Lockyer Valley residents, who bore the brunt of the inland tsunami that ripped through rural districts and small towns tearing their lives apart and leaving 17 people dead, are left with many questions despite the release yesterday of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry’s interim report on flood preparedness.

Installation of more rain gauges high in the catchment linked to the Bureau of Meteorology to give the earliest possible warning of flooding and automatic sirens warning of sudden stream rises, as suggested by many flood survivors, have been welcomed.

So too have recommendations that the local creeks be cleared of the hundreds of tons of debris that have been left rotting in the creeks and choking the waterways.

A hydrological study into the effect of a large earthen wall around a creek pocket to protect a sand quarry from flooding has also been welcomed.

But the biggest question for people who lost family members and friends in the disaster on January 10: “why did they die?” has been left unanswered.

Importantly for many residents, finding out who is responsible for the deaths of people in their own homes, totally unaware that they and their children were in danger, is still a burning question that keeps them awake at night.

The finding that the Lockyer Valley Regional Council is not responsible for the deaths has left some residents distraught.

“Someone has to be responsible,” Grantham resident John Gallagher said.

Meanwhile, the police search for three remaining missing bodies continues.

New flood debris is still surfacing in farm dams. Local people who have seen so many victims of the flood buried know the excruciating pain endured by families whose loved ones are still missing.

They need to get them back and have a funeral.

Some of the most severely affected residents believe that absolving any organisation of blame so soon after the disaster and before any coronial inquests into the causes of death is premature and leaves the community vulnerable to the same catastrophic weather conditions in future possibly leading to the same raft of tragic consequences — lives lost and homes and livelihoods destroyed.

Locals point to a Facebook post by the council at 1.50pm on January 10 that “There has been some major flash flooding around the Murphys Creek and Withcott areas with water flowing heavily across the Warrego Highway at Withcott”.

They claim the council, which is responsible for warning of flash flooding, failed to connect that the huge amount of floodwater would threaten a town of hundreds of people.

But opinion is divided with other residents believing council could not have foreseen the disaster.

At the local shop, still working from a temporary building, owner Sandy Halliday has not had time to read the interim report and she doesn’t talk to customers about the flood because it’s still such an emotive and divisive subject.

“No one said anything about it. We try not to get into the sh-t,” she said.

Local flood volunteer Terri-Ann McLachlan who has distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of private donations directly to more than 50 flooded families, said opinion was divided on the usefulness of the report.

“It’s all a bit too late but anything would be better than nothing. People who have lived through it are more aware,” she said.

“Any water that comes now and they are going to get out. They are going to run for it without trying to save their possessions and animals.”

“The council is going to put in flood gauges with alerts, but what level is too high?” she asked.

Residents of Grantham and farmers upstream of the town have welcomed the appointment by the Flood Commission of hydrologist Dr Philip Jordan to create a hydrological model to determine the possible effect of a sand and gravel quarry, on the flow of the huge volume of 4000 cubic metres per second of water down Lockyer Creek as it headed for Grantham.

Dr Jordan has recently spoken with residents who live on farms around the quarry, gathering information from witnesses who fled on the day of the flood when they saw floodwater begin to pour over the quarry wall and gush metres deep across their farms.

His findings are not included in the interim report.

While residents have welcomed the hydrology study, they also want the Flood Commission to return to the town and hear directly from the many people who saw what happened on the day.

Dozens of people in the centre of the disaster zone are still living in sheds, shipping containers, buses and flood-damaged houses. They were so busy patching back together what was left of their lives and properties that they could not make submissions to the inquiry.

They have not yet been heard and there are no plans for any further hearings of the inquiry in Grantham.

Local resident John Gallagher is waiting for the hydrology study findings, since his property had never been flooded before, even in the record 1974 flood.

“I don’t put a lot of faith in early warning systems. There was no time. We need the creek not to get out of the creek,” he said.

Had the creek remained in its channel, Gallagher believes, the flood in Grantham would have been a “slow flood”, giving people time to escape. It would not have been a violent deadly one.

*Read Amber Jamieson’s rundown of the inquiry findings in “Tide of blame over Queensland floods” here.