« will car-dependent development have resale value? | Main | seattle: a new frequent network map »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jonathan Vogt

I read Kerwin Datu's overview and, as I understand it, he made three important errors:

1) the flooding was not 'predictable.' Whereas the 1974 floods were estimated to be the result of 1,500GL of rainfall, the 2011 floods are estimated to be the result of 2,500GL! That is unprecedented.

2) Wivenhoe Dam, as a matter of policy (and apparently QLD law), always conducts water releases whenever the dam exceeds 100% drinking water capacity. They did not hold onto the water until it was too late but were releasing water on a daily basis. However, despite these ongoing releases, Wivenhoe went from 102% to 189% in the space of eight days - such was the speed of developments.

3) Brisbane City Council maintains a 1-in-100 year flood map and does not allow development within that map. Of course, that map has clearly been shown to be wrong, given the sheer magnitude of recent events and will thus need revising. However, the charge that Council has been lax, with regard to development in flood-prone areas, is false.

This is a case of a well prepared region falling victim to an amazing weather event that is without precedent. Lessons how how to deal with a repeat or possibly a bigger event will be learned, but this was not an avoidable disaster which we can blame on ill-preparedness.

The comments to this entry are closed.

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...