Flood peak heights

Flood peak heights

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
 
Dear Sir,
 
Flood peak heights in the Belubula River Canowindra have been recorded since 1916 and were suspended during WW11, with one recording, 20 May 1943, 2.84m at 04.00pm. Regular recording then re-commenced 02 April 1950.
 
In the period 1918 - 2001, flood height peaks were able to be compared such that the 4 highest recorded ones occurred:
1- 6.45m (17.06.52).
2- 6.23m (03.08.90).
3- 5.87m (02.04.50).
4- 5.80m (08.08.98).
 
The first flood study done covering 10 flood years, 1916 - 1998,  was by Snowy Hydro Corporation, this was really only valid to 1995, when the new John Grant Bridge replaced the old single lane bridge over the Belubula River.  The river's channel and flow were completely altered as a result.
 
1990 was the last major flood year experienced with 12 peaks recorded ranging from 2.72m to 6.23m, the 2nd highest ever recorded.
19954 peaks 2.49m - 4.99m.
19966 peaks 3.01m - 5.26m.
19986 peaks 3.52m - 5.80m. (4th highest on record 08 August).
19992 peaks 3.0m   - 5.40m.
20001 peak4.10m.
 
Of greater significance and a major cause of local flooding in Canowindra was when the railway was completed in 1910. The Coocumber Creek trestle railway bridge caused a continuous major problem when debris dammed the creek's flow. This debris took up 3 days, using machinery, to clear. The last major flood to 2001 occurred in August 1998.
 
The 17m gap made in June 2001, now seen in the bridge, has reduced the effect of flooding in Canowindra and further bridge damage.  This is seen in the 2016, 5 flood peaks recorded as: 5.40m, 5.20m, 5.20m, 5.39m and 5.40m. These peak levels cannot be compared with flood peaks up to 2001.
 
There is an irony with the recurrence of El Nino events of which there have been 6 (dry times) since 1897, the last ending in November 2009 in which the Belubula River had stopped flowing, for the first time in a living memory of 64 years. 
 

Yours sincerely
Bill Barwood
Canowindra  
 

Bridge-Dismantling.jpg

Check your spelling

Check your spelling

Check your Spelling

This letter came this week from someone called Linda. We have taken your comments on board and thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback. With so many words in each edition of OC Life, it’s almost inevitable that some things will slip through. Thorough proof-reading is a luxury that most publications can no longer afford. It’s unfortunate but in today’s world, it’s a case of near enough often having to be good enough for publications like ours.

Re: 'The Way I See It', OCL July 07-13, 2016

Re: 'The Way I See It', OCL July 07-13, 2016

Dear Bob,
I enjoyed your "The Way I See It" Orange City Life July 07 - 13.The four issues you raised, which describe the shortcomings in the Australian Electoral System could not be better put.

I have heard it said frequently, "if you cannot lie convincingly then you can not become a successful politician".

From an academic point of view, a lie is only a lie when it is proved to be a falsehood. The complaint that Labor has lied over the Medicare issue, made  before the election, could only be proved as such, after the election.

We have to admit that no one could know the Prime Minister's true intentions in this regard, before the election. As some of Shakespeare's quotations suggest, people who protest a denial too strongly are hiding a falsehood. That is how the Prime Minister came across to many people. Several similar situations in the past have occurred, a statement before an election turns out to be a down right lie, after the election. It is therefore impossible to know or to be able to verify the true intentions of the Prime Minister, who is, let's face it, is a very powerful figure in determining government policy, after the election.

On the question of misleading the voting public (lying), the same can be said of the Australian Electoral Commission, which resolutely and definitively stated that to have a formal vote counted, on the Senate ballot paper, then 6 boxes above the line must be numbered serially 1 to 6, otherwise, the vote will be counted informal.

Various reputable sources, media included , dispelled this claim asserting emphatically, if only one box is numbered then the vote will still be formal, This insistence of the AEC was also evident, even at the Polling Booth, with the clerk, when issuing the papers, giving  the same official spiel, 6 boxes must be numbered. 

It is true that in normal life, for we poor mortals, business marketing etc. and making false claims (lying), can have the case tested in a court of law. Never the less, we hear consistently for instance that a product (there are many) kills 99.9% of germs, a quite spurious and unsubstantiated, persistent claim. Then there is the case of the "Special Oxygen" advertisement. Any high school student knows there is only one Oxygen O2,  perhaps then, isotopes are added. However, O3 (Ozone) is toxic. If there are additives in "SpecialOxygen" which are not declared, that also is misleading advertising.
 Is it any wonder that we lose faith in politics and the law?


 With kind regards,


Bill Barwood
Canowindra
16 July 2016