Councils demand federal and state liquidity injection to float flood mitigation measure

Flooded in Albert St - Brisbane CBD

Australian councils are mounting a renewed push to extract more money and support from federal and state governments to help pick up the heavy burden of bills incurred from the increasing number of natural disasters including cyclones and floods.

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is warning that more senior jurisdictions must immediately become “more engaged” on the critical issues of water infrastructure, supply and security, with the peak body’s president, Felicity-ann Lewis, using a keynote address to the Australian Water Congress and Expo 2014 in Sydney to push the point.

In a speech that ran the extensive gamut of issues surrounding sustainable water resource management, Ms Lewis said that local government had a broad and important role to play in this area by not only providing water to communities but also optimising water use and capture through land use planning and urban design.

Water management issues have come to the fore for many councils and municipalities because of the incidence of more extreme weather patterns that create a cycle of more pronounced droughts and floods with that are more difficult to manage.

However the biggest issue pushed by Ms Lewis was the extensive role that local government plays in flood mitigation and flood management because of how this role varies from state to state and between councils.

She cautioned delegates that the role of councils in preparing communities and responding to disaster “cannot be underestimated”.

In an era that follows the widespread devastation of the Queensland floods that wreaked havoc on the Sunshine State in early 2011, councils remain deeply anxious about both the efficacy of mitigation measures and the adequacy of protections for expensive infrastructure.

A key point that Ms Lewis raised was the “major cost” to councils after providing “practical mitigation strategies” to protect their communities.

To demonstrate her point, Ms Lewis cited figures on the costs to restore roads after the Queensland floods, which she said amounted to an “astonishing” $2 billion over four years.

The Commonwealth provides up to 75 per cent to cover the costs of these disasters under the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.

Under these arrangements, Queensland councils received $404 million in 2010/11. This figure was boosted to $546 million in 2011/12, $510.8 million in 2012/13 and $548.2 million in 2013/14.

By comparison, Ms Lewis said “in a good year, with moderate floods, Queensland councils might receive perhaps $60-$70 million”.

“This illustrates starkly the scale of the cost of flooding to the public infrastructure on local communities,” Ms Lewis said.

Ms Lewis said the “only rational response” to this problem is to invest more money in mitigation.

She said ALGA is pursuing the issue of the need for more disaster mitigation measures with the government.

“We are pressing for an increase in disaster mitigation funding to help councils to build community resilience to these events and to minimise the impacts of natural disasters on local communities,” she said.

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@governmentnews.com.au.  

Sign up to the Government News newsletter

One thought on “Councils demand federal and state liquidity injection to float flood mitigation measure

  1. I see no reason why many climate water problems can not be much ameliorated by intelligent management of water both before and after the water reaches the soil, including pumping it into water tables through large, clean gravel filled deep holes. Rhode Island pumps whole rivers into the ocean during a flood, so the pumps already exist. I suspect that such a technique could be used to flush salt or poisons out of ground water also if designed right.
    Our management of water is very important. There is no reason why we should allow huge volumes of water to flop down and flow unimpeded across farms down stream, destroying them, while adjacent areas shrivel up by drought. There are huge pumps that can easily prevent this. Allowing river water to flow into the ocean from any country relying on ground water is not very intelligent either.
    This procedure would probably be effective in many areas to displace contaminated water if designed correctly.

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required