Following Mr McBasketball’s astute observation and from a somewhat educated …

Comment on No ‘mitigation’ of major dust hazard for road users by The Bush Engineer.

Following Mr McBasketball’s astute observation and from a somewhat educated viewpoint, one would assume that the drain extension is to mitigate flooding impacts at the new Kilgariff Subdivision.
I mean, you can’t go an build a subdivision without adequate drainage.
That could lead to flooding of newly built roads and private properties. Which would be truly irresponsible and maybe even qualify as a genuine “scandal”.
Putting adequate drainage in always seems “ridiculous and absurd” to those who see no value in them until there is a truly epic flood (interestingly, those mentioned in the article are good examples, however the Kilgariff Subdivision was not in existence during any of those events).
Unfortunately councils and developers are among those who have trouble seeing the benefits, as they look to minimise maintenance and construction budgets respectively.
Typically, when a biblical event like this occurs, and houses are flooded and property damaged, the pitchfork wielding folks who say that drains are a waste of money tend to go missing, while landowners are left with hefty clean-up bills and increased insurance premiums.
In kind, councils are left with tricky flood mitigation retro-fitting in built-up areas, and that can cost serious tax bikkies.
Might even go and sue the engineer who designed “scandalously inadequate drainage”.
Good examples of this are found in South-east Queensland, where flooding is a major issue in built up areas.
And just look at the new Rapid Creek flood mitigation project in Darwin. There will be detractors to that project, but I’m sure the land-owners in the affected catchment won’t be arguing that that project represents a “waste of money”.
Notwithstanding the above, the dust is an issue that needs to be addressed and the responsible contractors and agencies need to pull their proverbials out.

Be Sociable, Share!