Opinion: Review the levee proposal and let the river run safe and free

“It is essential that the scientific experts must not be ignored, and that science has already shown us that the bowels of this once pristine river are constipated from the barrage to and including Fairymead Bend.”

Minister for Local Government Stirling Hinchliffe visited Bundaberg to announce a $42.5 million commitment for the Bundaberg East flood levee with now Bundaberg MP Tom Smith and Bundaberg Mayor Jack Dempsey. Photo: Geordi Offord

My letter of concern refers, in particular but not limited to, the safety of the East Levee proposal that, although championed by the State Government and the BRC Councillors, have not yet gained Commonwealth approval or funding that is an essential condition for the State to proceed.

Recently, the Mayor, speaking at the Hinkler innovation series, made a passionate plea to a specific group of the Community that offer their opinions, protest, lobby and advocate for a review of the levee proposal and then, declared that “people need to accept the science, listen to experts and do what’s right for Bundaberg.”

I agree absolutely that we need to accept the science – but not science that is unidentified and known to be in conflict.

Although I would not suggest that Jack is anything but genuine regarding his views and comments, I believe that various sections of the scientific studies by both GHD and Jacobs require detailed clarification which may ease the concerns of all stakeholders, including the Bundaberg Community.

As an example, it is essential that the East Bundaberg Levee options [ GHD 2013/14 and Jacobs 2016] that contain high levels of hydraulic engineering and scientific modelling should be closely compared.

We all know that the devil is in the detail and the facts remain that Jacobs based the criteria for the East Levee design on a 1.5% AEP flood [70 year ARI] event that provides flood protection to East Bundaberg well below the 2013 flood peak.

Surprisingly, the GHD option based on the existing 0.5% AEP [200-year ARI] flood level + 0.6m freeboard has been costed at $71 million with no allowance for escalation.

This compares with Jacobs at $47 million.

Common sense tells us that, because the Jacobs design is based on a relatively minor flood event [1.5% AEP] compared to the GHD option of a 200-year ARI flood design that specifies a much greater length of levee construction together with a substantial height increase, the GHD option, including escalation since 2013, could be pushing $130 million in 2021.

A further declaration by the Mayor included the following: “the levee will make people safe.”

Regarding the potential danger for, and the safety of the Bundaberg community living close to the area south of the proposed East Levee, please consider the horrific consequences following a rain event in the Bundaberg City catchment area coinciding with a substantial Burnett River flood peak.

At the worst possible scenario, the area behind the levee could suffer the impact of flooding from that secondary rain event and continue to rise until a pumping operation could be activated. I believe that such a risk to the community, even if extremely rare, would be ‘a bridge too far.’

It is essential that the scientific experts must not be ignored, and that science has already shown us that the bowels of this once pristine river are constipated from the barrage to and including Fairymead Bend.

The river continues to become shallower due to serious annual sedimentation.

Until that situation is addressed, Bundaberg will become more flood prone and to ignore these obvious signs will ensure that the financial and social costs will continue to rise.

The “creeping “effects of climate change have provided a serious threat to this Community reminds us that complacency is not an option regarding current and future dangers throughout this natural Burnett floodplain that “services” an enormous catchment o 33,200 square kilometres.

Paul Tramacchi, Bundaberg North