I am writing in response to ‘Rising river means rising costs’, The News, May 12, 2025.
As one who was involved in the 1974 flood and later held the post of the SES local controller for a period, and spent 52 years in the insurance field, I wish to comment on Robert McLean’s article.
First, the flood history of the Goulburn and Broken rivers follows this pattern: 1869, 1880, 1900, 1911, 1916, 1939, 1956, 1958, 1974, 1993, 2010, 2022, with an average of one every 15 years. If one takes the major floods of 1869, 1880, 1900, 1916, 1956 and 1974, then the average increases to 18.33 years.
Second, the Climate Council’s appreciation as quoted appears to be inept, in that the CBD was the least affected, and for good reason following council’s good work in improving Wyndham St (1956) and the drainage issue, which affected the city in 1974.
Robert has a point about insurance in that insurers no longer measure individual risks, but rely on postcodes and air photography, the latter of which does not provide an accurate picture. The combined result of these two aspects leads to denying cover or overcharging for the risks involved.
I would stress that climate change, as paraded by the activists, has absolutely nothing to do with the flood history of the Goulburn/Broken/Murray river system.
The prime cause of flood damage results from settlement, planning and, might I say, poor governance of the past.
For every inch the water rises over the 1974 flood height, the volume of water has to double, and the builders of the housing commission homes in north-west Shepparton knew exactly what they were doing. That was to build the houses off the ground and leave the land level untouched.
I believe that no houses should be built on a floodplain, at ground level. I also believe that it would be preferable to initiate housing estates in the area of Mount Major and Dookie, for the greatest issues stem from the development of housing estates on known flood plains.
12°C