After the floods

Just want to canvas thoughts on the planning and reconstruction after the flood as i think there needs to be some outside the box thinkining and some radically different approaches.

Just for starters:

1. Would it be better to move the Rocklea markets to higher ground.?

2. How about a total ban on building, in certain areas, to a level at least 2m. above the '74 flood, Even to the extent of demolishing some residences and commercial sites and moving the housing to non flood prone areas?

3. Is it possible to build flood gates and other flood proofing means into high rises along the river so that basements, carparks and, most importantly, electricity infrastructure is precluded from inundation.?

4. Seems like the best thing to do with Grantham and Helidon is to remove the towns and build on higher ground.

I know in all these remove and rebuild scenarios there will be significant costs and that there will be big problems with land titles, etc.

I think the Federal Government needs to step in and define, through legislation, what is and what is not flood damage. It appears at the moment that each company can define this as they wish.


Stronger legislation to deal with "flood tourism".

Your thoughts on these and any other points are most welcome.

:roflmao::rofl:

After even 56 floods in Maitland these sorts of suggestions were made. Developers phissing in town planers pockets win always.

In honesty there would be no Gold Coast, no Port in Brrissy.

I do agree artme history has proven Mother Nature knows best.

I await the Murray Darling floods of those years where steamers floated across farming land 100k's off course.:C

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

2. How about a total ban on building, in certain areas, to a level at least 2m. above the '74 flood, Even to the extent of demolishing some residences and commercial sites and moving the housing to non flood prone areas?

---

I don't know about Qld., but in NSW in the '60s & early '70s, any proposal for a structure on a flood plain had to go to a Govt. Department, the WC&IC, to be assessed to see if a) it would significantly obstruct the waterway area and thus raise flood levels, and b) it would be inundated. If they did, the were prohibited. I did dozens of these investigations.
Unfortunately, one of our p!ssweak governments handed the responsibility over to local councils, who had neither the expertise nor the will to do the job properly. Developers quickly had councils and councillors in their pockets.

Brisbane City Plan 2000 requires development to be above Q100, and to not impact on up or downstream stormwater management. City Plan 2000 document - Brisbane City Council
http://web.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr...ement_code.pdf

I know these things to be true Alex and Richard so now is the time for our politicians to stick their neck out and really show some moral fortitude.

As I have said elsewhere, I have little time for Anna Bligh and this state government. HOWEVER, Anna Bligh has demonstarted that she does have excellent leadreship skills. Let her now back that up with some ethical and moral backbone nd put it to good use, rather than squandering her talents on political point scoring and grandstanding.

Just for starters:

1. Would it be better to move the Rocklea markets to higher ground.?
Sure it would be better Arthur but would we have a site big enough to accommodate a complex that size in close proximity to where they are at the moment?

2. How about a total ban on building, in certain areas, to a level at least 2m. above the '74 flood, Even to the extent of demolishing some residences and commercial sites and moving the housing to non flood prone areas?
I think that's a good idea to ban all future development and building in the flood zone areas that have been affected by both big floods but whether it would be economical to demolish and relocate existing buildings and complexes may be considered to be too costly considering the floods have been 36 years apart.

3. Is it possible to build flood gates and other flood proofing means into high rises along the river so that basements, carparks and, most importantly, electricity infrastructure is precluded from inundation.?
Yes it would be possible but again a flood once in every 36 years or so is not going to push home a feeling of urgency with developers who are only interested in keeping costs down and making big profits.

4. Seems like the best thing to do with Grantham and Helidon is to remove the towns and build on higher ground.
That is the only sensible thing to do in this place. I have seen this done before in some townships in Australia to make way for progress

The township of Helidon was unaffected, Lockyer creek (which flows alongside the main road didn't even break it's banks. The reports you hear about Helidon are most likely of further out of town

I've been watching cleanup footage on TV and I keep having recurring thoughts that maybe there is a bit of over enthusiasm going on in what is being stripped out of houses.

I know I'm not there and I have very little understanding of the issues at ground zero, but is it really necessary to pull out every stick of swollen woodwork and dump every piece of muddy clothing and furniture?

I guess it may be more important from a public health perspective to strip and clean quickly than to try and preserve property. Who directs and makes decisions about what the volunteers do? Are there any residents out there trying to stop over enthusiastic helpers?

Will the insurance companies be so keen to cover houses that have flooded to the roof-line this time around?
Cheers,
Jim

I went to school in Rochester and my parents and Nana live there now. Both were unaffected but the water got onto Nana's front lawn and was in the front gutter of my parents house.

The pic shows the Murray Goulburn factory in the centre of town and the area around it. If you took photo's from the same spot to the left and right of this one they would look the same with different buildings. My parents would be in the left one on the Shepparton side of the river and Nana would be on the right over the highway.

Quote:

---

I know I'm not there and I have very little understanding of the issues at ground zero, but is it really necessary to pull out every stick of swollen woodwork and dump every piece of muddy clothing and furniture?

---

You can never get rid of the smell.

Just heard that Richard Vaughan's workshop had about 4m water through it. Sorry to hear, Richard, if you come on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Just heard that Richard Vaughan's workshop had about 4m water through it. Sorry to hear, Richard, if you come on here.

---

Total bummer!! Hope Richard can get back on his feet and quickly. He's a really decent bloke.

If I could make a suggestion [unfortunately from 1974 experience] - The time is rapidly approaching when a lot of the mud/sludge is starting to or is dry, this will be especially true in areas that have been washed but perhaps not a well as they could have been in the rush. Where this has occurred the mud will dry like Kellogs cornflakes - this can be removed using an industrial vacuum cleaner and a stiff spatula attached to a broom handle. If you try and wash the dry stuff away it only just keeps on spreading and reigniting the stink.

Hope it helps,
Bob

That's a good point, Bob and is exactly what I found on Monday. We ended up scraping, sweeping, scrubbing, washing, and then rinsing with clean water.

So I see my comments and thoughts about insurance are to be invesigated by the inquirey set up by Anna Bligh! GOOD

Also see that some engineer/s have suggested flood gates for the creeks where water backed up. Still think it should apply to the high rises.

Tyr this test artme. Bung a towel down your loo flush it round the bend. now flush the toilet doz times :doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Just heard that Richard Vaughan's workshop had about 4m water through it. Sorry to hear, Richard, if you come on here.

---

Not quite, he had about 2m through. Here is the link to flood photos and ongoing recovery of his workshop.

Cheers
Michael

Bad enough! Glad he had a good crew of friends and helpers to help clean up, it's going to be a long job, I'd think.

Been reading and watching some of this post flood analysis.

Seems to me that there are too many willing to point the finger without being in possesion of all the facts. There are others who seem to have a warped view with their "coulda and shoulda" pronouncements.

I wasn't here in "74, but my understanding is that Wyvenhoe was constructed PRIMARILY to reduce, if not eliminate, the possibiblity of another '74 event. If the dam was built primarily for flood mitigation and protocols are set up to regulate the outflows to that end, then so be it. The fact that those in control of the dam followed the protocols should not be used as amunition to critcise them.

I think they were caught between a rock and a hard place. The dam has been used for water storage for domestic use AS WELL AS flood mitigation. On top of this we have had such a tremndously wet summer with rainfall records being broken left, right and centre. Everywhre the ground was saturated and runoff was extremely high.

Let's wait until a full inquiry is held before those in charge of the dam are put through any sort of scrutiny, especially trial by media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

Been reading and watching some of this post flood analysis.

Seems to me that there are too many willing to point the finger without being in possesion of all the facts. There are others who seem to have a warped view with their "coulda and shoulda" pronouncemenst.

I wasn't here in "74, but my understanding is that Wyvenhoe was constructed PRIMARILY to reduce, if not eliminate, the possibiblity of another '74 event. If the dam was built primarily for flood mitigation and protocols are set up to regulate the outflows to that end, then so be it. The fact that those in control of the dam followed the protocols should not be used as amunition to critcise them.

I think they were caught between a rock and a hard place. The dam has been used for water storage for domestic use AS WELL AS flood mitigation. On top of this we have had such a tremndously wet summer with rainfall records being broken left, right and centre. Everywhre the ground was saturated and runoff was extremely high.

Let's wait until a full inquiry is held before those in charge of the dam are put through any sort of scrutiny, especially trial by media.

---

This article by QT from OCTOBER last year gives an indication of the sort of pressure dam management was under. Thank heavens management is not under the control of politicians. I particularly like the emphatic comment dated 13th October.

Cheers
Michael

There is an interesting discussion going on here.

Cheers
Michael

Both extremely interesting and informative Mic!!

The discussion re saturated ground is very cogent. My yard is well set up for drainage - I owned a small iirigation property in the MIA and one thing I learnt was that it is as important to drain water from land as it is to supply it - and yet the ground was so saturated that i had to dig down and cut holes in the pipes to drain the yard. Theground was so saturated that the water simply could not percolate throught the soil quickly enough to get into the drainage lines.

At one time we had a light 5 minute shower and I had a yard covered in 50mm of water!!

To me it is reasonable to assume that the total amount of water in the areas flooded has not been accounted for by some "experts" They forgot about the groundwater!