5 ms·
Differences between this and Katrina: 1. The Australian media doesn't run on a 24-hour "outrage" cycle. We don't have any way to blame this on some targeted po
by hugh3 16y ago
Differences between this and Katrina:
1. The Australian media doesn't run on a 24-hour "outrage" cycle. We don't have any way to blame this on some targeted political figure (though certainly political figures have come in for some criticism). People will get blamed (particularly those who were in charge of the dam that was supposed to prevent this from happening again) but it'll happen slowly and in a controlled manner, not in a rapid flurry of 24-hour-news-station activity. We have a procedure for finger-pointing, and it's called a Royal Commission... we'll spend a year investigating and holding hearings and then eventually find the correct people at whom to tut-tut.
2. The death toll is relatively low. Very low in Brisbane itself (where the rise of the floodwaters was gentle) and a mere dozen or so in other parts of the state (where flash floods did occur). Sad and all that, but still on a relatively small scale.
3. No breakdown of order. Partly because a river flood is nothing like a hurricane (the city itself wasn't cut off, and if you're in an affected area you can walk five blocks to an unaffected area) and partly because of the different quality of people in the two cities.
4. New Orleans already had serious problems (poverty, race relations) which were only exacerbated. Brisbane was a pretty nice place, and it's still a pretty nice place (except for the parts which are now ruined).
In answer to your question, though, this isn't a once-in-1000-year flood... more a twice-a-century sort of flood... we had floods in the 1890s and again in 1974. The Wivenhoe Dam was constructed to prevent the 1974 flood from ever happening again. It didn't work, partly because the folks in charge of operating the dam didn't start releasing water until it was too late... which was itself partly because they've been worrying for most of the last decade about running out of water and forgot that too much water is also a problem.
There's a reason why the architectural style known as a "Queenslander" is a house on stilts though -- Queensland is not a stranger to floods.
- taitems 16y agoExcept that a Queenslander is built on stilts primarily for heat-related reasons, and flood avoidance is only a byproduct.
- Dylanlacey 16y agoYes, and the reason is that raised houses with wide verandahs and 'wind tunnel' halls from front to back door are excellent for keeping cool during boiling hot summers. As for the dam management, the principles of operation are deliberately not subject to political whim, so were considered appropriate at the time. There was also more water then in 1974 AND a king tide, so there are some mitigating factors. Only the full inquest will really tell for sure.
- artpop 16y agoMore water or just no dam to save them from the worst of it?
- ahpeeyem 16y agoThere was more water this time around than there was in 1974, but the flood levels were higher in 1974 because there was no dam then. Wivenhoe dam[1] did work as flood mitigation, but there were concerns during the flood as the water level was spiking quickly towards maximum storage[2], so some water was being let out (apparently about half of what was going in). If the dam did get to full capacity its automatic system would have fully opened the flood gates, potentially making the flood situation quickly worsen even more. [1] http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/catch-store-treat/dams/wivenhoe-dam http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/catch-store-treat/dams/wiv... [2] http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels See the interactive graph at the bottom of the page, you can choose to see only Wivenhoe's storage level history. Its level is almost back to 100% which is the normal water storage level, not the full flood mitigation level.
- jacques_chester 16y ago> The Australian media doesn't run on a 24-hour "outrage" cycle. We do have bloggers who don't mind slipping the boot into each other. Two sites I host (catallaxyfiles.com and larvatusprodeo.net) have been sniping from both sides of the standard political divide.
- OzzyB 16y agoThe US could do with a few Royal Commissions...
- hugh3 16y agoI'll say it damn well could. The idea of a Royal Commission is one of the ideas I'd really like to import from Australia to the US. Actually the idea of a Royal Commission is just part of a smaller idea missing from US governance: the idea that an organ of the government can be completely non-partisan. Royal Commissions are instigated by politicians, but they're expected to exist far above the fray of ordinary politics; certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. Other examples of entities which manage in Australia to escape the partisanship which dominates them in the US are the High (Supreme) Court and the process for redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts.
- randallsquared 16y agocertainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other. For this American, that sounds like not being allowed to talk about their bias. I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level.
- hugh3 16y agoI would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level. Yes, that's kindof what I was trying to say. And I think to some extent it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course people are only human and have their biases, but if you create a social expectation that they'll be unbiased (and combine this with choosing the best people for the job -- old judges with nothing in particular to gain or lose and a well-earned reputation for impartiality) then they will be as unbiased as humanly possible. The "Royal" in the title is no accident, though -- the traditions of the Commonwealth countries dictate that the Crown is above all politics, so anything expected to be above politics is always given a direct symbolic link to the monarchy. In the US there is no such thing and the highest power in the land is just another damn politician. One might, perhaps going only a little too far, wonder whether the American political need to constantly invoke God comes from not having a Queen instead.
- clinton 16y ago... I would wait until the royal commission before I lay blame on dam operators. I suspect, that much of the flood waters came from the Lockyer Creek (the waterway that was the source of those horrendous videos from Toowoomba) - which actually feed into the brisbane river _downstream_ of Wivenhoe dam, meaning that the dam couldn't stop a large chunk of the flood water from entering the Brisbane river. See this map here: http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=-27.409109,152.603145&spn=0.045984,0.093513&z=15 http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=-27.409109,152.603... So maybe part of the blame should be placed on the Dam designers... But perhaps other topological constraints prevented the Dam from being located further downstream? Lots of pieces to the puzzle and I don't think it is as simple as just the dam operators waiting till it was too late..
- hugh3 16y agoYou could very well be right. I certainly hope that the answer to "Why was Brisbane flooded" turns out to be primarily "Mother Nature is a bitch" rather than "Random public servant Joe Bloggs screwed up big time".
- guelo 16y ago> and partly because of the different quality of people in the two cities. What the hell is that supposed to mean?