Imagine losing your home in a flood, only to discover it was entirely preventable. That’s the heartbreaking reality for dozens of retirees in Melbourne’s Rivervue Retirement Village, who are now taking a stand against what they call ‘rushed and flawed’ flood modelling by Melbourne Water. But here’s where it gets controversial: could this disaster have been avoided if not for alleged negligence and poor planning? Let’s dive into the story that’s sparking outrage and raising critical questions about accountability.
On October 14, 2022, the Maribyrnong River burst its banks after heavy rains, flooding 45 villas in the Rivervue Retirement Village in Avondale Heights. The river’s levels hadn’t been this high in nearly 50 years, leaving dozens of residents—mostly in their 70s and 80s—displaced and devastated. Now, these retirees are fighting back with a class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court, accusing Melbourne Water of shoddy flood modelling and reckless development approvals.
And this is the part most people miss: An investigation by Victorian Ombudsman Marlo Baragwanath revealed that the retirement village should never have been built in its current location. The report, When the Water Rises, highlights that flawed flood modelling by Melbourne Water in the early 2000s, coupled with mistakes in the building plans, directly led to the 2022 flooding. Homes were built too low, without adequate safety buffers, leaving residents vulnerable to disaster.
A parliamentary inquiry also acknowledged ‘clear mistakes’ in the flood modelling and criticized the reliance on ineffective mitigation measures. Yet, despite these findings, residents have been left chasing compensation for over three years. Lead plaintiff Stan Korkliniewski, who paid $585,000 for his 99-year lease in 2018, claims the market value of leases in the village has plummeted due to the flood.
Through the class action, residents are seeking compensation for property repairs, temporary accommodation, higher insurance costs, increased village levies, loss of leasehold value, and emotional distress. Steve Vrtkovsi, the lawyer representing the claimants, describes the losses as ‘material and potentially very significant.’ But is compensation enough? Or should there be systemic changes to prevent such tragedies in the future?
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: Last year, the state government rejected a recommendation from the parliamentary inquiry to retrofit or raise flood-prone homes, citing high costs. The ombudsman has since urged the government to compensate Rivervue residents who sell their leases at a loss, but the government has yet to respond. Meanwhile, Melbourne Water has revised its flood modelling and maps, now acknowledging that Rivervue is indeed flood-prone.
Melbourne Water’s acting managing director, Fiona Schutt, expressed sympathy for the affected residents and noted ongoing engagement with the community. However, she declined to comment further due to the ongoing legal case. LLS Australia Funding Pty Ltd is financing the class action, which remains open to all Rivervue properties, including current and former leaseholders and representatives of deceased residents.
This case raises a critical question: Should organizations like Melbourne Water be held to a higher standard when their decisions directly impact people’s lives and livelihoods? And what responsibility does the government have in ensuring such disasters don’t happen again? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation that demands your voice.
