By Bridie Jabour
The Crime and Misconduct Commission has found no evidence of criminal or official misconduct against three Wivenhoe Dam engineers, finding that a ‘‘conflicting’’ and at times ‘‘badly drafted’’ dam manual was the reason for confusion about when particular flood strategies were implemented during last year’s floods.
The finding exonerated the engineers of conspiring to write a misleading final report after the January floods and purposefully misleading the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry about their actions and motivations in releasing water during the disaster.
Wivenhoe Dam during the January 2011 flood.Credit: Dean Saffron
The watchdog has completed a review of material provided by the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, which had recommended it investigate whether criminal charges should be laid against Wivenhoe engineers John Tibaldi, Robert Ayre and Terry Malone.
During the flood inquiry’s hearings earlier this year, much was made about the final post-flood report by dam operator Seqwater, primarily written by Mr Tibaldi, with input from Mr Ayre and Mr Malone.
Wivenhoe Dam engineer Robert Ayre during the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry.Credit: Michelle Smith
The review concerned whether the three engineers had followed the dam manual during the floods, and whether they had subsequently lied in the final report, and to the two-part inquiry, about their adoption of different flood strategies.
The conduct of the engineers was referred to the CMC by then-premier Anna Bligh last March on the advice of the Floods Commission of Inquiry report.
Retired Appeal Court judge John Jerrard, QC, headed up the CMC investigation and wrote in his findings the engineers had believed they were following the dam manual when they adopted their water release strategies during the floods.
In his advice Mr Jerrard said prosecution of the trio would be ‘‘oppressive’’ if they were simply trying to follow a manual that contained contradictory statements.
The dam was being operated in strategy W3 on January 8, 2011, but the engineers believed they were operating in strategy W2.
According to the CMC review the confusion was due to contradictions between a flowchart on page 23 of the manual which directed when W2 should be invoked and an extended definition of the W2 strategy on page 27.
Strategy W2 is a transition strategy of releasing flood waters where the primary consideration is protecting urban areas from inundation .
The allegations that sparked the second sitting of the flood inquiry – and the referral of the engineers to the CMC – centred around the engineers’ move to the W3 strategy directly from the W1 strategy, and whether they believed they were using the W2 strategy and had lied afterwards about their intentions.
‘‘If the engineers had been following the flowchart, they could have honestly believed they were in strategy W2 until the contradictory terms of the definition at page 27 were adverted to,’’ Mr Jerrard found.
‘‘This contradiction in the Manual would provide an explanation for all of the engineers’ inconsistent statements and descriptions of what they had done at the time of the January 2011 Flood Event, and is not evidence of either the commission of a criminal offence or official misconduct.’’
The conflict in the definitions of the W2 strategy on pages 23 and 27 concern what the peak flow levels at Moggill and Lowood should be during a W2 dam water release, and how much water should be released.
The table on page 23 indicated W2 should be implemented when the maximum flow at Lowood was likely to be less than 3500 cumecs and a maximum flow at Moggill was likely to be less than 4000 cumecs.
The flowchart did not provide for a transition directly from strategy W1 to strategy W3 in these circumstances and it was the flowchart the engineers were believed to be following when they thought they were implementing W2.
The extended definition on page 27 said the W2 strategy was implemented when the maximum release was predicted to be less than 3500 cumecs.
The cumec is a measure of flow rate and one cumec is shorthand for cubic metre per second.
‘‘An honest belief that the engineers had always intended to comply with the Manual would justify the engineers describing themselves as adopting strategy W3, when strategy W2 was not appropriate, even when they had earlier thought W2 was appropriate, and had said that they were in it,’’ Mr Jerrard said in the CMC report.
‘‘If the engineers believed they had followed the Manual, it is not dishonest, criminal, or misconduct, for any of them to say that they did.
‘‘Nor is it dishonest, criminal, or misconduct, to misunderstand what the Manual required.’’
Today Wivenhoe operator Seqwater welcomed the CMC findings, releasing a statement by CEO Peter Borrows.
''Seqwater remains acutely aware of the impact of the floods and the devastation caused which is ongoing for so many in our community,'' the statement said.
''However, it is important not to lose sight of the magnitude and rarity of the January event.
''Seqwater has already implemented the bulk of the recommendations of the Inquiry’s reports as they relate to the organisation, with the remainder in progress, to help ensure South East Queensland is as best prepared as it can be for any future flood events.
''The engineers would like to personally thank their families, friends, work colleagues, fellow professionals and members of the public for their support and encouragement over the past 18 months.''
Flood inquiry hearings were reconvened early this year, after the initial inquiry had closed, following news stories published by The Australian questioning whether flood engineers’ testimony over the activation of a particular water release strategy reflected contemporaneous records.
The inquiry advised the engineers should be referred to the CMC after it found the flood engineers retrospectively concluded when they must have moved to certain release strategies, rather than told a true account of what decisions were made and when.