Wivenhoe: too little and then too much

Yesterday I wondered whether the Wivenhoe's decision makers were on duty on the critical weekend before Brisbane flooded. Somehow they'd let the dam's flood-protection reverse get half full by Monday morning, leaving the dam unable to cope with the deluge of rain from Monday.

It turns out that an SEQ Water engineer was indeed on deck, making decisions. The trouble is that the emails he sent out to stakeholders suggest too little was released until it was too late, when too much floodwater then had to be dumped to save the dam - with the releases of 1250 cubic metres per second over the weekend having to be ramped up to 8000 at the very peak of the flood:

LEAKED email communications from a Wivenhoe Dam engineering officer underline concerns that the Brisbane River flood was mostly caused by massive releases from the dam after it had held on to water too long over a crucial 72 hours before the severe rainfall that hit the region last week.

The emails, which become increasingly urgent in tone as the situation became critical as the dam's levels rise rapidly, were provided to The Australian by a source who said the stream of data had convinced him the river flood of Brisbane could have been largely avoided if the dam's operators had taken action much earlier.

A commission of inquiry will examine whether the dam's operators erred in permitting the dam's flood compartment to be severely limited for a major rainfall event because of their strategy to let the dam's levels rise over the weekend of January 8-9.

According to figures from Wivenhoe's operator, SEQWater, the dam's capacity went from 106 per cent full on the morning of Friday, January 7, to 148 per cent full on the morning of Monday, January 10, due to the limited weekend releases. Experts have said this severely compromised the dam's ability to store additional runoff.

UPDATE

This debate will have huge ramifications for the insurance industry, if the Brisbane flood can be put down in part to human miscalculation:

The Age understands that insurers have reached an initial view that home owners and businesses would not have automatic cover for flood damage in Brisbane and nearby Ipswich, while many in some of the worst hit parts of south-east Queensland would be in line for payouts.

The early finding, which is understood to have been reached at a board meeting of the Insurance Council of Australia this week, is likely to anger thousands of insurance customers given they face little in the way of payouts, or none at all, under the terms of their policy.

According to senior insurance industry figures, customers in Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley are expected to be covered by their policies, given damage in those areas was as a result of storm or run-off from stormwater.

However, the Insurance Council has concluded that damage in Brisbane and Ipswich was a result of flooding, something that is not automatically covered by most insurers.

The insurers will no doubt get the predictable populist backlash and political grandstanding for affirming what many insurance contracts plainly state - that storm-caused flooding and similar "acts of God" aren't covered. But a contract is a contract, and in this case the premiums were calculated with these exceptions taken into account. To given policy holders flood cover that they didn't pay for is an act of charity, not an obligation.

That makes the threats on intervention by the Gillard Government unjustifiable:

This came as the federal government put Australia's insurance industry on notice to reform its standard flood cover, and to broaden access to flood policies for all households, or face government intervention.