Could Dams Have Saved Lismore? The Flood Report That Divides a Community
The recent CSIRO report on the 2022 Lismore floods has reignited a debate that’s as complex as the floodwaters themselves. Could 10 new dams have prevented the devastation? The answer, it seems, is both yes and no—a frustratingly nuanced reality for a community still reeling from the disaster. Personally, I think this report highlights a deeper tension: our desire for quick fixes versus the slow, systemic changes needed to address climate-driven disasters.
The Promise of Two Meters
One thing that immediately stands out is the report’s claim that these dams—or, more accurately, ‘water detention systems’—could have reduced flood levels by up to 2.1 meters. For context, Lismore’s CBD levee was overtopped by 3.8 meters. So, while the dams wouldn’t have prevented the levee breach, they could have significantly mitigated the damage. What many people don’t realize is that even a two-meter reduction could have saved homes, businesses, and perhaps even lives. Matthew Gooley, whose family business lost millions in stock, put it bluntly: ‘Take two meters off, and it goes back to normal flood heights.’
But here’s where it gets tricky. The report’s findings are technically impressive, but they’re also a reminder of the limits of engineering solutions. As CSIRO hydrologist Dr. Jai Vaze pointed out, these systems are not dams in the traditional sense—they’re temporary measures designed to hold water only during floods. This raises a deeper question: Are we trying to outsmart nature, or should we be working with it instead?
The Cost of Hope
The $3 million feasibility study announced by the government has sparked outrage among some residents. Marinda Hayward, who was left homeless by the floods, called it ‘a lot of money for a feasibility study’ and argued for more practical measures like maintaining drains. From my perspective, this reaction underscores a broader frustration: the perceived disconnect between bureaucratic processes and the urgent needs of a community in crisis.
Irene Guymer’s suggestion to relocate the CBD to higher ground is particularly intriguing. ‘Businesses have gone,’ she noted, echoing a sentiment shared by many. This idea isn’t just about flood resilience—it’s about reimagining the future of Lismore. What this really suggests is that the conversation about flood mitigation is also a conversation about urban planning, economic recovery, and community identity.
Engineering vs. Nature: A False Dichotomy?
The debate between engineering solutions and nature-based approaches has become a flashpoint. NSW Greens member Sue Higginson argues that ‘billions of dollars in new dams will not prevent severe flooding,’ advocating instead for ‘planned retreat and nature-based solutions.’ Her vision of transforming the CBD into a ‘wetland cultural market hub’ is bold, but it also feels like a leap of faith for a community still grappling with trauma.
On the other hand, Federal Nationals MP Kevin Hogan insists that the CSIRO report provides a ‘solution to keep us safe.’ What makes this particularly fascinating is how these opposing views reflect broader ideological divides in Australia’s approach to climate change. Are we building walls against the rising waters, or are we learning to live with them?
The Bigger Picture: Climate Change and Community Resilience
If you take a step back and think about it, the Lismore floods are a microcosm of a global challenge. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe, and no single solution will suffice. The CSIRO report is a valuable contribution, but it’s also a reminder that flood mitigation is not just about infrastructure—it’s about adaptation, equity, and long-term thinking.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the criticism of the Resilient Lands and Resilient Homes Programs, which have been plagued by delays and controversies. These programs, costing nearly $1 billion, were supposed to provide flood-affected residents with safer housing options. Yet, as the NSW auditor general’s report revealed, not a single home has been delivered under the Resilient Lands Program after three and a half years. This raises questions about the effectiveness of government responses to disasters—and whether we’re truly prepared for the next one.
Where Do We Go From Here?
In my opinion, the Lismore floods demand a multifaceted response. Yes, water detention systems could play a role, but they’re not a silver bullet. We need to invest in nature-based solutions, rethink urban development, and prioritize community input. What this really suggests is that resilience isn’t just about building stronger levees—it’s about building stronger communities.
As Jimmy Willing, the North Lismore artist, aptly put it, ‘It’s a bit like putting men on the moon while people are starving.’ His critique may be harsh, but it’s a call to action. We can’t afford to ignore the human cost of these disasters, nor can we afford to ignore the lessons they teach us. The question now is not just how to prevent the next flood, but how to build a future that’s resilient, equitable, and sustainable. And that, in my view, is the real challenge.
