On 10Jan2011 I blogged “Toowoomba flash flood shambles” which covered the issues of Brisbane floods too.
Flood affected SE Qld people mounted a class action resulting in a court win. Reported earlier this year “Brisbane 2011 flood victims win $440 million in class action partial settlement over operation of Wivenhoe Dam” 26Feb2021. Now SEQWater have appealed and won according to ABC today. Queensland water utility wins appeal against 2011 flood damages ruling – 8Sep2021
I always thought it was unreasonable under all the circumstances to expect Wivenhoe Dam operators to be so all-seeing & wise as to release sufficient water in time so the dam could then hold back water from flooding homes downstream.
Interesting stuff but after reading several of the ABC’s articles I am still a bit baffled about what is really going on here.
One of the articles says this class action was launched in NSW because Queensland law did not allow class actions at the time. But it doesn’t explain how this was legally possible – how can Queensland residents sue a Queensland operator for actions taken in Queensland, in a New South Wales court?
Also, the articles talk about insurers, both of residents and of SEQ water, but they don’t explain (a) whether most residents were insured against flood; (b) whether a ruling against SEQ Water would have have compensated people who did not insure against flood; (c) how much if anything has been paid out to whom; (d) whether the other water companies that originally sued, but that did not appeal when they lost, have paid compensation, or will pay it, or will get out of paying because of this ruling.
Would be interested to hear if anyone knows the answers to any of these questions. One suspects that so far the one clear winner may be the lawyers, who must have made a mint out of this over the last 11 years.
The Duck found these versions of non-payzoned articles reporting the appeal win.
Seqwater wins appeal into 2011 Brisbane flood, victims now high and dry 8Sep21
www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/seqwater-wins-appeal-into-2011-brisbane-flood-victims-now-high-and-dry-20210908-p58puf.html
Queensland water utility wins appeal against 2011 flood damages ruling 8Sep21
www.weatherzone.com.au/news/queensland-water-utility-wins-appeal-against-2011-flood-damages-ruling/534948
Warwick, I disagree with your last sentence – could write lots but late and do not want to bore. here are some points
1/ Qld. has a Professional Engineers Act which requires anyone giving an engineering service in Queensland or to a Queensland person/company from anywhere to be registered otherwise they are guilty of an offence under the criminal code. Some operators of the dam were not registered, neither were most of the public servants in the hierarchy of SEQ water, the minister and the premier. Further, none of the Commissioners of the Inquiry (including the present Supreme Court judge) and also the NSW judge who decided the appeal were registered professional engineers.
2/ The proper operation of the dam required data on rainfall, run off, streamflows etc. In the inquiry it was found that many of the river and stream flow monitors were not working and they had no reliable data. They relied on BOM who had no reliable data about the catchment areas and as you know are poor at forecasting.
3/ Dec 2010 had a record monthly rainfall in records going back at least to 1892. and the catchment area was saturated. (I measured slightly north of Brisbane 668mm which exceeded the 1926 record of 609mm and the average of the Dec month of 173mm). In SEQld the heaviest rain occurs in the months Jan 240mm av., Feb260mm av, and Mar(265mm av) at my place. There were indications from SOI and IPO that it was going to be a wetter summer than average. (look at the rain poster here www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/rainfall-poster/)The actual rainfall in Jan 2011 was 566mm with 382mm falling in the first 11 days to the floods.
There should have been lots of people charged including the Water minister and the Premier should have stood down.