There is an inherent conflict between using a dam for drinking water and using it for flood management. That the Wivenhoe was and is used for both is not a surprise, particularly after the droughts leading up to 2008, but the flooding raises serious questions about how sensible that would be in future.<p>That said, the Wivenhoe in this case did precisely what it was meant to do, and those who operated it did an admirable job under extremely trying circumstances, IMHO. It simply wasn't designed to cope with the volumes of rainfall that occurred, afaict.<p>I hope the forthcoming inquiry will not focus so much on the smaller-scale "tactical" decisions that led up to the flooding (it will be news to nobody if it turns out some mistakes were made: I'm sure there were), but more on the state's water management strategy as a whole. Unfortunately the news reporting I've seen so far has already tended towards the former.<p>It's water management strategy that has failed SE Queensland <i>twice</i> in the last few years: first when the water nearly ran out after the drought, and now only two years later there's too much water by half. Neither drought nor flood are strangers to Australia, so half-arsed measures and excuses should not cut it for anybody. Increasingly unstable weather conditions caused by climate change make it even more urgent that we get this right.