Never mind Options B1, B2, D what about do nothing?

Never mind Option B1, B2, D is there another solution as yet not investigated.

 

Many readers of this series of blogs may well have thought my vote is likely to be for either Option B1 of option B2 and not option D. But I canvas now the question raised briefly in my post on the 30th August.

Let us start by asking should solutions not investigated by the Project be considered. Yes I say and why not.

When I look at the flooding potential of the creek and I look at what the Project now believe will be the 1 in 100 year flood I question whether the extreme expenditure identified can be truly justified. As I reported in a recent post the 2012 proposal included a cost comparison of between being proactive and being reactive.

dollar-sign-on-treadmillWe have costs suggested to us for a number of proactive options. Much debate has ensued over the difference in the costs proposed for either options B1 & 2 or Option D. Unlike previously curiously we have no costs proposed for the repairs that would be required given the current hydrology we are working on now in the event we do nothing.

 

Not knowing this cost means my next observations are guesses. Sorry about that but the theory needs to be examined whether we have costs available to back them up or to refute them.

Why should 5 councils commit their ratepayers to an expense they don’t need to commit to is a question that I would have thought should be part of any investigation into the feasibility of a project of this type. It was good enough 5 years ago when there was no great difference between being proactive and being reactive.

It should be good enough to do the same thing now.

This has not been forthcoming inspite of my requesting it.

Indeed on reading the hydrology that we have received I fully question whether or not we simply clean out the creek and be done with it. The do nothing option if you can call if that.

Having said that I wonder if we should actually be looking at higher values given the predictions that we will have less frequent but more intense rainfall.

 

2 Comments

  1. James   •  

    Hi Don, are you suggesting that the Councils could just clean out Brownhill Creek and be done with it. This would save millions and millions of dollars.

    Unfortunately you may have forgotten that the Brownhill & Keswick Creek Flood Mitigation Plan involves not only Brownhill Creek but Keswick Creek and its feeder creeks. Unley Council has already signed off of the Keswick Creek compontent of the Plan. This is where the majority of the costs of the plan sits.

    Don’t divert Keswick Creek into Brownhill Creek and the problem of fixing the Brownhill Creek problem is easier to mitigate and pay for. There would be a lot of happy upper creek people if you could move this in Council. It is widely know that Keswick Creek is the main flooding risk to the catchment.

    If you take Brownhill Creek out of the Plan that would then change the whole costing formula which would probably result in Unley having to pay more of their share than they currently have to under the current Brownhill & Keswick Creek Plan that is proposed.

    • Don Palmer   •     Author

      No argument James and thanks for your ongoing contribution. I trust you and others recognise this series of blogs on my part are me working through the issues. I have no set mind yet but expect to after I have canvassed all issues I identify and think out aloud on them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *