Well over a metre of water through my lower storey, the floor level was built 500mm higher than the 1in 100 year flood level.
So sorry to hear that, RPI. Yes, many have done their DD, and been flooded nonetheless.
I'm fed up with people saying "oh, people will live on a flood plain..."
As well as being insensitive, it's just ignorant. We do live near a creek, which is why we did extensive due diligence prior to purchase. Our home either didn't flood, or had an inch of water in it (depending which neighbour you ask) in 1974. Post-Wivenhoe, it's above the 100-year flood level. We were able to insure against flood. All those things told us it wasn't an unreasonable expectation to have many years of flood-free living, or to be not too badly affected by flooding.
We had a freak flood in May 09 due to a shipping container jamming under the bridge around the corner, preventing rainfall draining away after a heavy storm. That was deemed "stormwater" and the 5 homes which were flooded in my street were all covered for the damage. The water got up to 800mm deep, but was all gone within an hour. We were out of the house for 6 months, and it cost Suncorp $250K (our house alone).
I don't think, given what we knew above, to assume that this was a freak event, unlikely to be repeated. Yet this time we went under to about 1.7m.
And there are many, many houses which went under which, on the surface of it, are far less likely to flood than our home. Plenty went under which weren't on the flood flag maps (very detailed maps produced by authorities which show which houses will flood at various depths). Even as late as Tuesday afternoon, our house was right on the edge of the flood flag map for Wednesday, ie might get wet in worst case scenario, might not get wet (the block itself is quite flat).
Yet we got 1.7m, and at one stage thought we may get much more.
So many, many houses were flooded, which according to all the information available, were
exceedingly unlikely to ever flood.
Be a hard-*** and lack compassion if you want, but at least do it from a factual basis, not from a position of ignorance.
My anger is not on my own behalf, because we knew we were at least at some risk, and thankfully had insurance, so I don't expect any sympathy. But I know many, many people who quite reasonably assumed that they were unlikely to ever have to deal with a flood, who've lost everything and don't have insurance. Anybody who doesn't have compassion for those people has some kind of problem.
I'd be interested to see a map of Australia, showing the areas which haven't ever flooded in recorded history, and how much of the population live in those areas. I imagine the proportion of the population in areas which have the potential for flooding is significant.
And when you get past all the cleaning you have to deal with your insurance comp with some saying this is a riverine flood and many / most will not covered. Like most people if you have flood insurance you will feel you are covered but alas riverine flood is different kettle of fish.
Brian, I know of the distinction between stormwater damage (damaged caused by water that falls from the sky in your immediate vicinity) and flood (water rising from a waterway), but I've not heard of this "riverine flood" issue. What else floods besides rivers?
Or by "flood insurance", are you talking about people who are protected against water damage from broken dishwashers etc? Or stormwater? If so, neither of those are "flood", in insurance parlance, just like our 800mm submersion wasn't a "flood", and most people are covered for that. "Flood insurance" means just that - you're covered against rising waterways. The only two companies I know of which cover flood in Queensland are Westpac and Suncorp.