Wivenhoe Dam report debacle - US Army Engineers off the track

The US Army engineers' report differs
from the findings of the commission.

IT should be no easy feat to turn the serious, damning, evidence-based findings of a $15 million royal commission-style inquiry -- one that nailed an egregious cover-up - into a glowing endorsement barely six months later.

But that is precisely what a group of US engineers, asked to review the performance of another group of engineers - those in control of Wivenhoe Dam's massive releases of water in January last year, water that became most of the Brisbane River flood - have managed to achieve.

Yesterday, Premier Campbell Newman, whose government faces multi-billion-dollar class actions over floods that deluged thousands of homes and businesses, authorised the release of a new report that his bureaucrats have been holding in its draft form for the past fortnight.

The report comes from a team of officials from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Department of Interior. It is being warmly welcomed by the Newman government.

For this report, the US experts were asked by the Queensland government to review an earlier, highly controversial Wivenhoe report produced last year by the dam engineers to explain how they managed the dam and the floods.

The Wivenhoe report became spectacularly controversial for this remarkable reason: a Supreme Court judge would subsequently find in March this year that it was a "false" presentation of the dam engineers' performance in the flood. The Wivenhoe report was a "facade of precision".

It is instructive to compare and contrast some of the findings.

Before returning to her role on the Supreme Court of Appeal, Catherine Holmes, as commissioner of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, spent 12 months scrutinising the Wivenhoe engineers and their actions. In her final report in March, on page 508, she says: "There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual, or the maintenance of (dam operator) SEQWater's immunity under the (relevant legislation)."

Yesterday, the US engineers said this about the same document, following a behind-the-scenes review lasting two months: "The flood engineers should be commended for producing this extensive, well organised and very readable document in six weeks, while the region was recovering from the flood event."

The US engineers omitted the official adverse findings of the inquiry, airbrushed out of existence despite being published in more than 100 pages of the final report.

When the US engineers received the Newman government's precise terms of reference for their review, they expressly excluded the findings of Queensland's $15 million public inquiry.

The contradictions in these documents are plentiful and they could not be more stark. They make a mockery of the taxpayer-funded processes and fuel the concerns of flood victims and their lawyers. With potentially billions of dollars at stake, only a prolonged court case before a senior judge may resolve the issues.

Yesterday's report is but the latest instalment in the continuing, complex and emotionally charged saga over Wivenhoe Dam - and its contribution to the flooding of greater Brisbane when Anna Bligh was still premier, Newman was lord mayor, and complicated operating strategies for the most important and dangerous infrastructure in the state suddenly became crucially important.

Because of its tone and findings, the latest report is good for Newman as he tries to protect Queensland's debt-ridden balance sheet from the compensation claims being prepared by class-action specialists Maurice Blackburn lawyers on behalf of several thousand people.

The US report states that "based on the contemporaneous information, the flood operation engineers made correct release strategy decisions"; and that "as with any (dam) operation, there were instances where an alternative operation could have been used, however, without the benefit of perfect foresight, there still would have been a risk that the outcome could have been worse as well as better"; and "there were no instances identified which violated the intent of the flood operations' primary objectives".

The report's conclusions should be embraced by the dam's government-owned operator SEQWater and the three engineers - Rob Ayre, John Tibaldi and Terry Malone - who were found by the Holmes inquiry to have engaged in a deliberate and dishonest cover-up of the truth. The engineers repeatedly and strenuously deny wrongdoing.

In their section on acknowledgments, the US engineers express thanks to SEQWater and the flood engineers for hosting them on site visits and to meetings, and "answering our detailed questions on modelling, forecasts, gauging, processes etc".

Six months ago, the same engineers were accused by the inquiry of lying. Their referral to the Crime and Misconduct Commission for consideration of perjury-related offences led to retired judge John Jerrard recommending last month that a criminal prosecution would be oppressive.

But for flood victims such as Tegwen Howell, one of many who lost the family home and hold out hope of being compensated for their losses, a life without a home is oppressive. The report yesterday is another bitter pill. "The bureaucrats may think everything is back to normal, but as someone walking the walk, I can tell them that it is far from normal," Howell tells The Australian.

"The social and economic impact of the floods will last a very long time. We find ourselves 20 months post-flood, still without our own home, the building still hasn't started as we still don't have a builder and we are fast running out of time.

"As for the social impact, a neighbour recently told me my children should just move on and have no right to be upset about the fact that they still don't have a home. With views like that, how are we supposed to feel comfortable in our own neighbourhood?"

Context and a chronology of key events is important in the fiasco over the management of a dam that was storing too much water at the onset of a particularly intense La Nina-driven wet season. It was a wet season that weather forecasters had been increasingly warning would be likely to produce serious flooding. When the rain came on top of a dam above full supply level, the dam's engineers had to release massive volumes quickly to protect Wivenhoe's structural integrity.

Nine months ago, as a direct result of a series of stories in The Australian highlighting the evidence of a cover-up that had been overlooked by the floods inquiry, Holmes decided to restart public hearings and resume investigations. An inquiry that had effectively completed its year-long assignment, save for the release of a final report yet to be printed, went back to work. Flood victims saw a glimmer of hope that their concerns of a man-made disaster, or at least a disaster that could have been minimised with a more prudent dam operation, were justified.

The decision to restart public hearings would have immense fallout, politically and economically. State and local government elections were delayed to give the inquiry time to test the new revelations and do its job properly, albeit late in the piece, while flood victims, insurers and their lawyers weighed the financial implications of adverse findings.

One of the most important pieces of evidence for the inquiry and its investigating teams to test for accuracy and truthfulness was the official document that the Wivenhoe Dam engineers had produced in the immediate aftermath of the flood.

Known as the March 2011 Flood Report, or Wivenhoe report, this document - heavily relied on by Bligh and her cabinet, the media, the wider public and the floods inquiry - presented an account of how the dam was operated at crucial stages during the disaster in January last year.

But the comprehensive report that was produced by the dam's engineers, adopted by their managers at SEQWater, and accepted as fact by the Queensland government, had a fundamental flaw - it was found to be false in its most critical parts because it presented a bogus explanation of how the engineers had performed at key stages of the flood. In this way, it misled everyone into believing, wrongly, that the dam had been operated in accordance with its strict operating manual.

Holmes, in her findings, highlighted "after-the-fact rationalisation" by the engineers. She ruled that they presented a "facade of precision".

In reconstructing their possible motives for producing the false flood report, Holmes found that "the evidence does not suggest that (the engineers) were especially confident" about how they had performed in the flood event. They feared their performance was deficient.

On the question of collusion, Holmes ruled "the evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that, in addition to their own knowledge about the misleading nature of the March flood event report, Mr Tibaldi and Mr Ayre were each aware of the other's state of mind in this regard".

The problem for the Newman government as it contemplates the potential financial hit is that those findings stand. Nothing has altered them. They were not appealed or challenged by the Bligh government, the incoming Newman government or the engineers themselves. No amount of woolly, lazy analysis by gullible sections of the media alter these findings.

The findings that the engineers breached the manual during the flood by failing to select the correct operating strategy, and by failing to take into account forecast rainfall, are well understood by the legal teams laying the groundwork for the compensation cases.

The consequences of the breaches in terms of the impact of the flood remain uncertain. Some experts are adamant there would have been a significant reduction in the flood height; others are equally adamant there would have been little difference.

Holmes concluded in her final report: "The model results are purely illustrative. They do not demonstrate the outcomes for the infinite range of possibilities that exist. Ascertaining the practical result of acting more quickly also

is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, but again, the possibility exists of at least some improvement in the flooding outcomes for Brisbane and Ipswich."

It may be instructive that the US engineers did not do any modelling or, as they called it, "post-flood sensitivity evaluation of the actual releases made during the event" to inform their report. They attributed their decision not to do the modelling to the terms of reference received from the Queensland government. In the absence of modelling, it is unsurprising the report from the US engineers states: "There is no indication that had the flood engineers taken a different path, materially different outcomes would have resulted."

As Queensland has seen since January last year, the experts on floods will come and go. Millions of dollars more will be spent before the cases of flood victims are concluded. And the performance of Wivenhoe Dam and its engineers will be highly controversial for a long time to come.

- Hedley Thomas

www.TheAustralian.com.au

25.9.12

 

Wivenhoe flood stance creates problems for Campbell Newman

Campbell Newman, then lord mayor of Brisbane,
during the clean-up after last year's floods.

CAMPBELL Newman looked down the barrel of a television camera in early June. In one crisp sentence the Queensland Premier laid the groundwork for a revision of official facts and findings on which the ink had barely dried. More important, they are facts and findings on which the futures of many people depend.

Newman's statement flagged a very different interpretation of some of the vitally important circumstances surrounding one of Australia's worst disasters: - the devastating flooding of Brisbane and surrounding suburbs in January last year. It is a gambit striking for its audacity.

For Newman personally, it is also shaping as a serious political mistake. The flood occurred on the watch of his predecessor, Anna Bligh. Her tired and inept Labor administration shared responsibility and blame.

But as a result of Newman's bold public position since the March state election, he now owns the problem. He is accountable as his government seeks to minimise legal and financial exposure to flood victims in what is looming as the country's largest class action. How severely will a premier, if seen to be spinning findings and potentially compromising a fair go for victims who lost everything, be punished in the court of public opinion, and the civil court, when these matters are litigated?

Newman said in June: "There was a royal commission which had no finding, no adverse finding, against the SEQWater organisation, the operation of the dam, and so now people believe that they have a (legal) case. Well, it is a legal matter and that's all I'm going to say about it."

To flood victims, engineers, lawyers, journalists and anyone even vaguely familiar with the unambiguous findings just three months earlier of the $15 million royal commission-style public inquiry (which had spent a year examining Queensland's Wivenhoe Dam and its operator, SEQWater), Newman's statement could not be more patently absurd.

When Inquirer put this to Newman in a series of formal questions yesterday, he would not discuss the matter. In a brief written reply he neither affirmed nor withdrew his June statement, and declined to be interviewed. When his senior media adviser Lee Anderson was subsequently asked if Newman still stood by his claim that there was "no adverse finding" by the inquiry, he replied, "Yes, absolutely." Anderson later added that Newman had intended to convey that there was no finding of "negligence" (which is a legal construct).

Six days ago, the release by the Newman government of a Wivenhoe Dam desktop review - commissioned from engineers in the US who were given six weeks for the task - was marketed as a thumbs-up on the dam's operation. The underlying terms of reference stipulated by Queensland government lawyers a month after Newman's statement about "no adverse finding" expose the low value of the US engineers' review.

Contrary to the recommendation in the final report of the year-long floods inquiry, the terms of reference are explicit in restricting the US engineers from factoring in the serious adverse findings and evidence about the cover-up that the Wivenhoe Dam engineers were found to have concocted.

When Inquirer raised this with Newman's office yesterday, his spokesman said: "He stands by the way in which the independent review of SEQWater's report was undertaken. He has no further comment."

Newman has long had a keen professional interest in flood risks in Australia's third largest city. In the weeks before Brisbane was submerged, leading to a national levy for all taxpayers, Newman as lord mayor had taken the rare step of issuing public warnings (unheeded by SEQWater and the Bligh government) that the intense La Nina-driven wet season of late 2010 presaged a repeat of the 1974 flood disaster.

The Bureau of Meteorology's forecasters, similarly concerned, gave emergency briefings to Bligh's cabinet in the days before last year's flood. Those warnings were to no avail - the Wivenhoe Dam was maintained at its full supply level, and higher, even as flooding rain deluged an already saturated catchment.

As a former engineer who monitored the subsequent public inquiry's year of evidence, and particularly its scrutiny of dam management, Newman is in a better position than most to appreciate the gravity of the findings in the final report of Supreme Court judge Catherine Holmes in March this year. Those findings weighed the complex evidence about huge flood-causing releases of water from a dam. The findings distilled this into tangible information for the public, bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, journalists and the thousands of flood victims.

But something else is going on now. And senior Newman government officials have confirmed to Inquirer that the post-flood strategy is being tightly controlled at the highest levels by the lawyers, as they and Newman fear a financial king-hit from the unchallenged findings of Holmes.

The $15m inquiry headed by Holmes found that the operator of the Wivenhoe Dam breached the operating manual in relation to water releases at a crucial stage of the flood; that three of the four engineers covered this up; and that there could have been "at least some improvement in the flooding outcome for Brisbane and Ipswich" if the engineers had responded with the correct strategy in the manual.

The engineers, who have strenuously and repeatedly denied wrongdoing, almost achieved the cover-up by way of their misleading post-flood 1000-plus page official report of their actions, known as the March flood event report.

When Holmes and her inquiry examined it earlier this year, the evidence showed how three of those engineers in charge of "the most valuable and dangerous piece of infrastructure in Queensland" retrospectively reconstructed a false account of when the key water-release strategies were adopted. This was the most critical part of their false account of their conduct in the March flood event report.

The questions over what the lawyers call "causation" - and of how the mismanagement and breaches of the manual contributed to the scale of the flood - remain unanswered. But it was obvious there would be no point in trying to cover up a perfect performance. It follows that the engineers could have been motivated to mislead after the event because they were concerned that the breaches of the manual may have had a role in significantly compromising the dam's capacity to manage the flood.

As Holmes stated in her final report: "The commission has drawn its conclusions from the contemporaneous documentary evidence, the engineers' evidence given orally and by way of statement, and the attempts subsequent to the (flood) event to document strategy choices. That evidence, taken as a whole, points overwhelmingly to the findings which follow."

The inquiry found: "There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual, or the maintenance of SEQWater's immunity (from legal action and huge payouts) under the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act.

"Mr (Rob) Ayre, Mr (Terry) Malone and Mr (John) Tibaldi each had a level of understanding that the report was misleading. Each of them, in his own way, contributed to acceptance of the report. The evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that in addition to their own knowledge about the misleading nature of the March flood event report, Mr Tibaldi and Mr Ayre were each aware of the other's state of mind in this regard."

The inquiry found that the engineers exhibited a "striking unanimous and collective collapse of memory" about other evidence and documents at odds with their version of their conduct.

"All of them supported the accuracy of the flood event report and provided an account of what they had done in the event, consistent with the (March flood event) report. Had any of them mentioned that any of those (other documents) or suggested in any way, at any time, that there was an alternative history of strategy selection, the misleading nature of that report might have been exposed."

The inquiry found that the engineers were aware that the "particular aspect of compliance with the manual was something which would, after this event, be examined as never before. And they knew that in this regard their efforts were deficient. There was, in this circumstance, an obvious motive to present something which conveyed a document which was accurate and precise.

"The evidence is such as to warrant a recommendation that the appropriate law enforcement agency investigate the conduct of Mr Malone, Mr Tibaldi and Mr Ayre."

Aside from the cover-up - which the Crime and Misconduct Commission determined last month would be oppressive to criminally prosecute - the inquiry's findings that "Wivenhoe Dam was operated in breach of the manual from 8am on 8 January 2011" for at least 34 critical hours is the most serious.

From the perspective of the damage that was caused to properties from the dam's releases of water, this breach - and another breach in which the engineers did not take into account forecast rainfall - will make the legal action case being run for flood victims by Damian Scattini, of Maurice Blackburn lawyers.

Scattini, who has been spending much of his time in the US taking expert advice from engineers agog at the detrimental role of the dam in a flood that could have been largely avoided, describes the conduct of Newman and his government now as a PR exercise.

"The facts are straightforward and do not change," he says. "They breached the manual and they were caught out, and we are moving full-steam ahead."

 

- HEDLEY THOMAS, NATIONAL CHIEF CORRESPONDENT

www.TheAustralian.com.au

29.9.12

Premier Newman's Wivenhoe Dam probe flouted key call of Justice Cate Holmes

 THE Newman government flouted a key recommendation of the $15 million floods commission of inquiry by insisting on restrictions that led to a distorted review of the operation of Queensland's Wivenhoe Dam, The Australian can reveal.

As a result of this high-level decision in Brisbane, American engineers were engaged to perform a costly six-week review based on a misleading premise, after the floods inquiry's serious adverse findings in March.

The US Army Corps of Engineers and engineers from a US government department were told in their terms of reference that the year-long public floods inquiry was "not within the scope of the review".

The floods inquiry head, Queensland Supreme Court Justice Catherine Holmes, had already found the flood engineers did not properly take into account forecast rainfall to determine the appropriate release strategy from the dam, did not use the correct water-release strategy and deliberately covered up their breaches of the dam's operating manual.

The flood engineers, who have repeatedly and strenuously denied wrongdoing, were referred to the Crime and Misconduct Commission in March. It determined last month there should be no criminal prosecution, which would have been "oppressive".

Most of the adverse findings made by the floods inquiry revolve around the Wivenhoe engineers' 1000-plus-pages flood event report, their official account of what they did in the flood. The floods inquiry's findings described it as a "false report" and a "facade of precision" that was designed to mislead the public and the inquiry into believing that the dam was managed correctly.

Justice Holmes stated in the final report that a subsequent review of this controversial false report and how the dam was operated "must involve an examination of how the flood engineers exercised their powers; and a failure to appreciate what those powers were because of a failure to recognise the appropriate strategy must be relevant in that regard".

But two months ago the terms of reference for the review by US engineers specifically prevented this requirement. This came a month after Premier Campbell Newman wrongly claimed the floods inquiry had made "no adverse finding" about the operation of the dam.

The US engineers who conducted the six-week review of documents praised the false flood report and the operation of the Wivenhoe Dam, as described by the dam engineers in their controversial report, which the floods inquiry had been told was "fiction".

Senior government insiders confirmed to The Weekend Australian yesterday that ministers and bureaucrats were adhering to strict legal advice because of the risk of a massive damages payout due to the mismanagement of the dam, following the inundation of thousands of homes.

Asked why the floods inquiry's recommendation was not followed, a government spokesman said yesterday: "The Premier stands by the way in which the independent review of SEQWater's report was undertaken. The Premier now wants the legal process surrounding issues of liability to progress unhindered."

Maurice Blackburn senior lawyer Damian Scattini said the Newman government was embarking on a deliberately misleading campaign in an attempt to limit its potential multi-billion-dollar legal liability to flood victims.

 

- HEDLEY THOMAS, NATIONAL CHIEF CORRESPONDENT

www.TheAustralian.com.au

29.9.12

Engineers "Cleared" But Wivenhoe Dam Saga Continues




A massive release from Wivenhoe Dam

Although this week’s release of the US Army Corps review of the SeqWater Flood report brings to an end the formal review of matters surrounding the 2011 Queensland Floods, the saga appears set to continue with a massive lawsuit possibly in the works.

The report does bring relief, though, to the engineers accused of not doing all they could to prevent the disaste, and to Engineers Australia Queensland president Steven Goh, who has been steadfast in supporting them.

“The events surrounding the floods have been thoroughly examined by the Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry,” Goh says. “They found that the engineers involved in the operation of Wivenhoe Dam achieved as close to the best possible outcome as could be expected.”

Goh added that the Crime and Misconduct Commission conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of the three engineers involved and cleared them of any wrongdoing.

“Over the last 18 months, the actions of the Wivenhoe Dam engineers have been placed under the microscope,” he says. “After this exhaustive review process, it is clear that the professional engineers involved performed their role admirably under trying circumstances.”

The report did contain some damning information, noting that the dam is far more dangerous than previously believed. It also further reinforced previous criticism of the dam’s manual, warning that the collapse of dam walls at either Wivenhoe or Somerset would lead to a large death toll in the southeast.

Despite the engineers being cleared, personal injury law firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers said the report was immaterial to the flood victims’ compensation case. That case implies the dam was overburdened before operators went into a panic and drained it. The number of people with a “complaint” was now approaching 5,000, the law firm said, adding that they had international experts preparing their own reports on the flood event.

Former Labour Premier Anna Bligh had indicated the government and dam operator Seqwater would potentially negotiate some compensation claims but new Premier Campbell Newman was less clear on his government’s position.

“People who have a complaint, they will have to look at these things and make a judgment,” he said.

“It is a free country.”

Newman also ruled out reducing the dam to 75 per cent capacity to increase the flood compartment after weather forecasts downgraded fears of a La Nina, which brought torrential rain in recent years, saying only an average rainy season was expected.

 

www.designbuildsource.com.au

 

COMMENT: Engineers Australia Queensland president Steven Goh would be well-advised to await the outcome of any class action in the Queensland Surpreme Court as his robust defence this week of his engineer "brothers" may ultimately prove to have been a trifle premature. - Greater Goodna Flood Group

 

27.9.12

Whitewash by US Army Corps of Engineers compounds Wivenhoe Dam debacle

QUEENSLANDERS who remember the 1974 floods that claimed 14 lives in the state's southeast understand a vital point that has eluded many of the naive journalists who have written about the 2011 floods and their aftermath. That is, Wivenhoe Dam was built for flood mitigation as well as to supply drinking water to a growing region.

The fact that Wivenhoe Dam was operated in breach of its manual in the days before last year's floods and that three of the dam engineers responsible produced a false document to cover their tracks was established by the year-long royal commission-style inquiry. As Supreme Court judge Catherine Holmes said in her final report in March: "There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual or the maintenance of SEQWater's immunity (from potentially massive damages claims)." The engineers were referred to the state's Crime and Misconduct Commission, which found no evidence of criminal offences or official misconduct.

Against that background, this week's report by US army engineers, which The Australian Financial Review and Brisbane's The Courier-Mail claimed "backed" and "cleared" the SEQWater flood engineers, should be viewed with extreme scepticism. Based as it was on the engineers' false report, it was unlikely to be anything other than favourable to them -- especially as Campbell Newman's government briefed the US team to exclude consideration of Justice Holmes's findings about the false flood report.

No doubt the cash-strapped Queensland government hopes the US report will help it save on compensation payouts to thousands who could sue for damages for their loss of property and livelihoods as a result of the floods. This is no excuse, however, for Mr Newman to play down the findings of such a significant inquiry. At this stage, he is getting away with it because too many journalists and editors are content with once-over-lightly coverage of a complex issue deserving of the most thorough and sophisticated reporting. As well as disclosing how much money was wasted on the US report, Mr Newman must be pressed to explain why the US team was hamstrung by such narrow and absurd terms of reference. The resulting whitewash, lauded as an "independent review" by the AFR, has as little credibility as a hypothetical review by an overseas government exonerating corrupt former Queensland police commissioner Terry Lewis based on his testimony to the Fitzgerald Inquiry alone, while ignoring its findings that he was responsible for serious corruption. Unfortunately for the public, the business tabloid and other media have allowed their coverage to be skewed by their frustration that, unlike others who accepted the official line, The Australian's Hedley Thomas raised pertinent questions about releases from the dam in the lead-up to the floods, when Wivenhoe was allowed to soar from 106 per cent on Friday, January 7, to 148 per cent on Saturday, January 8, to peak at 191 per cent on Tuesday night, January 11.

Combing through official documents, Thomas later uncovered contradictions between official records and what the engineers told the inquiry. As a result of his reports, Justice Holmes re-opened hearings at the inquiry, later concluding that the Wivenhoe Dam had been mismanaged -- a finding that was not subsequently appealed or challenged by the engineers or government, and that is no way diminished by the US report. News that Thomas had been named the 2012 Queensland Journalist of the Year for his investigation was reported by the AFR under the fatuous headline "Soggy ending" -- which sums up much of the coverage of the issue.

Another factor that has received scant attention is the false alarmism, rife for years before the rain-soaked summer of 2010-11, that water shortages had become a permanent part of Australian life. At least in part, authorities were reluctant to release water from the dams after years of severe water restrictions and warnings from Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery, among others, who predicted in 2007 that Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would run out of water and warned Australians to "stop worrying about 'the drought' -- which is transient -- and start talking about the new climate". Such matters are again pertinent, with Brisbane's dams close to 100 per cent as the wet season approaches. The aftermath of the floods, and the importance of avoiding a repeat, highlights the importance of public interest reporting.

 

www.TheAustralian.com.au

 

COMMENT: The integrity and professionalism of the US Army Corps of Engineers is under serious question as as result of their so-called "independent" report into the 2011 Brisbane River flood. The US Army Corps was specifically prevented by its terms of reference specified by the Queensland Government from considering the report and findings of the Floods Commission of Inquiry that the engineers involved had created and provided a false flood report.  Given that the US Army Corps was so hog-tied in trying to unravel the truth of the entire event, resulting in their grossly-lopsided report, they should have declined the brief and said to the Queensland Government they would not be party to such an elaborate cover-up which prevented them from going to the very core of the issue.  The US Army Corps of Engineers has shown itself to be less than professional over their conduct in this matter and have forever blemished their record of professionalism and integrity. - Greater Goodna Flood Group

26.9.12

"Independent" Wivenhoe Dam flood report will count for nothing

By Chris Merritt
Legal Affairs - The Australian

FOR those people whose homes were damaged in last year's Brisbane flood, this week's "independent report" on the operation of Wivenhoe Dam will soon be seen for what it is: a distraction that counts for nothing.

Within weeks, the findings of the US military engineers will be consigned to history.

Their report exonerating the operators of the dam is based on a report by the operators of the dam.

It will soon be swept aside when law firm Maurice Blackburn unveils what could be the first real step towards compensating at least some of last year's flood victims.

For almost a year, litigation funder IMF has been bankrolling a team of lawyers from Maurice Blackburn who are investigating whether to launch what could be a massive class action.

Their goal has been to determine whether they can prove in court that someone was responsible for operating the dam in a way that caused damage - and then to extract compensation.

IMF's John Walker and Maurice Blackburn's Damian Scattini were in the US this week consulting experts who might play a critical role in any future legal action.

And the odds on some form of legal action are shortening.

Scattini says Maurice Blackburn will make an announcement "within weeks". He also says "we are now more confident than we have ever been".

"From the night I went with my wife to rescue my mother-in-law from her house at Rocklea, I have never been so confident in the outcome of this proceeding," Scattini says.

"Within the next few weeks we will make a public announcement."

Scattini's team has been working on this project for almost a year. Every day costs money. So the mere fact Walker has not yet pulled the plug indicates how things are going.

From the state government's point of view, this increases the chance of some sort of payout down the track.

But, in one sense, a court case could provide the government with political cover when it comes time to write cheques.

If liability is determined independently, compensation would be a legal obligation, not charity.

At last count, IMF had signed up about 4500 flood victims who have agreed to pay the company between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of any damages award or financial settlement. In March they had just 2000.

There is no provision for class actions under Queensland state law, but Scattini says there are other ways of bringing this matter to court.

www.TheAustralian.com.au

COMMENT: There has been an enormous amount of spurious media comment this week that the Wivenhoe Dam engineers have been exonerated in their role in the days leading up to - and during - the Brisbane River flood of January 2011.  This article in The Australian puts all of this hogwash into perspective and brings a little reality back to the situation.  It behoves the Premier Campbell Newman and the rest of his Cabinet to put all of this misguided claptrap behind them and face up to the reality of the situation which can be crystallised into one simple issue: Was the 2011 flood event negligently managed by Seqwater, resulting in unnecessary flooding of Ipswich and Brisbane?

If the Supreme Court ultimately finds against Seqwater, all of the public posturing this week by Seqwater CEO Peter Borrows  is likely to lead to calls for him to fall on his sword. One way or the other, the flood victims of southeast Queensland will eventually be forced to move on from the dark days of 11 and 12 January 2011.  If it's with a billion dollar court-enforced payout, Peter Borrow's continuing role as the head of Seqwater would become untenable. After all, the buck would have to stop somewhere and you could bet London to a brick on, that Premier Newman would make sure it's not with him! - Greater Goodna Flood Group

 

28.9.12

Seqwater ventures into murky political and legal waters

Peter Borrows CEO of Seqwater which has
now entered a political and legal storm
with its ill-timed media statement.

 

Seqwater has been at the centre of a political and legal storm since the great Brisbane River flood of January 2011 which destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Ipswich and Brisbane.

 

The Floods Commission of Inquiry under the brilliant stewardship of Supreme Court Judge Cate Holmes reported on 16 March 2012:

 

 

"There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual, of the maintenance of Seqwater's immunity (from damages payouts).

 

"It follows that Wivenhoe Dam was operated in breach of the manual from 8am on 8 January 2011 until the evening of 9 January 2011."

 

 

This is a clear, unequivocal finding by the Commission which has not been overturned by either the subsequent CMC investigation or the hog-tied findings of the US Army Corps of Engineers.

 

To add insult to the injury of thousands of flood victims, Seqwater issued its own ill-timed media release on 26 September 2012 which read in part:

 

 

"Seqwater has always taken the view that the operation of Wivenhoe Dam during the January 2011 flood event and the release strategies adopted by its engineers significantly mitigated the flood. The independent expert retained by the Commission, concluded that, in light of the information available at the time and allowing for the limits of the strategies in the Wivenhoe manual, the flood engineers achieved close to the best possible flood mitigation result for the January event.

Furthermore, four other highly respected independent experts who appeared at the Commission support Seqwater's view that releases actually made by the flood engineers were appropriate and reasonable.

Seqwater is confident that its position will be justified if the matter ever comes before a court."

  

With a class action pending against the Queensland Government and Seqwater, this is an extraordinary leap by Seqwater propelling itself into the political and legal quagmire which has engulfed the state for the past 20 months.

 

Seqwater's CEO Peter Borrows is a highly-respected and highly-qualified engineer whose professional integrity and engineering skills are well-known.  But when it comes to embroiling Seqwater into the murky political and legal waters ahead, Peter Borrows should tread warily.

 

Highly selective use of Floods Inquiry evidence - while disregarding its key findings - is not conducive to the level of professionalism expected of Seqwater.

 

It is to be hoped that Seqwater leaves the public debate on the 2011 flood to the public and politicians and whether or not it acted negligently in the lead-up to the flood, to the courts.

 

It is not appropriate for Seqwater to continue to engage in selective self-serving public debate to justify its actions in January 2011.

 

Seqwater's website states:

"We hope the Seqwater web site provides you with a greater understanding of the significant challenges we face as well as the many innovative solutions and collaborative approaches we are developing to deliver long-term water security for South East Queensland."

 

CEO Peter Borrows has a duty to stop these public shenanigans and get on with Seqwater's job of managing our dams in southeast Queensland.

 

With the stance now taken by the State Government, it seems the legal issues in this matter will be determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland - where the negligence or otherwise of Seqwater will be decided by our legal system and not via media releases, ill-timed public utterances and extraordinary self-justifications.

 

27.9.12

Crisafulli on the front foot: Race to be flood safe before the big wet hits Queensland

SOLAR-powered cameras will monitor remote river systems and hundreds of flood gauges will warn of rapidly rising rivers as Queensland arms itself for the 2012 wet season.

The early warning systems backed by hi-tech communication devices are being rolled out to improve public safety and reduce loss of life in the event of a repeat of the 2011 floods.

Local Government Minister David Crisafulli will today announce $500,000 in funding to help regional councils across Queensland meet the vital safety upgrades recommended by the flood inquiry.

Councils had been demanding more state funding to complete crucial work and had warned that flood-weary communities might not be ready for another summer of heavy rain. New measures to be rolled out include solar-powered cameras with week-long back-up batteries.

As the State Government yesterday extended the life of the Queensland Reconstruction Authority to continue the recovery process, Mr Crisafulli said the practical measures would decentralise control from Brisbane and allow locals to take the lead.

"We wanted to see an end to the one-size-fits-all, George Street approach to handling the wet season," Mr Crisafulli said.

Solar-powered cameras will be installed along isolated river systems in the far north Carpentaria Shire and rely on satellites to relay images of flooding roads to a council website available to the public.

Further south, Hinchinbrook Shire Council will receive more than $50,000 to improve digital communication, including outdoor message boards, while the Burdekin will receive more than $10,000 for a new flood-monitoring system.

Bundaberg will receive $57,000 to assist in the installation of five river-height warning stations on the Burnett River, while at Moreton Bay Regional more than $26,000 will go towards six two-way radio base stations, 30 two-way hand-held radios and five laptops.

Mr Crisafulli said the cameras would be crucial in helping the far northern Carpentaria Council warn residents and travellers of rising floodwaters that impact on other settlements further down the rivers days later.

"In the past the council has been hampered by a lack of reliable information Normanton and Karumba are regularly isolated for long periods each year," he said.

Local Government Association of Queensland spokesman Greg Hallam said progress in flood mitigation since the inquiry's interim report in August 2011 had been extraordinary.

Mr Hallam said a mood approaching hysteria was in the air in the lead-up to the 2011 wet season. But councils had now established a firm grip on a new, 21st century approach to floods and cyclones.

"There has been tens of millions of dollars spent on new technologies mainly concentration on monitoring systems and the communications tools that run off the back of those monitoring systems," he said.

"Councils are grateful for the money coming from the state and federal governments but the fact is a lot of this money is being spent by councils themselves they are doing it off their own bat."

Mr Hallam said a single high-tech river gauge secured in concrete or stone on a river bed and recording not merely river height but temperature, flow rates and turbidity could cost more than $30,000.

More than $5 billion has so far been spent across the state on reconstruction, 75 per cent of it drawn from federal coffers and 25 per cent from state.

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney yesterday announced the Government would extend the role of the QRA to June 2014.

However, he criticised the pace of the recovery, saying the Government would demand that the QRA deliver within established time frames.

"All of the QRA's resources, personnel and activities must be focused on its core business of completing the task of rebuilding affected communities," Mr Seeney said.

www.CourierMail.com.au

27.9.12

Brisbane River flood washup: Insurer Allianz may make flood cover compulsory for some homeowners



Some insurance companies argue compulsory
flood cover avoids uncertainty for customers.

ALLIANZ is considering joining the ranks of insurers making cover for floods compulsory for homeowners in high-risk areas.

The decision means some people will have a reduced choice about getting cover if they do not want flood protection, which can be prohibitively expensive in zones prone to such catastrophes.

In Queensland, insurance brands including Suncorp, RACQ Insurance, NRMA and CGU have compulsory flood cover.

Allianz, part of a German-based group and Australia's fourth-largest general insurer by premiums, currently offers people the choice to opt out..

"Because most other insurers have adopted a model of 'automatic' flood cover for domestic properties, that is, not allowing householders to opt out of flood cover if they do not want it or can't afford it, Allianz's concerns about accumulating excess exposure to flood risk has forced us to re-visit the approach of offering optional flood cover for direct customers," an Allianz spokesman said yesterday.

Some insurers have argued compulsory cover avoids uncertainty for customers.

Some brands were hammered in the 2011 floods when customers complained of confusion about policies that covered for flash downpours but not river flooding. The Federal Government has been considering whether to make opting out compulsory.

It comes as a KPMG survey out yesterday found earnings of insurers in Australia fell 18.5 per cent to $2.5 billion in 2012.

Insurers were hit in the year with paying a larger share of costs of a series of smaller weather disasters, KPMG found. In large disasters, insurers are somewhat protected by their own reinsurance cover.

The amount of premiums reaped rose 8.3 per cent to $28.6 billion.

KPMG insurance partner Ian Moyser said insurers "continue to have a keen focus in terms of pricing for the risk that they are underwriting".

This year saw the shock step of Suncorp in April declaring it would cease writing new policies in Queensland's Emerald and Roma, citing concerns about local flood mitigation policies. A Suncorp spokesman yesterday said it was open to revisiting this decision, when local authorities provided details on proposed mitigation measures.

Allianz started offering optional flood cover this year but said "changes in market conditions forced the suspension of the flood cover option in a couple of Queensland towns in order to avoid an unacceptable over-exposure to flood risk".

Maranoa Regional Council Mayor Robert Loughan maintained Suncorp's actions were "not good form". He said locals had been hit by increased premiums from insurers, up to 1300 per cent in one case.

www.CourierMail.com.au

26.9.12

US Army Corps let off the hook for Katrina flooding

 

 

The US Army Corps of Engineers - that so-called independent body used by the Queensland Government to claim the operation of the Wivenhoe Dam was done professionally and competently during the 2011 flood crisis - has just weaselled out of its responsibility to the people of New Orleans during the 2005 flood.  Using legal technicalities of the highest order, the Army Corps has saved the US Government billions of dollars in payouts to flood victims, despite its proven negligence.  The case is now likely to make its way right through to the US Supreme Court.  In the meantime, the way in which this US Army Corps has attempted to wriggle out of its legal - and moral - responsibilities will not be forgotten by the people of Queensland, who have learned only this week from the very same organisation what a cover-up really is. - Greater Goodna Flood Group


The Fremont Tribune reports:

 

A surprise ruling by a federal appeals court that lets the Army Corps of Engineers off the hook for paying compensation for Hurricane Katrina's catastrophic flooding isn't going over well on the streets of New Orleans.

People in southern Louisiana have long taken for granted that the flooding in the wake of the 2005 storm was a manmade disaster _ one caused specifically by the corps _ and they have wanted the agency to pay up for lost homes and property.

But on Monday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its earlier opinion and shot down the only argument that had succeeded so far in holding the corps accountable. The ruling also could make it extremely difficult to force the government to pay damages for future mishaps.

In March, the appellate court panel upheld a 2009 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval that had found the corps liable for the flooding of New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward neighborhood and St. Bernard Parish because the agency failed to properly maintain a shipping channel. That channel, dug in the 1960s, funneled Katrina's storm surge into the city. Thousands of homes were destroyed, about 1,400 people died in the flood and much of the city was left under water.

Then on Monday, the same panel did a legal backflip and said its new ruling "completely insulates the government from liability," leaving lawyers and residents baffled.

"There are certain criteria where the federal government can be sued, and I think the levee breaches is a perfect example because the Corps of Engineers is the one that developed the levee system," said Alvin Alexis, 62, who had two female cousins die in the flood.

His home was flooded, and he moved his family across the Mississippi River to an area he considers safer. Because he was a renter, he said he got only $10,000 in federal aid.

In the Lower 9th Ward, one of the areas hit hardest by Katrina, restaurant owner Henry Holmes said he was disappointed. He said he has struggled to keep his restaurant open in an area that is now a mere shell of what it was before the storm.

"I feel like somebody should be held liable," Holmes said.

Neither Holmes nor Alexis were plaintiffs.

Despite the tens of billions of dollars in reconstruction money spent so far in New Orleans, some 500,000 people, businesses and government agencies have sought additional compensation by filing claims against the corps.

But federal laws grant the corps extensive immunity against flood-related lawsuits and give the government lots of leeway in how agencies conduct their business.

The small army of lawyers fighting the corps over Katrina has long lamented how difficult it is to take on the federal government, a fact reinforced by Monday's ruling.

"It's a Herculean task," said Pierce O'Donnell, a lead attorney in the case. "The government makes the laws _ they created the immunity; it prints the money _ they have unlimited funds; and the case is tried in a building called the U.S. courthouse."

Under federal law, the government cannot be sued over actions that were based "on considerations of public policy," the appeals panel wrote. The corps' decisions regarding the shipping channel fall under that protection, the judges wrote.

Specifically, the ruling dealt with allegations that the Army Corps let a shipping channel called the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet erode wetlands and swamp forests southeast of New Orleans. The channel was built as a short-cut between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, but the economic benefits never paid off, and only a few ships used it before Katrina.

The corps poorly maintained the channel known locally as "Mister Go," and the erosion and other damage has been called one of the nation's worst environmental disasters by some. Scientists have blamed Mister Go on the loss of about 18,000 acres of marsh and 1,500 acres of cypress swamps.

Wetlands are considered a crucial natural buffer to hurricanes, acting as a buffer that can help keep floodwaters at bay. Attorneys have argued the MRGO became a "hurricane highway" that funneled water into New Orleans and overwhelmed the city's floodwalls, though the government has said the floodwalls would have failed even if the waterway had never been dug.

The Justice Department and the Army Corps declined to comment Tuesday.

O'Donnell said he was disappointed by the panel's about-face, which leaves about 100,000 claims related to Katrina in limbo. On average, each claimant had expected to get about $140,000 in damages to cover property losses and other expenses and inconvenience caused by the flooding.

He was not yet certain if attorneys would ask the 5th Circuit to rehear the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Either way, it's likely the case is not yet completely settled because there is so much at stake, said Mark Davis, a Tulane University law professor who specializes in water policy.

Not only does this case potentially involve billions of dollars, but its outcome could set a precedent for whether the corps can be held responsible for future flooding disasters.

Davis said the appeals court may have reversed itself over concerns that the previous ruling could expose the federal government to too much liability across the nation. The Army Corps has been sued before, but it always came away untouched.

"And some of that is because we have asked it to do all sorts of big risky things and the deal was that if we do it, you can't sue us," Davis said.

www.FremontTribune.com

25.9.12
 

Seqwater disgrace: Formal response to flood inquiry report takes hard line against potential flood disaster litigants



 The Wivenhoe Dam seen at 100 per cent capacity.



SEQWATER has taken a strong stand against potential litigants following the 2011 floods, saying it is confident its case will hold up in court.

Six months after the Flood Inquiry released its final report, Seqwater has finally lodged its formal response.

While up to 5000 people are believed to be involved in a potential class action against it for damages incurred during the floods, Seqwater makes it clear it will not be negotiating on compensation claims.

"Seqwater is confident that its position will be justified if the matter ever comes before a court," the company said in a statement.

The water body says it is acutely aware of the impact of the January 2011 floods and the devastation caused, which is ongoing for many in the state's southeast.

"Seqwater is implementing the recommendations in the Commissions interim and final reports with much of this work already finalised," its says.

Seqwater operations manager Robert Drury at Wivenhoe Dam.

The water provider says the food inquiry "in no way concluded that there was any negligence in Seqwater's management of the January 2011 flood event".

It says Seqwater has not wavered from its belief that its flood engineers - three of whom were referred to the CMC for investigation - did "an extraordinary job in the most difficult and demanding circumstances and that Wivenhoe and Somerset dams were managed appropriately during the January 2011 flood".

It notes the CMC last month determined there was no evidence to suggest any wrong doing by the three engineers in relation to the preparation of reports and evidence provided to the Inquiry.

It also notes a review of Seqwater's own report on the flood by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was released this week supported the report.

"Seqwater has always taken the view that the operation of Wivenhoe Dam during the January 2011 flood event and the release strategies adopted by its engineers significantly mitigated the flood," the statement read.



Seqwater dam engineer Terry Malone stood down
  from his post since appearing at the Flood Inquiry.
 

Seqwater engineer Robert Ayre leaves court
building the on the first day of the Flood Inquiry.



Wivenhoe Dam engineer John Tibaldi leaves
the reconvened floods inquiry in Brisbane.



"The independent expert retained by the Commission, concluded that, in light of the information available at the time and allowing for the limits of the strategies in the Wivenhoe manual, the flood engineers achieved close to the best possible flood mitigation result for the January event.

"Furthermore, four other highly respected independent experts who appeared at the Commission support Seqwater's view that releases actually made by the flood engineers were appropriate and reasonable."

Seqwater said it was important not to lose sight of the magnitude and rarity of the January event.

"It was the largest flood inflows that South East Queensland experienced in more than 100 years."

www.CourierMail.com.au

 

COMMENT: This is the most-disgraceful  public comment made by Seqwater since the devastating flood of 11 January 2011.  It is nothing but a mean-spirited, kick-in-the-face for thousands of flood victims in Brisbane and Ipswich.  Seqwater knows the Commission of Inquiry found against the Wivenhoe Dam engineers.  It knows the engineers escaped prosecution by the CMC, in what would appear to be by the skin of their teeth.  And they know the US Army Engineers were hamstrung in their ability to examine all of the evidence before, and the findings of, the Floods Commission of Inquiry.  They were not permitted to examine the core issues of negligence, incompetence or non-compliance with the Wivenhoe Dam operating manual.  Seqwater CEO Peter Borrows should have known better than  to make this media statement.  - Greater Goodna Flood Group.

26.9.12

 

Dam data had 'no effect' on plan to lodge civil action against Queensland government

LAWYERS working on a class action for Brisbane and Ipswich flood victims are pressing ahead with their proposed claim, labelling a report endorsing the actions of the dam operator irrelevant.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said a US Army Corps of Engineers review supportive of Wivenhoe Dam operations during last year's disaster had "no effect" on their plan to lodge a civil action against the Queensland government and SEQWater by the end of the year.

 

www.TheAustralian.com.au

 

26.9.12

 

Editorial: Someone must foot flood bill

Wivenhoe Dam is close to capacity after the previous rainy season.

 The Courier-Mail Editorial:

THE waters of the January 2011 flood have long-retreated but the painstaking, and, for many, still painful business of sifting through the aftermath continues.

The State Government, on Monday, handed down the third and latest substantial investigation into the handling of the Wivenhoe Dam in the crucial days before and during the flooding.

This report, compiled in part by the US Department of the Interior and the US Army Corps of Engineers, found the four engineers who were controlling the dam at the time did a good job.

In doing so it supported the findings of an earlier examination by the Crime and Misconduct Commission that there was insufficient reason to launch a full investigation into allegations of wrong-doing against the engineers.

The CMC, for its part, had been asked to investigate the engineers' performance by the $15 million flood inquiry headed by Justice Catherine Holmes and established by then-Premier Anna Bligh immediately after the flood.

Now, after more than 18 months of inquiries, investigations and assessments, the prospects of further examination of the circumstances surrounding the worst flooding in southeast Queensland's recent history remain high, this time in the form of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit.

Although the engineers have been exonerated, all three inquiries found flaws in the dam management manual.

Lawyers, arming themselves with their own expert reports, are continuing to pursue a class action against the state which could potentially involve up to 5000 complainants.

These continuing efforts by the flood-affected to assign blame in their fight for compensation creates a big political and financial problem for the Newman Government. Although Ms Bligh had indicated the government and dam operator Seqwater could potentially negotiate some compensation, Mr Newman has, to date, made no such conciliatory comments.

He has maintained that those who wanted to pursue compensation had their rights and could make their own judgments - a fiscally responsible position to adopt perhaps, in terms of protecting the state from potentially massive negotiated settlements. But against that, Mr Newman must balance the prospect of a drawn-out, expensive, emotionally draining and uncertain process through the courts.

Finding the balance between prudent financial management and compassionate treatment of those who through no fault of their own had their lives and livelihoods so cruelly disrupted in those few days in January 2011 will be a true test of the Premier's leadership skills.

Whatever the resolution, the cruel fact remains that someone must pay for the damage done by the floods, either the individuals personally affected, or all of us as a community if the Government decided to pay compensation through negotiation or by order of the courts. In the meantime, of course we are all starting to pay higher insurance premiums as insurers set about recouping their billion-dollar flood payouts.

It appears unlikely that southeast Queensland faces floods this year the Government is confident enough about moderate summer rain forecasts that it has decided not to reduce Wivenhoe dam to 75 per cent capacity. The great remaining uncertainty though, even after this latest investigation, is who will finally pick up the bill for our worst flooding in decades.

 

www.CourierMail.com.au

 

26.9.12

 

Dam shock: Population explosion increases Wivenhoe and Somerset dam risks

Wivenhoe Dam flood mitigation

 THE Queensland Government is re-assessing the safety of Wivenhoe Dam after a report suggested the risk of having a large volume of water stored above the state capital had been underestimated.

Population growth during the past decade has increased the potential for disaster if Wivenhoe or Somerset dams were to fail.

The report, prepared by the Department of the Interior and the US Army Corp of Engineers, stressed there were "no dam structural safety issues" during the 2011 floods.

Wivenhoe and Somerset dams are classified as having the highest "population at risk" categories in Queensland law.

The report, which backed the actions of the four dam engineers during the 2011 floods, has called for a re-assessment of the risk posed by a possible collapse of Wivenhoe or Somerset, or both.

The State Government says it is already working on a reviewed risk assessment of the two dams.

The report said earlier risk assessments might have overlooked the southeast's rapidly expanding population.

It said previous estimates of a failure at both Somerset and Wivenhoe dams during a flood had been for a potential loss of 89 lives.

However, those estimates did not take into account the recent population explosion in the southeast.

With more residents now living in the area, escape to a safe area in the event of an emergency would be made more difficult. This could potentially result in more lives being lost.

"It was assumed that there would be at least two hours of warning time for a night time failure, and at least three hours of warning for a daytime failure," the report said.

"These warning times lead to very low fatality rates. The methodology does not account for flooding of large populations where the ability of people to safely evacuate may be restricted."

The report suggested there was always significant uncertainty in any loss of life estimates where large populations were at risk.

"Loss of life due to dam failure may be underestimated," it said.

Seqwater said the most recent risk assessment for Wivenhoe Dam was completed by the Wivenhoe Alliance, as part of the spillway upgrade project in 2005.

"A further specific risk assessment of both Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam is currently in progress as part of the portfolio risk assessment being undertaken by Seqwater for its 26 large referable dams," Seqwater said in a statement.

That risk assessment will involve reassessment of the population at-risk estimates for both dams. A world-recognised expert in population risk assessments, Wayne Graham, is part of a team working on the assessment.

"Seqwater has, and always will, operate and maintain Wivenhoe Dam to the highest possible standard to ensure the structural safety of the dam," Seqwater said.

Worst case scenario

ONE of the worst-case scenarios for Wivenhoe is for the dam to overflow and compromise the integrity of the dam wall.

The dam can store about five times the amount of water stored in Sydney Harbour but in normal conditions uses only about 40 per cent of this space for drinking water, leaving the remaining greater area purely for flood mitigation.

When wet weather hits, the dam can fill rapidly, with the manual providing guidance on levels of water releases moving from W1 (low release) to W4 (emergency release).

The dam manual instructs the dam engineers to begin dumping water at the W4 rate when the dam level reaches the critical stage of 74m.

But the dam is also fitted with several fuse plugs, the first of which will automatically activate when water levels reach just under 76m.

The fuse plugs allow part of the wall to give way automatically, spilling thousands of megalitres into the Brisbane River but - hopefully - maintaining the integrity of the wall.

In the January 2011 flood, it is believed the water rose to within almost 90cm of the fuse plugs.

www.CourierMail.com.au

26.9.12
 

US Engineers Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams flood report slammed

10 News   Flood Report critics have slammed the latest flood report. John Ruffini was not a registered engineer at the time of the flood and will appear in court tomorrow.   Mark McArdle, Queensland Minister for Energy and Water Supply, says that the independent report released by the US experts, however it was based on the engineers' report the Flood Inquiry found to be false documents. Paul Tully, Ipswich City Councillor, says it was a half baked report. The Crime and Misconduct Commission has decided not to lay charges against the engineers. The new report is being perceived as a way for the Queensland Government to avoid legal responsibility says Ken Madsen, Flood Affected Businesses and Households.

Watch video:

http://ten.com.au/ten-news-brisbane.htm?movideo_p=44240&movideo_m=229127

25.9.12
 

Review of Seqwater’s Flood Event Report for the January 2011 Flood Event at Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams

Department of Energy and Water Supply:

On 24 September 2012 the Department of Energy and Water Supply released the independent review of Seqwater’s Flood Event Report.

The independent review addresses key issues including the dams, flood operations, the flood event and Seqwater’s report. The Government is currently reviewing the recommendations in the report.

The completion of the independent review meets the Government’s commitment to identify any dam safety issues for the 2012-13 wet season.

24.9.12

COMMENT: As this review was requested and paid for by the Queensland Government, it can scarcely be truly described as "independent".

 

Multi-billion dollar lawsuit in wake of report backing Wivenhoe Dam flood engineers

A MULTI-BILLION-dollar lawsuit is set to become the next chapter in the January 2011 flood saga after a crucial US Government report backed the actions of the four flood engineers who controlled Wivenhoe Dam.

The report - by the Department of the Interior and the US Army Corps of Engineers - has warned the massive dam sitting above Brisbane is far more lethal than previously believed, and further re-inforced previous criticism of the dam's manual.

But it strongly backed the actions of the four dam engineers who were repeatedly accused in the $15 million flood inquiry of mismanaging the dam and confecting a fraudulent report to cover their tracks.

The report is a potential blow to flood victims seeking compensation but lawyers are determined to proceed with legal action, with thousands of claimants signed up to a class action demanding billions of dollars in compensation.

The State Government has refused to concede it will negotiate on compensation payouts, effectively telling flood victims: "see you in court".

Previous Labor premier Anna Bligh indicated the government and dam operator Seqwater would behave as a model litigant, potentially negotiating some compensation claims.

But Premier Campbell Newman refused to reveal his hand yesterday, saying those who wanted to pursue compensation had their rights.

"People who have a complaint, they will have to look at these things and make a judgment, it is a free country," he said.

Mr Newman also ruled out reducing the dam to 75 per cent capacity to increase the flood compartment after weather forecasts predicted an average rainy season.

The weather bureau says widespread floods probably won't occur because the La Nina weather pattern that brought heavy downpours in recent years has finally broken up.

"At this stage there will be no draw down to 75 per cent because they're not forecasting large rain events or consistent rain events," Mr Newman said.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers says the number of people with a "complaint" was now approaching 5000 and yesterday's report was immaterial to their case, which is that the dam was filled with too much water before operators went into a panic and emptied it.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said international experts were preparing their own reports on the flood event.

"This (American report) has no bearing on what we are doing," Mr Scattini said.

Three of the engineers, John Tibaldi, Rob Ayre and Terry Malone, were cleared of any wrongdoing by the Crime and Misconduct Commission last month.

The American report was definitive in its findings that the men performed well in the critical early days of January 2011 when Wivenhoe filled to capacity and was in danger of collapse.

"Their decisions were prudent and showed considerable insight into the precision and accuracy of available hydrometeorological information," the report said. Alternative operation could have been used, however. "Without the benefit of perfect foresight, there still would have been a risk that the outcome could have been worse as well as better.

"It is unlikely that reasonable alternative operations would have made a significant difference in peak flows for an event of this magnitude," the report said.

The US review fulfils a key recommendation by the flood Inquiry - that an independent person or organisation review Seqwater's flood event report, authored by the engineers.

While the flood inquiry was highly critical of what it believed to be a deeply flawed report, the Americans were clearly impressed by the document.

"The substantial amount of data and level of detail provided in the six-week allotted timeframe is exceptional," it said.

The Americans also have highlighted the ongoing dangers of having a massive body of water stored above the state capital.

The collapse of dams walls at either Wivenhoe or Somerset would lead to substantial loss of life in the southeast, the report said, but added: "It is acknowledged that updated risk assessments are currently under way for both Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams."

Engineers Australia Queensland president Steven Goh said after an exhaustive review process it was clear the Wivenhoe dam engineers had performed their jobs well.

"It is clear that the professional engineers involved performed their role admirably under trying circumstances and that Wivenhoe Dam achieved its function of mitigating the effect of the floods," Mr Goh said.

"Their commitment to the community they serve cannot be questioned."

 

www.CourierMail.com.au

 

25.9.12