Alarming report on Brisbane River risks covered up

A SECRET report by scientific and engineering experts warned of significantly greater risks of vast destruction from Brisbane River flooding.

Highest annual flood peaks

A SECRET report by scientific and engineering experts warned of significantly greater risks of vast destruction from Brisbane River flooding - and raised grave concerns with the Queensland government and the city's council a decade ago.

But the recommendations in the report for radical changes in planning strategy, emergency plans and transparency about the true flood levels for Brisbane were rejected and the report was covered up.

The comprehensive 1999 Brisbane River Flood Study made alarming findings about predicted devastation to tens of thousands of flood-prone properties, which were given the green light for residential development since the 1974 flood. The engineers and hydrologists involved in the study warned that the next major flood in Brisbane would be between 1m and 2m higher than anticipated by the Brisbane town plan.

The study highlighted how the council had permitted the development of thousands of properties whose owners were led to believe they would be out of harm's way in a flood on the scale of 1974.

The study was leaked to this reporter in June 2003 by a high-level public servant, who revealed that the local and state government at the time were less concerned with flood risks and more interested in seeing property development in low-lying areas.

"The flood immunity of properties is less than previously assessed. The average flood damages associated with flooding will be significantly higher. There are potential legal implications for council by allowing development to occur in higher-risk areas. As a minimum, developers and residents may need to be advised of the actual flood risk on their property," the study says. "All elements of the study have been subjected to independent peer review because the key findings have significant implications for council.

"The major finding of this study is that the calculated one-in-100-year design flood flow . . . is about 1m to 2m higher than the current development control in the Brisbane River corridor. The simple option of saying that the current development control level represents the one-in-100-year flood level is not valid."

But after receiving the study in 1999 the council adopted a "no change, maintain status quo" strategy -- despite its expert review advising that such a strategy was "poor" because it would reduce flood immunity, increase council's liability and cause the loss of Natural Disaster Relief funds. In the debate that followed its leaking it emerged that misplaced faith by governments and residents in the flood mitigation potential of Wivenhoe Dam played into the hands of property developers, who were profitably turning low-lying swaths of Brisbane into expensive housing.

The Crime and Misconduct Commission investigated the cover-up of the study and recommended better transparency for ratepayers.

The then Labor lord mayor, Tim Quinn, and others in the civic cabinet at the time had known about the study for four years but withheld its existence from ratepayers -- until its leaking forced it into the open. Mr Quinn said then that the study was a "draft" and incomplete and that was why neither he nor his predecessor Jim Soorley had acted on its findings.

Mr Quinn was ousted as lord mayor months after the furore by Campbell Newman who campaigned against secrecy over the flood study and radically overhauled policies to warn the public of the severe risk of another major Brisbane River flood.

Mr Newman, an engineer, said at the time: "A vital study of immense public importance has been kept secret from the community for four years. The council has had this knowledge since 1999 and yet there has been no change in development or building rules reflecting the recommendations in the study. The effect of this is to leave a lot of innocent purchasers of riverfront property exposed who need not have been exposed.

"How can it be 'buyer beware' when the council is not providing the necessary information to purchasers.

"This is totally unacceptable given that people rely on their council for information to assist them when it comes to property matters and particularly safety.

"It's a case which could have a huge impact on people's lives."