Live: 'I love you, Dad': Touching family tribute shared as entertainment 'master' Bert Newton farewelled. Prime Minister says he does not believe he has told a lie in public life. Live: Victorians on alert for severe weather as heavy rain and high winds forecast to batter the state. Thailand's sex industry generates billions of dollars. But workers still operate in the shadows. Tasmania's electricity connector to mainland, Basslink, goes into administration.
NSW Premier shares personal story about grandmother as part of voluntary assisted dying debate. Popular Now 1. Celebrity cosmetic surgeon's 'barbaric' attempt to fix a tummy tuck under local anaesthetic. A judge says construction company's punishment must send a message to other employers Posted 12m ago 12 minutes ago Fri 12 Nov at am.
NSW Premier shares personal story about grandmother as part of voluntary assisted dying debate Posted 20m ago 20 minutes ago Fri 12 Nov at am. Credit: Tony Moore. Overall there were two massive inflows to Wivenhoe Dam — 30 hours apart — close to January 11, the report says. In the aftermath, Justice Holmes found "even a large dam such as Wivenhoe has a limited flood mitigation capacity when the volume of water entering it is significantly larger than its storage capacity".
Wivenhoe's dam engineers were cleared in What a difference a decade makes: Wivenhoe Dam then and now. Please try again later. Brisbane Times. Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size. The other issue which luke has belted in his contribution to agnotology is the SST; BoM shows them going through the roof around Australia; I can remember having this same discussion about 2 years ago; Hughes and McLean had some good data then and it is still good now:.
SD, Hinze Dam was originally designed to have three stages. Lack of political will only saw stage 3 completed late last year That final stage 3 includes flood mitigation compartments, larger than the amount I mentioned above that has been removed from the Dam in the last 2 days.
Most parks have picnic seating area in booths, and in those booths they have images of some of the sights etc. One startling image in one of those booths I remember is an old black and white of Purlingbrook Falls, usually just a trickle with more than a hundred metre drop to the floor below. It shows an impenetrable mist almost three quarters the way up that drop with the water roaring off the top straight out horizontally for around 20 metres before it starts to drop.
It all flows into Hinze Dam. It has always been a safe water supply because of that catchment area. With respect to the spillway, I think the spillway was relocated from the original stage 1 spillway during stage 3. SD,we seem to have our lines crossed. I agreed it was rare…then you shift your position,saying it should not now be regarded as such!.
Think about it,it IS everyday weather forecasting,with infuriatingly tough hydrography chucked in! There is no doubt in my professional opinion that most of the flooding in Brisbane should have been avoided. It is extraordinary to me that people are not asking more questions about this. Brisbane should have been protected by Wivenhoe Dam. Instead, the dam is a large part of the reason the city has flooded.
And did you try my treatment for midge bites — rub a garlic clove on the bites? Thanks Tony. When stage 3 was nearing completion I asked when were they relocating the spillway and they said it was staying where it is [I had always understood they were moving it] so now I suspect they just added radial gates to the top a la Wivenhoe.
If those gates are 5m high [the amount of increase] the top of those gates would constitute the max mitigation. You cant get access to the site these days.
In either sea the cyclones are not very energetic. And people like Lowe will never admit that dams are mostly an environmental positive. And that the slight warming that has happened since the end of the LIA seems to be doing as Lindzen theorised, causing less extremes.
But,but,but… the size of the floods is very variable,and the local and point rain rates are,too. So that gets us back to forecasting,flood management,and the ability to mitigate,which is what some people want to bag SEQwater about. They did actually free up the flood reserve,but the dynamics of this flood prove it needs to be bigger,because they do not want to move people out of the flood plain. Val, thanks for the comment, and especially thanks for your many earlier comments linking to those Posts from Rockhampton.
Here in Rocky the clean up is proceeding. Unlike Brisbane where the water is dropping rapidly, here in Rocky the level is still at major flood levels with the gauge still at 8. Major areas of Depot Hill are still under. The supermarkets are slowly getting back to normal after the second mad panic rush during the Brisbane event. Gingis eh — not flogging cloud seeding now. Will you be there on the podium Spangles — promoting to the locals.
At per cent, authorities would have been faced with an uncontrolled release of water into the Brisbane River. Wondering how many new dwellings in Brisbane, built since on the flood plain, are on stilts? Future insurers will demand it. However, Insurance companies can demand all they like for houses to be placed on stilts.
All that happens then is that occupants just build in underneath, which is exactly what happens now. In when we moved here, it was just the full 3 bedder on top of exposed stumps, and as far as the eye could see. All that was downstairs was the laundry. Voila, house fully enclosed now and now that downstairs also at risk from major flooding. In the 68 Cyclone and later the 74 flood, The Broadwater came up virtually to the foot of the front steps, mainly from the King tide and the amount of water flowing down the Nerang pre Hinze Dam, and into The Broadwater.
At least in those days the council [and everyone else] would tell you where the the record floods came to. There were of course old houses below flood level [often on stilts but some on the ground] but now there are new homes built below flood level. Corruption somewhere. Old Jack Gaven, the local Country Party member, had a farm on the river at Nerang and gave me good info on huge areas inland from the coast as he had ridden and swum his horse through much of what is now Gold Coast suburbia in numerous floods.
He lives on the river so he should be getting nervous about now. Wivenhoe had released almost all of its flood storage before the intense rainfall began on Sunday night. I live near the river and my commute includes the Moggill Ferry subject to river levels so have an awareness of what is flowing down the river.
The rapid increase in Wivenhoe levels was due to local rainfall — well before any upper catchment events arrived. That rainfall was also widespread over the upper and lower catchments. I will be interested to see just how much total rainfall passed down the rivers downstream of Wivenhoe; the Bremmer, the Warrill, Lockyer Creek etc.
Over and above this, parts of Brisbane were already experiencing localised flooding on Monday due to the rain and well into Tuesday when we were making preparations to evacuate our offices which were eventually inundated. This was a brave move and likely to also have some fall out in the weeks to follow.
They were in effect sacrificed for Brisbane! I will give you a hint. Wivenhoe was modified in to meet revised flood event parameters google Wivenhoe Alliance to incorporate an additional emergency spillway that is fitted with tipping buckets that automatically and sequentially trigger at increasing water levels, somewhere just above level 75m ie above the maximum level reached in this event.
These devices are designed to protect the integrity of the Dam wall but result in increased release over which the operators will have NO control and result in a lower maximum holding capacity. Clearly, an undesirable outcome. I believe Wivenhoe can hold water to the top of the wave wall at 80m but this would be under conditions where the emergency spillway would already have triggered all the buckets.
The term biblical proportions would surely apply. So in effect, by managing the releases to the maximum controllable level, the operators did the best that they could given the rapidly changing circumstances and inflows into Wivenhoe and Somerset. I for one have no criticism of that. Recent discussion in the media criticized the release of the flood storage and many were critical of allowing that water to go to waste particularly with rapidly escalating water charges.
Wivenhoe has flood storage for mitigation. Mitigation does not mean prevention. Did it achieve those aims? After cleaning mud out of a neighbors home today, it is hard not to look for someone to blame. I would suggest that those who criticize, read the eye witness accounts of the residents of the Lockyear Valley to get a glimpse of the scale of this event before pointing fingers at the operators.
I have spent several years building dams and watching flood events as part of the job. So perhaps I am not surprised as much as others. In my trained Civil Engineering opinion, anyone who claims a different operational regime could have saved Brisbane has little comprehension of what just occurred in Brisbane. By some reports, GL fell in the catchment. Somerset, GL from empty. So exactly how can these dams have any significant effect given the sheer volume over the catchment?
All they can possibly do is mitigation. I think that was achieved. When the the dam was built surely there was a recommended maximum level.
The dam has moved from being primarily for flood mitagation to being primarily for water supply, is this true? Val, read my post 9. The upshot of my two possible scenarios 9. Looking at the catchment above Wivenhoe falls,six day totals to the end of the rainfall saw the entire upper Brisbane catchment average at least mm,with the eastern edge receiving to mm.
The lowest falls occurred at the very top of Cooyar Creek[c. Peter c, the dam was dual purpose,but with water supply the primary function according to SEQwater. The mitigation volume is a little more than the water supply volume.
I find it hard to believe that the dams primary purpose was for water supply. I would not believe what SEQwater says. The dam was constructed as a direct result of the floods. It has failed because it had too much water in it. The city needed more drinking water so instead of building another dam for that purpose they comprimised Wivenhoes major purpose.
This is typical political short sightedness. But why Poly is the question when the forecasts were all pointing strongly to exceptional rainfall was it deemed wise to keep so much water in the dam.
We can agree that the Guardian is a warmist mag, so it comes as a surprise to find they have a story by Germaine Greer on the Queensland floods. Political dynamite! The people are more concerned with disastrous floods now, not sea level rise in some far distant future.
Precisely because its water supply is the prime use,whether Peter C finds that hard to believe or not. As in mm in two days? They are required to keep it high if possible. The dam had been mooted before ,in fact in a report had been drawn up and water supply with flood mitigation were the aims then.
I think land acquisition was under way by They realised that such a volume could never be stopped utterly in its tracks,and of course they knew that the Bremer ,Lockyer and Lower Brisbane were well capable of putting a moderate flood into the river in their own right. I think that was an assumption to begin with that became a truth.
Have people forgotten the flood? I guess so. Wivenhoe did not fail,Peter. It may not have worked out to the optimal scenario,but it certainly prevented a higher flood. It strongly affected the way the total flood volume generated by the upper Brisbane arrived downstream.
It held back GL that a dam without such a reserve could not have done,and slowed the arrival of thousands more GL. This flood without Wivenhoe would have been as high as ,maybe more,but not of such duration as that flood,which was above major flood level at City gauge for 4 days. I think Wivenhoe reduced the peak by less than hoped,but it still reduced the peak.. Been trying all their emergency numbers with no luck. The govt emergency number told me there is no one to speak to. I had to send an email.
Surely in the proposal and subsequent construction of the dam the recommended maximum level for flood mitagation was stated. I worked on the construction of Paradise Dam on the Burnett River that so recently mitigated the flooding in Bundaberg.
That dam can be operated from several locations including remotely from an office in Bundaberg. There were a lot of complaints about previous releases particularly when they combined with higher than average tides causing some local flooding. That would be contrasted by the reports that we should be storing extra water e. Noting that 60 — 80mm of rain was received in the prior week Wednesday-Thursday. When and on what basis that decision would be made and then what would be the impact of that decision on long term water security?
These questions cannot be answered with hindsight, only what was knowable at the time of those decisions. Was the forecast rain going to be spread over a number of days which would be manageable or in fact was it known that it would arrive in a massive short event?
What rules are currently in place and who had authority to make decisions to change those rules if necessary? In other words, given the same information available at the time, was there a better way to manage the dams? Thanks for that Craigo.
0コメント