As one can see if
the period selected as the base has large floods in it then the volume on which
the 66% is applied will significantly increase the water allocation for the
ecology.
The Technical
advisory Panel was aware of this and stated in their supporting literature, when
determining the 66%, that
the inclusion of large floods would skew the result. However they were imprecise
in the selection of the period. They used an approximate time of 110 years and
did not state the start and finish dates. The photos below are (1) the
Technical Advisory Panel (2) the fact that the inclusion of large floods
would "skew" the result and (3) their imprecise selection of
the years to be used.
(1)
(2)
(3)
The period
selected and written into the Act was 01/07/1889 to 30/06/2000. A period of 111
years. It is set out below. It has four major floods in it. Those floods
are 1890 as large as 1974, 1893 (two in February) and 1974. Even the uninitiated
can see that these floods would increase the volume the 66% would produce
compared to a period with the floods excluded.
This
chart was produced by the official Government IQQM computer model
It is in
Giga-Litres which is 1,000 Mega-litres per giga-litre
The imprecision of
the Technical Advisory Panel has left the selection of the years on which the
calculation is to be based to the writers of the Act. Not only did the period
written into the Act contain major floods but there was 111 years used which
conflicts with their "approximate" 110 years. The presence of the
1890 flood at the beginning and closely followed by the 1893 (Two) would not escape
your attention.
The true test of
the calculation is its application to the 113 years 1894 to 2006. My
calculations below show that the 66% becomes 75% when applied to those years and
a volume of water each year of 130,568ML being diverted away from the residents
of SEQ. The calculations are below.
Simplified
calculation below Click to examine
I
forwarded more detailed analysis on the 16th November 2010 for
Minister Robertson and and his
Department’s response to my calculations. My previous requests have been
ignored with the exception that Minister Robertson suggested that they be raised in
year 2017 when the Water
Resource (Moreton) Plan 2007 is up for renewal. The delay would abrogate the
solution required. The three desalination plants and the footings for the
smaller dam at Borumba would be well under way by then or completed.
I presented my calculations to the
Department of Environment and Resource Management on the 25th February 2010 for
critical analysis. No response or acknowledgement has been received. Two members of the Technical Advisory Panel and Peer Review were
advised of my calculations with requests for clarification (19/03/2010). They
have been strangely silent on the matter. One of the Technical Advisory Panel
was Professor Greenfield, Vice Chancellor of the Queensland University. He twice
refused acknowledge receipt of my information. He has since resigned his
position.
Minister Robinson has now responded and
suggests that the matter be raised in 2017 when the Water Resource (Moreton)
Plan 2007 is up for review. He correctly states that this Act was widely
canvassed but the flaw, based on page 42 above, of the inclusion of the floods
was not fixed as the pre-development flows were not published. I was aware of
these floods but an argument could
not be developed without them.
The "approximation" of the years
included in the "Simulation period" seems to be a breach of the standards
laid down by the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) particularly where a sizable difference is proven.
The failure to be specific in the actual years start and finish in the published
documents above, in my view, undermines the credibility of the TAP conclusion.
A
meeting with DERM senior officers left us in no doubt that they were unhappy
with the 66% allocation made by the Technical Advisory Panel. They viewed it as
insufficient for the environment and had no hesitation in advising us that they had moved to increase
this volume. No doubt they have that authority or authorisation and sound reasons for any
departure from the TAP information. They did not explain how this was applied.
However Minister Roberson letters of the
6/08/2009 and 02/06/2010 are in conflict as he relies specifically on the TAP report.
Structural implementations such as
desalination plants will occur before 2017 and at great initial and ongoing
costs to our community.
Permanent “once only”
calculation ignoring the advice that major floods would “skew” the result
A
simplified version that excludes all
three floods. The 1974 flood is included in the detailed version.
(1) Known major floods
in the Wivenhoe/Somerset catchments)
The known pre-development
inflows of the major floods as shown be the official graph below total
16,100,000 ML. (1890 4,300.000ML 1893 (2 in February) 7,500,000ML and 1974
4,300,000ML = 16,100,000ML) As per the official pre-development flow chart
above.
(2) Known floods in
the whole of the
Brisbane
River
Major floods cover all of
SEQ including the other tributaries of the
Brisbane
being the
Bremer
River
, Lockyer Creek and others. The Wivenhoe/Somerset provides 58% of the total
inflows according to the official IQQM computer model.
Therefore the total flow
from the three major floods = 27,758,621ML being the Wivenhoe/Somerset
contribution of 16,100,000ML = 58%. 100% being the whole of the
Brisbane
River
= 27,758,621ML.
(3) The period covered
in the calculation is 111 years. Reduce to annual
The annual
contribution by these major floods is therefore 250,078ML. (Total flood inflow
of 27,758.621ML divided by 111 years = 250,078ML
(4)
Overstatement of the Ecology proportion being 66%
Overstatement
of the Ecology share is 165,051ML annually.
(66% of 250,078ML) Note : The detailed version includes the 1974 flood for
continuity and includes years 2001 to 2006.
End
of simplified version Click to return
Strangling the true potential of the
Wivenhoe/Somerset dams
It also means that no further water, other
than the 286,000ML annual allocations already made to us, can be extracted from
the Wivenhoe/Somerset system until the Act is changed to represent the correct
allocations. This means that the massive infrastructure of
the Wivenhoe/Somerset dams has been confined to providing a little more than the
equivalent of the output of 6 desalination plants of the Tugun size.
SEQWater in their 2000 and 2001 reports had
set the yield (available water) from the 
Wivenhoe/Somerset
System at 445,600ML annually. The South East Qld Water Strategy Mark 1 had set
the yield at 373,000ML but were concerned about "droughts" now overcome by the
Borumba Plan. Either way the Wivenhoe/Somerset System falls well short of its true
potential by the use of this calculation of the volume including the 1890 and
1893 and 1974 major floods.
The
structure of the SEQ Water Strategy, the fate of desalination and lower water
costs now rest largely
on this calculation.
Return
