Storage over mitigation, says Pattison

WATER authorities had prioritised the maximisation of water storage over the competing interest of flood mitigation.

That’s the view put by Fernihurst farmer Ken Pattison to the Victorian Parliament flood inquiry.

Mr Pattison’s submission is one of more than 700 now made public by the inquiry committee. He wants reservoir management plans amended to mandate a buffer of freeboard (airspace) storage capacity during any wet periods as identified by the BOM and catchment hydrology reports. He has also called for Government to mandate the release of real-time data from reservoirs. low greater warning that Laanecoorie reservoir would reach major flood levels. As Laanecoorie Reservoir is approximately 17km (by river) from Newbridge, inadequate warning was available to the people of Newbridge and surrounds.”

Council’s submission says Bridgewater had about 12 hours warning allowing “significant preparation to occur because the community responded instantly working together to prepare areas which would flood. With greater warning this community would have been better positioned to save further infrastructure and homes from flooding”.

Loddon Shire says it wants greater flood monitoring systems downstream of Laanecoorite, “It was difficult to obtain official information about the location of the water front to understand the speed of movement and time to prepare.

“Council was using local staff, contacting local CFAs and farmers on the ground to understand the location of water and track movement. Official daily monitoring and information about the location and predicted movement of the floodwaters from an official source would have added great value to give warning to residents and businesses.

“Increased flood monitors downstream from Laanecoorie would assist in the provision of early warnings to downstream landowners.”

LODDON Shire wants better induction programs for new CFA brigade captains working in a flood emergency.

“Locally, there is no capacity in the SES to co-ordinate the response and therefore local response leadership was transferred to the CFA under their joint arrangements,” it says.

“As a whole the local CFAs provided exemplary leadership during this event and in some cases to the detriment of their own personal impact and property damage.

“In some cases local CFA captains were not aware of the arrangements between the CFA and SES and were therefore unaware of their authority to act in consultation with the incident control centre.

“In some instances this lack of knowledge caused delays in them taking action and conflict with council.

“Council is in strong support of the arrangement between the CFA and SES whereby the CFA provides local response where the SES has no capacity and the SES provides co-ordination support from the Incident Control Centre.

“Council often found itself in the position of providing response type services without approval as the Incident Control Centre and management team became uncontactable.”