Don't be so quick to use that term to write it off thinking a Dam might not happen.....should not have got me started....
QLD HAS to build a Dam to alleviate future flooding & avoid the disasters happening every time Brisbane floods.
ALL the INSURANCE companies want it as it will save them paying out Billions in the future. (I know people
who work for Allianz, SUNCORP & QBE who know Insurance companies have meetings with Govt bodies about this
especially every time Brisbane FLOODS again!) The Qld Govt needs to prove it has a plan of action on this by 2015.
The list of Dam site locations started off at 8 choices & has been narrowed down to 2 & they need both as 2nd one is to
stop Ipswich from flooding. I have followed this all year as they announced which ones were removed from the list - at
one stage they removed 2 & replaced them with another 2 options (that was frustrating lol) but ALL have been removed
from the list not to be revisited again.
Upstream of LINVILLE, 4 kms past the Village (which doesn't flood & will be kept) has been the obvious choice for many years.
Check Google maps/earth - many tributaries run into Brisbane River north of there - it has the perfect geography with 2
large hills matching up either side of the River to easily build it between - much lesser cost than starting from scratch.
The Brisbane River from here winds its way through to Wivenhoe Lake/Dam (which is the one you always see on TV
which released the water flow & wiped everyone out). A lot of water came in from all those tributaries & washed down into Wivenhoe
so a Dam at Linville would hold all that extra water back PLUS Wivenhoe Lake is wide & shallow so in times of future Drought
Linville would feed Wivenhoe which happens to be Brisbanes MAIN water supply so would aid Brisbane in flood & drought times!
I also found a PDF online dated 2005 (golden find!) showing completed results of an Impact Environmental Survey done with
details of all possible Dam sites in Qld re feasibility, how much water they'd hold, how many people affected, costs etc etc.
Appeared to be finalised in order of how many Megalitres of water they each could hold & TRAVESTON was the first one on
the list with 630,000 ML (can't quote exact figures until I dig report up again) with LINVILLE 2nd with approx 480,000 ML (?)
& others were half that so appeared rest not much of an option. (Is why I was feeling more confident Linville would be chosen)
I recall that summarising through it all even told my little brain that Traveston was going to cost way more with resumption of Prime Rural Farming land, displacement noted a few hundred people, water area was shallower so prone to evaporation...? Under Linville it stated minimal resumption of properties & 30 persons displaced, lesser building costs, deeper holding area of water etc etc? Why on earth would Anna Bligh surge ahead spending & wasting millions of our money to resume land for Traveston against so many people crying out that it may hold more ML but would evaporate way too quickly as too shallow amongst farmers losing their livelihood & family history too of 200 years generations working it - yes, Water is important but future food supply is too! Did she & her Advisors not read the report & pluck first Dam off the list hoping Voters could just see she was doing something...?
Who knows what the cost of that feasibility study was yet now they are wasting our money redoing this same report started from
8 years after first one submitted to Govt? Now, Newman is determined to show voters he gives a Dam (pun) & he will deliver it!
I'll post this as have to go out now but later I'll reveal all about what I know is happening in this area & can prove facts (I can be bit like a private detective sometimes ha?)
Thought Property gurus usually like to get in on bottom rung? The PDF link I can find later.
