 |
| WIVENHOE: This file image shows water from the massive dam being released through all five release gates on the spillway. |
ONE week out from the flood inquiry report that delayed state and council elections, The Courier-Mail has uncovered another serious flaw in the investigation tasked with finding out what went wrong in 2011.
A Courier-Mail analysis of data commissioned by the inquiry but never published shows thousands of homes would have been spared flooding in 2011 and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage avoided under alternative dam management strategies devised by the inquiry.
Its hydrology expert, Mark Babister, had to generate the data for a key report into these strategies but he was never asked to produce the information and was not questioned about it during hearings.Lawyers, with $1 million in funding from a company that profits from mass legal actions, will trawl flood-hit suburbs this weekend for victims willing to sign up to a no-win, no-fee class action against the State Government.
They are seeking to prove that the Government should have made bigger, earlier dam releases - exactly the scenarios that Mr Babister modelled.
Ultimately any payouts to victims will be funded by taxpayers.
The inquiry is due to deliver its final report on March 16.
But it is unlikely to include the crucial data on river flows obtained and analysed by The Courier-Mail.
The information can be used to show that more than 5000 properties could have been spared and at least $600 million worth of devastation avoided if larger, earlier releases had been made, based on 2007 property prices and development levels.
Flows are the best way to predict how much damage will be caused downstream.
But the inquiry focused instead on river levels.
Mr Babister told the inquiry that its alternative release scenarios could have reduced the level of the Brisbane River at Moggill by up to 1.3m and at the Port Office in Brisbane by up to 60cm, although he argued it would have been "unreasonable" for the dam engineers to have made such releases.
When asked under cross-examination whether he had looked at how many fewer houses would have been flooded under the different scenarios, he said: "No, we haven't, and that would be the sensible way to analyse the benefits of different strategies."
Mr Babister's flow calculations also undermine the basis for State Government claims about the mitigating effect of Wivenhoe Dam during last year.
He found that peak flow in January 2011 was 10,300 cubic metres a second (cumecs), more than 1000 cumecs higher than the official Seqwater figure. By comparison, during the 1974 flood engineers recorded a peak flow of 9500 cumecs at Centenary Bridge.
Even the hydrology expert said working out how many houses might have been saved would have been "sensible". But he wasn't asked.
Knowledge of flows is also crucial for flood mitigation planning, with only small flow increases causing Brisbane Valley damage to rise dramatically.
The Courier-Mail obtained Mr Babister's spreadsheets, which show river flows would have been significantly reduced under all the alternative scenarios.
The paper measured Mr Babister's results against damage curves developed for Brisbane, Ipswich and Somerset councils.
It shows under the most effective of the inquiry's alternative scenarios, more than 5000 properties would have been spared and about $600 million worth of damage avoided in the three council areas.
Even the least effective of the strategies would have avoided $250 million worth of damage in Brisbane.
Brisbane hydrologist Max Winders, who has repeatedly warned of shortcomings in the management of the dam, said flood mitigation using dams was "all about flows".
"If you want to reduce levels, you dredge, or you build levees," he said.
Mr Winders, who has seen The Courier-Mail's analysis, said it gave only a very low estimate of how much money could have been saved in 2011.
"Six hundred million is just what the commission thought they could save," he said.
"(The dam operator) could have saved a lot more than that.
"It's too much money to be sneezed at."
The only way properly to explore the issues would be to hold a completely new inquiry, Mr Winders said.
More than 1000 flood victims have signed up to a planned class-action lawsuit against the State Government, claiming dam operators failed in their duty of care.
Its hydrology expert, Mark Babister, had to generate the data for a key report into these strategies but he was never asked to produce the information and was not questioned about it during hearings.Lawyers, with $1 million in funding from a company that profits from mass legal actions, will trawl flood-hit suburbs this weekend for victims willing to sign up to a no-win, no-fee class action against the State Government.
They are seeking to prove that the Government should have made bigger, earlier dam releases - exactly the scenarios that Mr Babister modelled.
Ultimately any payouts to victims will be funded by taxpayers.
The inquiry is due to deliver its final report on March 16.
But it is unlikely to include the crucial data on river flows obtained and analysed by The Courier-Mail.
The information can be used to show that more than 5000 properties could have been spared and at least $600 million worth of devastation avoided if larger, earlier releases had been made, based on 2007 property prices and development levels.
Flows are the best way to predict how much damage will be caused downstream.
But the inquiry focused instead on river levels.
Mr Babister told the inquiry that its alternative release scenarios could have reduced the level of the Brisbane River at Moggill by up to 1.3m and at the Port Office in Brisbane by up to 60cm, although he argued it would have been "unreasonable" for the dam engineers to have made such releases.
When asked under cross-examination whether he had looked at how many fewer houses would have been flooded under the different scenarios, he said: "No, we haven't, and that would be the sensible way to analyse the benefits of different strategies."
Mr Babister's flow calculations also undermine the basis for State Government claims about the mitigating effect of Wivenhoe Dam during last year.
He found that peak flow in January 2011 was 10,300 cubic metres a second (cumecs), more than 1000 cumecs higher than the official Seqwater figure. By comparison, during the 1974 flood engineers recorded a peak flow of 9500 cumecs at Centenary Bridge.
Even the hydrology expert said working out how many houses might have been saved would have been "sensible". But he wasn't asked.
Knowledge of flows is also crucial for flood mitigation planning, with only small flow increases causing Brisbane Valley damage to rise dramatically.
The Courier-Mail obtained Mr Babister's spreadsheets, which show river flows would have been significantly reduced under all the alternative scenarios.
The paper measured Mr Babister's results against damage curves developed for Brisbane, Ipswich and Somerset councils.
It shows under the most effective of the inquiry's alternative scenarios, more than 5000 properties would have been spared and about $600 million worth of damage avoided in the three council areas.
Even the least effective of the strategies would have avoided $250 million worth of damage in Brisbane.
Brisbane hydrologist Max Winders, who has repeatedly warned of shortcomings in the management of the dam, said flood mitigation using dams was "all about flows".
"If you want to reduce levels, you dredge, or you build levees," he said.
Mr Winders, who has seen The Courier-Mail's analysis, said it gave only a very low estimate of how much money could have been saved in 2011.
"Six hundred million is just what the commission thought they could save," he said.
"(The dam operator) could have saved a lot more than that.
"It's too much money to be sneezed at."
The only way properly to explore the issues would be to hold a completely new inquiry, Mr Winders said.
More than 1000 flood victims have signed up to a planned class-action lawsuit against the State Government, claiming dam operators failed in their duty of care.
9.3.12
