On a suggestion from Jeff Wehl, and because this has been a long running chestnut of mine, I thought I would start a discussion on the uniformity and adequacy of the BoM's warning protocol. One example is the issuing of flood watches and warnings. Now this is the actual legislation that covers the issuing of such warnings and what it says. According to Sect 6 of the Meteorology Act 1955 (Cth), subsection 1 lists the function of the BoM which includes:



I'm sure the drafters of this piece of legislation were unaware of their pun (give rise to floods), but it is nevertheless apt. Now, this is where I feel the Brisbane office of the BoM is remiss in its duty under Commonwealth legislation, and should adopt what its colleagues for the very same Commonwealth agency in Sydney do and issue appropriate flood watches when there is, as the above section specifies, 'weather conditions likely to give rise to floods' (my italics). It is important to appreciate the intent of this piece of legislation for it does not mean to wait and give a warning when there is, like a storm or a gale, a flood actually occurring, but when 'weather conditions (are) likely to give rise to floods'; not just when there is an actual flood as they do here in Queensland. The BoM office here in Queensland needs to appreciate that it operates under this Commonwealth legislation and is not a quasi-state organisation that runs along parochial state boundaries. Mr Jim Davidson, director, are you listening? It is time to properly and reasonably inform citizens of Queensland when there is a likelihood of floods, not just when floods are actually occurring. This is not just an idle request based on a wish of mine, it is L-A-W law. Your colleagues in Sydney get it, it is time your office does too.

I appreciate that there are SWWs and STWs issued for the possibility of flash flooding and this is entirely appropriate. However, what is sorely missing is a system for 'flood watches' or a 'heads up' protocol. This allows people in flood-prone areas to adequately prepared themselves for such an eventuality. It is protocol to issue such watches, in the case of TCs, 48 hours in advance. This should also apply to flood watches as the impact of flooding can be just as devastating as a TC.

Anyway, I hope to start a healthy and robust discussion of these important issues.

i agree. first we here of flooding is when the roads are closed when you are on them.

Thanks Inclement I am glad there will be some attention to this as without dramatizing it its simply not possible for organizations and business to react within the given time frames.

You have highlighted a most excellent piece of legal jargon as the word likely is surely different to words such as current. It seems to me that our warning systems revolve around real time events - in an age where we have the technology to do so much better. I feel that there should be some protocol for situations such as the most recent where there is model allignment to issue something like a flood (or bushfire or whatever) watch most likely 48 hours before the event begins. There is no need for this to be over dramatized although I agree that could be an unfortanute consequence. However just some of the problem with not doing this have been clearly illustrated and include mind boggling traffic issues causing danger to life, loss of livestock and damage to property, poorly executed community events and possible loss of productivity through work programs.

There are lots of people who would listen were such a watch in place - they would at least downsize their programs or take some precautions. People may cancel that weekend trip - community events may secure or move to an indoor location. Staff may move to a half roster and all of this would lessen the impact on the roads and emergency services.

Someone else is probably better placed to review the negatives of an early (ier) warning system but I can see how there could be loss of confidence in warnings (hence I like the term watch) and forecasters. There could also be unecessary cancellation of events and programs which could cost productivity and dollars however in my experience that decision lies with the organizer and the nature of their activity. Working with electricity and on roof tops a smidgen of rain is enough to move our workplace into the very high risk category and whilst I have all the models and text alerts it is a fine call between safety and productivity that requires lead time due to having to close off or make a site safe before shutting down.

Also whilst not a parent I do feel that schools been open (for the most part) on Tuesday Jan 10th last year was bordering on extreme negligence not just for the children but also for the parents and everyone else on the road. As people are indicating making these decisions as the road goes under is pointless - especially when with the model forecasts, river heights and approaching radar blobs it is possible to make these decsions faster.

I did notice the DEPT ED was pretty quick this time round with several closures however I do know of one private school that went ahead and opened in the middle of the second 250mm day. Working in an environment where I am constantly analyzing risk I really do have to wonder as to a) whether a risk assessment was done and b) how fast those boxes were ticked without thinking or without consulting the information on hand.

Finally I really dont want to drag in the current debate about causing panic and or been calm which is occuring here mostly because I think its a moot point in this forum. People here know - theyre watching and they are alert. Its the general public who have no idea and the problem is that sometimes they have very valid reasons for not been aware - they may have just come back from holidays - they may do shift work - they may have been sick - the list goes on. With the way this system developed surely it would have been wise to categorize the week as medium to high flood risk (I believe Brisbane would only have become high risk by today and only if we were hit like the Gold Coast and then only if the current low moved though - thats a lot of ifs!) where instead we had the media telling the public the wet season was over (lol) and the BOM alering to people of flash flooding on the day. On the day just isnt good enough for the general populace and I believe our technology has reached the point where we can do better. If were still not doing it after last January's impact then that is surely cause for concern.

This is bound to be an interesting thread.

Perhaps the problem lies with the individual's interpretation of the term "likely"?

If the duty forecaster assesses the situation as being not "likely" then they will not issue the warning. Another forecaster may assess the same situation as being "likely" and they would issue the warning. It is a matter of subjective assessment. I don't know if BoM have a checklist that forecasters can use in such situations and if they do not, then it is up to the forecaster to express their opinion by either issuing the warning or not. It would be down their PERSONAL opinion regardless of what is in the Act.

Unfortunately for all of us, the English language is a difficult one to learn and very often our interpretations of words are phrases, even though they are technically correct, are different to what was intended.

Here in the Top End, we hear people complaining vehemently each time an alert is issued when conditions are such that a cyclone is "possible", and not much eventuates. I would not be surprised if people would react the same way if flood warnings were issued and nothing much happens. The poor BoM is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Perhaps the wording in the Meteorology Act needs to be re-written so that the BoM can serve the people better?

In any case, even if the BoM do issue warnings (for floods or cyclones or any other severe weather), there will still be people who do not heed those warnings anyway. It happens all the time up here. Survival of the fittest. Be glad that you can interpret the weather and you do not have to rely on someone else issuing a warning before you realise that the weather is turning bad. If people are too stupid to seek out information (and there is plenty out there), then it is not the fault of the BoM, that they come unstuck. The BoM can only do so much, the rest is up to the individual.

The main reason people don't know is because they don't want to know. As you said the regular warnings will cause people to get the s@#*% when the said disaster does not occur and people will end up ignoring them anyway and then we are back to sqaure one. I honestly believe that with the system in place there is adequate warning for anyone that could be bothered to take responsibility for themselves.Many will bring up the towoomba and grantham flash floods but that was most likely a once in a several genneration event and BoM have as little idea about these things as the rest of us. How many other situations can you think of where there was not adequate warning?

And we should not forget, that even though BoM do put out warnings, there are several reasons why people do not receive them; such as:-

1. The media do not always drop everything they are doing just to broadcast the warning,

2. The public are not always glued to their TVs, radios, mobile phones, Computers or whatever to receive any warning that is broadcast,

3. Some people are not interested in the weather and would not take notice anyway,

4. And some sods are too ignorant to realise that something is wrong and that they should take care (this happens regularly in the Top End; flooded roads and idiots still try to cross and when it goes pear-shaped, they want to blame someone else for not warning them).

The BoM can only issue the warning; they can NOT make the media broadcast it (although there is supposed to be some legal responsibility for the media to do so), they can not make people tune in to any broadcasts and take notice, and they can not make people take precautions and obey directions.

Some people just do not have as much interest in the weather as we do. They will not necessarily take notice just because we, or the BoM, think they should. Fact of life!

True.

The last flood watch we had for the Murrumbidgee was a fizzer with almost no rain. We have another flood watch on today. When I told people about it today and the expected rainfall it parts, 99% of them laughed and said they would act when they saw the water rising.

Devils Advocate:

1) Instant Gratification: There is a perception that because we have instant access to almost anything with our mobile phones, laptops/computers/tablets etc that we should somehow be given instant updates and warnings. But what people don't realise is that EVERY warning has to go through an assessment process and this takes time to implement and act on. It isn't a matter of "Bugger it look like the creeks are flooding x kilometres away from Y so we better warn them about a road closure" because the technology isn't in place to make those sorts of assessments instantly or anywhere near real time. Data from hydrological sources sometimes only transmits evey 60 minutes so a flash flood can occur without any warning as seen in last years floods and then you have the issue of where you place the sensors and how many do you need.

2) Public Information: BoM radar images (Are the ones used by EVERY weather source in Australia) are a minimum of 10 minutes old before they get served up on the Internet for public consumption. Again they have to be processed, filtered in some cases and checked to see if they are accurate (or as accurate as they can be made) and are a representation of what occured in the immediate past - not what is happening now as most people who watch them seem to think. To be provided with in depth weather information you have to subscribe to one of the hugely expensive options such as aviation, maritime, defence CSIRO etc. The Weather Channel for example, is able to get more up to date radar images and information because they pay for it.

3) The care factor. As stated by Brett the vast majority of people are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to weather and don't give a rats about weather warnings. You see it here in Townsville all the time. A Cyclone watch is issued and people go into one of three modes a) Cyclone what cyclone? b) It will never get here so why worry c) Panic. The same with most warnings put out by anyone. The old "Nah it won't happen to me" factor is more wide spread than us weather nuts think.

4) BoM walks a tight rope every day. BoM has to balance out their decisions about when and how they frame a warning because they can have a huge effect on businesses, schools, transport, day to day living and politics. Look at how the so called tourist industry screams every time a cyclone watch is given. The lead story after the cyclone will always be the tourist industry whinging about lost profits.

5) BoM responsibility. Now does the BoM have the right to tell a school not to open because it may flood tomorrow? The short answer is No. They have been tasked by the federal government to provide forecasts and warnings. So they provide a forecast and it is up to the various affected entities (schools, shops, factories, councils etc) to act on that forecast. It has never been the Bom's responsibility to ensure anyone acts on their warnings or forecasts.

6) Communications: The BoM have a standard that they should adhere to when it comes to making forecasts. Sometimes this may seem very vague or doewnright silly (see BoM forecasting humor thread as a fine example) but again the language that they use has to be couched in such a way so as not to cause panic but to inform people who are inetrested. Thats why we have Radio/TV weather presenters who's sole job is to break down the BoM Speak into a version that anyone can understand.

In the end teh resposibilty is the Bom to provide timely warnings and forecasts but who says what is a timely manner? You can demand a quciker response for issuing a warning but what would that achieve of all you did was increase the number of false alarms you get?

Often the general media has a lot to answer for too with the way they word their stories. For example, this morning I awoke to a headline of "Floods strike Queensland's west amid a cyclone warning." This to me implies a cyclone warning has been issued, but it hasn't. It's merely stating that there's a moderate chance of a cyclone developing in a few days time - quite misleading:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queen...f-1226257774824

AC

The BOM only ever 'requests' (and doesn't require) its warnings to be broadcast, meaning that the media have an option not to. There ought to be tighter controls on media who think they can gainsay the original text of warnings in order to promote their ratings, as in AC's example just quoted.
But then you run into the 'freedom of the press' principle again. This is a blessing, but often it's a bigger curse.

Armed with that knowledge, and knowing the gullibility and relatively laid-back approach of the public to the weather (until it starts to affect it adversely), the media think they are untouchable. And they probably are.

Exactly Keith and a perfect example of that happened last year with the massive klanger that channel 9 numpty dropped when he predicted a Cat 5 (Yasi) hitting Brisbane right in the middle of the floods. The man is a gormless numpty and he should have been tarred and feathered for that particular nonsense. Is it any wonder the public fails to heed warnings when fools like this supply weather information to the general public?

Great topic IW and Jeff W. Regarding BoM and the media, I'm going to reach further afield again and look to the USA. Their Emergency Management System is a federal initiative allowing for local, state, or national authorities to interrupt and over-ride radio and television broadcasts to communicate matters of emergency. But more importantly in relation to weather:


Anyone who's chased in the US is familiar with the creepy computer-generated "text-to-speech" voice which describes the warnings. I apologise for what will seem like a filthy plug, but here's an example from one of my days overs there. Skip to around 2:10. (Excuse the excitement, it was a pretty crazy day.)

This concept could also be extended to SMS warnings issued automatically to mobile phones without the need to subscribe to a service. (The subscription-based model is useful only to those with an existing interest in weather.) The BoM would simply have the power to broadcast to customers of Australian phone companies within a relevant area, though I appreciate this would come with privacy concerns. Or perhaps if you're out in the sticks with no mobile, maybe a weird ring on your landline phone. Something to alert you to turn on your radio.

Of course there will be those who ignore any warnings, but as there is little else you can do for them, there is little reason to talk about them at all.

Emergency Alert System website
Nice weather-related state-based description

Cheers,
Marty.

Hi Marty, that's very interesting with how the USA have adopted a federal approach when it comes to warnings. We know that, legislatively, the BoM are charged with issuing the warnings; however, the dissemination of those warnings is also of vital concern. Now here is where some junior minister at the Commonwealth level can make a name for him or herself and actually use the heads of power (telegraphic and like services and meteorological observations [Section 51 (v) and vii respectively]) under the Constitution and make laws that require a standard uniform approach, to not only the warnings themselves, but the dissemination of them across all jurisdictions. With the recent and current inquiries into the Victorian bushfire and the Queensland floods respectively, why wasn't and why isn't the heat applied to the Commonwealth which is actually charged with providing timely warnings?

What will it take for the Commonwealth to stop abrogating its responsibilities to the states? It's interesting that in recent years the Commonwealth will delve into its corporation powers under 51(xx) at the expense of hitherto state's rights insofar as work place laws, but, on the other hand, flick pass important matters of safety in the proper dissemination of public warnings to the various state emergency services and local councils. All this does is create a hotchpotch of confusion.

The other point that others have raised is the media's role in the dissemination of warnings and consistency. AC made a good point about the Courier Mail's 'cyclone warning'. A warning is a warning is a warning. Such a word cannot be trifled with. It only dilutes the real warnings when they are released.

There are many more points that can be raised in this discussion, and I will bring them forth in due course. In the meantime, look at the difference between the current severe weather warnings in Queensland and New South Wales. Queensland has a severe weather warning for 'heavy rain' (all in small font) whereas NSW has a severe weather warning for 'flash flooding' (in bold print). Now what does heavy rain mean? It has no reference to flash flooding whatsoever. What gives? This is just one of many anomalies between the jurisdictions.

Hi Inclement Weather.

Your questions might illustrate a point. Just because heavy rain is forecast (or occurs), it does not necessarily mean that the location will be subjected to 'flash flooding'. The 'anomaly between jurisdictions' may be just a matter of the differences in geography? I'm not sure how flood warnings are prepared but I think BoM alert local authorities (State Government bodies) that heavy rain is forecast and then work with them, to decide how it will be dealt with. Similarly for bushfires. They are not meteorological phenomena and it is not the responsibility of the BoM to issue warnings for that type of event.

I think you have raised a valid point with respect to the number of authorities involved, or responsible for, warnings to the general public though. The myriad of laws governing natural phenomena and responsibilities for them, make it pretty difficult for anyone to know who is responsible for what or where we (general public) should turn to for information.

In the NT, there is the "NT Water Act" and it says (in part) that rainfall can be collected by individuals but once the rainfall reaches ground level, the water belongs to the NT Government and nobody else is allowed to interfere with its flow. We are not allowed to pump the water from ground level or lower without Government permission. Sounds silly, but who then is responsible for alerting the public to situations where that water is a potential problem for the public?

You point out that the Commonwealth has a responsibility to issue the warning but if they issue the warning to the State Government authority, then it will be their responsibility to deal with it. Perhaps, with out multi-tiered system the State authorities issue warnings to local (Council) authorities? If that is the case, don't hold your breath for timely advice on adverse events.

BoM can (and do) issue timely and appropriate warnings but whether or not the target audiences react appropriately is another thing. BoM can not be held responsible for inadequacies in the system. If anything, failures in the warning system are probably not the fault of the BoM. The system itself is stuffed and probably won't be fixed until it is streamlined. I think there are too many cooks spoiling the broth!

Hi Dusty,

Insofar as your assertion that the BoM is not responsible for the issuing of bushfire warnings, this is incorrect. The Act specifically charges the BoM with that responsibility (see excerpt first post of this thread).

I went through the Toowoomba/Lockyer Valley/Brisbane flood thread the other day and read some very interesting posts in the lead-up to that tragic event. In particular, a call for a better watch/warning system. Here are a few of the posts I collected and I will briefly discuss each (they are in chronological order):




This was posted on the Friday before and is a copy of an SEQ water release update. Now this was released in the midst of continuous SWWs for flash flooding and a potential worsening of existing flooded rivers. Of course, Lockyer Creek never did subside - what were they thinking then? (More about Lockyer Creek below.)


And this only half an hour before the above SEQ Water Release Update:



It is obvious, in light of the current Dam/Flood inquiry that SEQ took no notice of these SWWs in their assessment of the current and future dam releases on the Friday before the disastrous floods, notwithstanding forecasts of existing and future heavy rain exacerbating already flooded rivers.

Indeed, the forecast of heavy rain over the next four days between the 8 Jan and 11 Jan drew the following posts from Dave-Wx and Puddles7:





The above image painted a sobering picture for all to see for those four days. It turned out to be painfully correct except there was in fact more rain.

And this cry of frustration from Puddles 7:



In the interests of a balanced discussion, this was posted by Why not later on the 8 Jan:


SEQ seemed to wake from its slumber on the morning of the 10 Jan with this new Water Release Update (its release rules were also attached by the poster at the time:



How prophetic was this 24 hours later?

In the meantime, all hell was about to break loose. Here are some of the posts (mostly from our man-on-the-ground, AC) on that fateful day on the 10 Jan. It culminates in the revised SWW for Lockyer Creek (In light of what happened that day, it's self-explanatory):



No Buster (above) was not over reacting, the rest was, tragically, history. Finally, the last post was by Dave-Wx highlighting the inadequacy of the warnings:



And, at last, this from the BoM (but, alas, it was all too late):



The current flood/dam inquiry and the Brisbane office of the BoM would do well to read through this thread: an anatomy of a disaster

IW, I think Dustydevil is on the right track -- I would suggest to you that investigating which agency or group actually does have responsibility for issuing flash-flood warnings in Queensland would be beneficial (to you and quite a few other posters on here). You may well discover that it is not BoM. It's possible this may also be related to the lack of "Flash Flooding" mentioned on severe thunderstorm warnings, which are, of course, the responsibility of BoM.

"Insofar as your assertion that the BoM is not responsible for the issuing of bushfire warnings, this is incorrect. The Act specifically charges the BoM with that responsibility (see excerpt first post of this thread)."

Hi Inclement Weather.

I think there is a difference between the Bureau's responsibility to issue Fire WEATHER warnings and BUSHFIRE warnings. The BoM issue warnings for WEATHER that increases the fire danger level. The relevant state fire or emergency services authorities issue the BUSHFIRE warnings. At least that is how it appears according to at least some of the State Fire Authority websites. See this link for more detail on what the BoM actually do prepare http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/bushfire/about-bushfire-weather.shtml
Perhaps some people are expecting too much of the BoM? I don't think I've ever heard of the BoM monitoring fires and issuing any sort of advice or warnings for them.

As for things like flooding and heavy rainfall; I think one of the problems that BoM have to deal with is lack of reliable data to base forecasts on. Too often, they have to rely on very few observations in data sparse, remote areas. That can not make it easy to determine just how much rainfall is being received in a catchment. We should also not forget that some of those automatic tipping bucket rain gauges are notoriously unreliable, particularly when it comes to heavy falls. That would make the job of evaluating data even harder.

It might also be worth considering just how many people are involved in Hydrological Forecasting sections, how much countryside they are looking at and how much data they have to evaluate? I wouldn't mind guessing that the poor sods are overwhelmed with the task in front of them. Good luck to them all anyway.

Hi Jonty, it's good to have your input here; however, I must say, I'm quite startled at your post. Whilst I accept that there are many agencies/groups/media organisations that can disseminate BoM warnings, are you suggesting that some other agency or group has responsibility for issuing flash-flood warnings in Queensland? If so, I am at a loss to know just what agency or group this may be as this would fly in the face of my understanding of the BoM's constitutional and legislative responsibility. Am I missing something here?

Yes, Dusty, on your first point, I accept that there is a difference between the issuing of the actual weather conditions that are likely to result in bush fires (BoM) and the actual bushfire itself (relevant fire authorities). I also agree on your second point that there is difference between forecasting the weather conditions that are likely to cause flooding (BoM) and the hydrologists from the BoM (who are not weather forecasters) who predict the various levels of flooding, and where and when they occur.

Even so, I think the problem is still the uniformity of the warnings, notwithstanding that, insofar as fires go, there are various state authorities involved. However, this still does not obviate the BoM's general responsibility for the issuing of flood and fire warnings pertaining to the weather conditions that give rise to such events. And this is what definitely needs consistency across the jurisdictions.

Heres an interesting little thing I just heard on the news. Apparently people are complaining that the hydrologists predicted a larger flood peak than occured and are saying that if they knew it was going to be the height it was then they would have stayed and defended their homes. This is a perfect example of why entities such as BoM are damned if they do, dmaned if the don't. When warnings are not issued in time because Bom are trying not to cry wolf people blame them for everything that happens. When warnings are issued that err on the side of caution and evacuations occur as a result the people blame themm for everything that happens. I can't see how people and society deserves anything from these entities. Best thing they could do is close down BoM and let people die from the effects of natural disasters. Maybe then society will begin to realise just how good a job is done too protect them. This crap makes my blood boil. If this was not a family forum I would really get going on a rant that would make your hair curl.

Clem, I'm not entirely sure what I should say, especially at the moment, but there is public information available -- try this for starters:

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/comm-warn-about-floods.aspx

Thanks Jonty, I switch off when the sun goes down, so I'll go over it tomorrow. It looks interesting. I understand your present position.

There is a lot to be said for uniformity in services (such as warnings) that are provided to the general public. It would make it easier to find and understand the information provided to us, just for starters.

If there are a number of agencies (at various levels) involved in anything, it will be hard to achieve that uniformity that you are hoping for. It may also be the case that when BoM issues the original warning or advice, it is actually tailor-made for the agency it is issued to, rather than being created in a uniform format? When it comes to flash flood warnings, perhaps such things are still being developed or refined and uniformity for such things is still to be achieved or perhaps BoM do not consider it appropriate; instead they feel that tailoring that product to the audience is the best way to go?

Perhaps it is worth asking Hydrologists at BoM why they do it that way? Having a uniform type of warning may not be the best option; perhaps the way they do it now is considered appropriate? I do not know but I'd be interested to hear a BoM point of view.

Jonty, I had a read through the literature you posted. I found a few things worth noting in relation to warnings issued through the BoM. It seems that one of the problems is the interpretation other agencies place on warnings issued by the BoM before they are disseminated. Another problem are local on-the-ground conditions. For example, the other week we received over 600mm of rain over four days here at Bribie. There were a few occasions when a specific 'flash flood' warning was issued as part of a STW for Bribie. But this is a flat sand island and there was little if any danger of flash flooding, yet if 600mm fell at Bald Knob (upper catchment of the Mooloolah River) then this would cause serious problems downstream. So I can see the inherent inconsistencies. The following excerpt is from How do we communicate and warn about floods from the Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist:



Now this poses the question: how do these local government authorities and the BoM exchange information and warnings data?

The problem of communication is real as the following from the same report attests:



Indeed.

Finally, John Handmer states in Are Flood Warnings Futile? published in "The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies Risk communication in emergencies" 2001: 'Even though the mass media is a key element in most warning systems, it is very rarely legally obligated or tied into a warning system and little research attention has been devoted to it.'

This is important when one considers the disparate methods used by various agencies in the dissemination of warnings. However, perhaps this is a topic for another thread on another day. It really is a case of everyone getting on the same page for the same purposes.

There is one question I hope you can answer for me Jonty. Why doesn't the Brisbane office of the BoM issue flood watches like NSW?

It's funny Clem, I've noticed this same difference in the last few weeks...even the key phrases to describe the weather phenomena in warnings differ from state to state amongst the same warning. I am confident that the same weather situation would generate 'heavy rain' in a QLD SWW and 'flash flooding' in a NSW SWW. This is a little nitpicky and there are more important things to worry about - but surely they all should be writing from the same template!



I am not a hydrologist or engineer, however I have learnt a lot about catchments and the way dams etc work in the past year or two and this is one of the things that I think I've figured out:

I believe the way the dams operate are based on what water is flowing in the catchment and in the dams themselves, not what is still in the air and yet to fall. This is because weather forecasts are not quite accurate enough yet for engineers/hydrologists to get very far into the future with any sort of certainty for forward planning.

A prime example of why weather forecasts are not used is the dam scenario that is currently being thrashed out by the flood commission in the period Jan 8-11 last year. Forecast rainfall during this period (particularly the 9th through 11th) was mostly below the dam (ie: in the Bremer, Logan/Albert and lower Brisbane catchments, and over the border in the Northern Rivers). If they had've released water from the dam to give themeslves more headroom in the following days, forecasts favoured a situation where a big flood could be sent through Brisbane, with very heavy rainfall falling in non-controlled water courses, with releases from the dams only making things worse. As we now know, most of the water from this event fell ABOVE Wivenhoe Dam wall (with two 1974-style rain events thrown at the dam in the space of 48 hours), which nobody would've been able to forecast with a high level of confidence back on Jan 8.

Here's some of the detail from the model runs at around the time of the 7th and 8th that show the positioning more clearly than the 1-4 day acccumulated falls for Australia:

00z run 7th Jan for the 9th


00z run 8th Jan for the 10th


(You can tell that I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about some parts of the dam engineer witch hunt going on at the flood commission currently )

Now to the question of who does flash flood warnings:

According to the transcripts from when the flood commission questioned Jim Davidson - Local Government is charged with the issuing of flash flood warnings.

Now this is all a bit complicated, because the Bureau mention 'flash flooding' where applicable in their Severe Thunderstorm Warnings (for example today it got a constant run where 'damaging winds', 'large hail' etc weren't applicable on this occasion). The key difference here is that the Bureau are not responsible for flash flood warnings in specific creeks and rivers (which is where it is deferred to local government), but they do warn for flash flooding over broader areas in their SWW's and STW's.

Having said all this (next bee in my bonnet here, apologies again ), the Bureau can (and have in the past) warned for individual severe thunderstorms producing flash flooding in the past while the broader SWW is in place. This most recently occured a week or two ago. Today's STW was quickly issued for a specific cell when Laidley recorded 52mm in 30 mins, but on January 10 there was complete silence from their end when Redbank Creek recorded 111mm (most of which fell in the space of an hour or so) under the storm when it was west of Esk, and beginning to move over the upper Lockyer Valley.

Depending on the way you measure it, there was '4 hours of silence' between the very heavy rainfall recorded W of Esk by 1pm, and the 'flash flood warning' that the Bureau issued at 5pm. This embarrassing sequence of events is only made worse when you see the post of mine that you highlighted where I pasted the updated Lockyer Creek flood warning, issued an hour after the Helidon flood gauge spike. While this warning would've been issued by hydrologists who also largely operate on what water is sitting in the catchment, surely somebody in the entire Brisbane BoM office would've been looking at the radar and as a result, keeping an eye on the Helidon flood gauge, expecting to see some sort of spike there? Not to mention that by 4pm, flood footage from Toowoomba had already been on the TV stations for a good hour or so.

Anyway - what is the point of me ranting about Jan 10 again? It is that no matter how good or bad a system is, if the captain is asleep at the wheel, then there is certainly not going to be any sort of good result for the general public! This is not the only example of the Bureau being slow to react to situations like this - March 9, 2001 generated the infamous 'Bureau's 2 hours of silence' front cover on the Courier Mail. They were also quite sluggish during the Coomera River flood of Feb 7 2010 (which should've been a wakeup call and 'refresher/practice' for them less than 12 months before Jan 2011)




They seem to have a pretty good exchange of live data through what they call the 'ALERT network' I think. Various agencies have installed flood gauges across the country, and I believe they are pretty much all linked up on the Bureau's page.

In the capital cities especially (with the high resolution radars that have the 'accumulated rainfall' as estimated by the radar), you could forecast flash flooding in fairly specific locations to a pretty high accuracy when combining with the network of flood gauges and auto rain gauges. In fact the Bureau would probably do something similar now using some of these tools in order to produce their STW's at times. Going back to the Jan 10 example again, you probably could've issued an STW for that cell just based on the accumulated precip as measured by the Mt Stapylton radar. Its a pretty handy tool, and in my experience has lined up pretty well with the actual falls from the auto gauge network that get mentioned in warnings. Even if it doesn't get the actual totals spot on, at the very least it highlights the areas where the heaviest rain has fallen and from there you can start to assess the flash flood potential.

Speaking of flood gauges - I am looking forward to the new gauges on Coffs Creek being linked up to the Bureau's page, this will be an incredibly valuable resource for my home town!

After having reviewed the posts here, the literature provided, and the existing legislation, I am still of the conclusion that the BoM has sole responsibility for the issuing of flood warnings across the Commonwealth. As far as I can see there is no state legislation or local government law (in Queensland at least) that gives any other authority the power to issue flood warnings (flash or otherwise). Even if there was, Section 109 of the Constitution would declare such law invalid based on inconsistency. Sect 109 states:



Now the key wording in the Meteorology Act pertaining to the issuing of warnings for floods is the following:



Now you can read that any way you like, but it is clear from this that the BoM must issue warnings if weather conditions are such that are likely to give rise to floods (any flood).

End of story.

Hi Inclement,

one of the 'joys' of the English language is its ability to be interpreted in so many different ways. My interpretation of the Met Act would be that BoM issue warnings for WEATHER CONDITIONS likely to give rise to floods and then it would be up to local authorities to issue the FLOOD WARNINGS themselves as they see fit.

That is the same way it happens with fire weather. The BoM issue a warning for WEATHER CONDITIONS that give rise to a high fire danger and the local authorities issue the FIRE warnings.

I think it would be more appropriate for local authorities to issue the actual warnings for the events because they SHOULD have a better working knowledge of local conditions. It would be a bit much to expect the BoM forecasters to have intimate knowledge of local factors that have effects on what happens once the event starts to take place. Getting the local authorities to report back to BoM and indulge in a discussion of local events so that BoM forecasters could create and issue a warning, would take valuable time. It is probably quicker to alert the locals and let them take charge of the warnings and disaster management planning (my view anyway) and then leave BoM to monitor the weather over the rest of the state.

The whole local authorities issuing the warning still does not explain the decrepency between NSW & QLD BOM in respect to flood warnings a day or so out of an event.

I also get nervous know that the buck stops at the local authorities, because I am sure that quite a few of them do not have people after hours to deal with the flood warnings in a timely manner unlike the BOM which have staff on the ground all the time.

Hi RoadkillNZ

I can understand your concerns. I am also concerned about getting the right advice, at the right time, from the right people. As for 'after hours'; I expect that local authorities have people 'on call' that can deal with adverse weather situations (at least I hope so). As for BoM staff being 'on the ground all the time'; I don't think that is the case. As far as I know, in the NT, the Hydrology people only work 9 to 5, Mon to Fri, unless they have been called in because of major flooding. Like the local authorities, they are 'on call' and will only come out after hours if the duty forecasters think it is necessary. Once the call has been made, I think BoM staff and locals authorities are on the job and the usual hierarchy then kicks into gear.

I don't know why there are any discrepancies between what BoM Qld and BoM NSW might issue, but flood warnings a 'day or so out of an event' must be a pretty difficult call to make. I'd like to hear someone from BoM tell us why that might happen. Perhaps the relationships between BoM and authorities are different between those regions and that is why the BoM products are different? I know they do tailor their products to suit users, so maybe NSW authorities like a different version to Qld authorities? That is one possibility.