby Wivenhoe Dam to the floodwater that raced past his riverfront property at Pine Mountain, on Brisbane's western outskirts.
The flooding inundated his land, the site of his exotic plant nursery business. Filthy water poured into his house, forcing his family to move out and live in a caravan for six months until the completion of repairs.
The insurers and their assessors who repeatedly visited the property accepted the Craigie home had flooded. The damages bill so far runs to about $200,000, with significant work still to be done.
But now Mr Craigie and an unknown number of flooded residents are discovering that bureaucrats have concluded something completely bizarre: that they were not actually flooded.
The official "evidence" that Mr Craigie's house remained high and dry is the "property flood report" from the Ipswich City Council, which includes a map of his property and precise numbers declaring the high-water mark was comfortably below his floor.
It is the same floor that is to be replaced, along with the walls, due to structural damage from the floodwater that was waist-high in every room in the house.
Mr Craigie suspects the wildly optimistic view of the council and its hydrologists influenced the Queensland government's decision to increase the rateable value of his property by 31 per cent.
"I suppose I should welcome it as something that is great for us and everyone else who is being told they were not actually flooded, because someone is going to rely on these official reports one day when the properties are sold," he said yesterday.
"But it is a major worry that after all this time and all the lessons that were supposed to have been learnt about the need for accurate information on flooding, they cannot get the basics right.
"These reports are based on a flood model that is clearly wrong. It means that we cannot have confidence in the accuracy of any of it. If my report is so wrong, how many others are too? My report is wrong by 2m. It makes a big difference as I had less than 1m of water in my house."
According to the report, the flood only came up one gully slightly and never breached the river bank in front of the house.
According to the council, the flood line for Mr Craigie's property "was defined using various resources, including ground truthing and aerial imagery".
The council said it "makes no warranty or representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of this major flood information".
It also said that it would not be liable for any loss arising as a result of the use of the information in the flood report.
The final report of the Floods Commission of Inquiry found that flood-mapping in Queensland was inadequate. It said: "To be properly informed, individuals dealing with property should be aware of the flood risk at the property and any flood-related constraints of development."
Lawyers for flood victims are preparing for what they have described as Australia's biggest class action as a result of the commission's finding that the dam's engineers breached the operating manual and engaged in a cover-up of their actions during the flood.
Mr Craigie helped uncover the truth after discovering crucial evidence that had been overlooked by the $15 million-plus inquiry.
22.5.12
