A handshake and a reminder
On Wednesday evening, 4 November 2026, I was sitting at Windsor RSL following the American midterm election results on my phone when I felt a gentle tap on my arm. Councillor Les Sheather was extending his hand. I shook it instinctively and greeted him warmly.
It was an ordinary gesture with an unusual backstory. Only months earlier, Les had been involved in the circumstances surrounding my exclusion from council facilities while I was reporting locally. Yet we could still exchange a civil greeting.
I stress the word reporter. I observe, listen, ask questions, and speak with people across political lines. Reporting should not require choosing a faction or asking permission to speak with someone.
Beside Les stood Councillor Eddie Dogramaci, who also shook my hand. Their presence together prompted reflection on how people with complicated political histories can nevertheless share a room for an important community cause.
A room full of politicians — and questions
Inside, I saw Robyn Preston MP and councillors including Deputy Mayor Nathan Zamprogno, Mike Creed, Peter Ryan, Jill Reardon, Shane Djuric, Les Sheather and Eddie Dogramaci. It was a substantial political turnout.
Four people I did not observe attending were Mayor Mary Lyons-Buckett and councillors Danielle Wheeler, Sarah McMahon and Amanda Kotlash. Their absence caught my attention, but absence alone proves nothing. They may have had other commitments. It would be wrong to assume a boycott without asking them.
Still, with flooding being such a critical issue, it is reasonable to ask how every councillor intends to engage with proposals brought forward by residents and businesses. Participation need not mean attendance at one meeting; it can mean reading the modeling, asking questions, and seeking independent advice.
When speaking to everyone becomes controversial
Over recent months I have seen Facebook commentary linking me to the Hawkesbury Business Group in ways I regard as unfair. For clarity, I am not a member and do not represent the group. I attended the flood presentation as an invited observer and reporter.
I had known about the project for some time now as I was invited by one of the members to attend the initial engineering report release for this project.
When the presentation finished and the group’s own meeting began, I left. I had not been invited to take part in that post meeting after the release and respected the distinction.
I have lost friendships amid the strange politics of who speaks to whom. That is a sad outcome for a community that needs people to cooperate, especially on flooding.
An ambitious flood mitigation concept
The Hawkesbury Business Group presented a concept for investigating tunnels to bypass river restrictions around Sackville. Its published material describes concept-stage modelling by engineering consultancy Mott MacDonald and the possibility of reducing flood levels by improving the passage of water downstream.
As someone who works with electrical and mechanical infrastructure, I understand the basic intuition: when inflow exceeds the capacity of an outlet, water backs up. But a river is not a pipe. Flood hydraulics, downstream consequences, environmental impacts, sediment, erosion, approvals and cost all demand detailed assessment.
This is not an approved or proven solution. It is an idea that deserves rigorous independent testing, rather than automatic endorsement or dismissal.
The cost of flooding — and the cost of doing nothing
The group’s announcement refers to eight floods in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley between 2020 and 2024 and an estimated $180 million in council infrastructure damage associated with flooding and saturated conditions in 2020–22. Those figures deserve attention, alongside their underlying methodology.
I have helped friends clean up properties along the river. I have seen what remains after floodwater recedes: mud, damaged belongings, lost income, and the exhausting process of rebuilding. I have also followed the flood insurance inquiry and the pressures on households trying to secure affordable cover.
A serious assessment of any mitigation proposal must compare capital costs, maintenance, and environmental effects with the potential avoided losses to homes, farms, businesses, and public infrastructure. Insurers, governments, and downstream communities all have legitimate interests in the answer.
A message from the Mayor.
Deputy Mayor Zamprogno read a message from Mayor Lyons-Buckett. My understanding was that she placed emphasis on the NSW Government’s flood mitigation approach. I would welcome clarification of her exact position and the complete wording of the letter.
The state’s approach is broader than levees alone, involving evacuation, warning systems, infrastructure, and other adaptation measures. But why should a government-led approach prevent independent engineering concepts from investigated? We can compare proposals on evidence, not on who first suggested them.
Nearly 90 people prepared to listen
I understood that approximately 77 attendees had registered. My own count suggested closer to 85 to 90 people in the room, allowing for people who may not have scanned the QR code and for ordinary counting error.
Whatever the precise number, the turnout showed genuine interest. People came because flood risk affects their homes, businesses, families, and futures.
The common point
It would be easy to make this evening another argument about political personalities. But the central question is much bigger: can the Hawkesbury investigate every credible flood mitigation option fairly and transparently?
Councillors can disagree with the Business Group’s assumptions and still examine its evidence. Residents can ask challenging questions without being labelled as part of a faction. Reporters can speak to everyone without becoming someone’s political ally.
I began the evening watching political divisions unfold in America. The handshake from Les brought my attention back to our own community. It reminded me that people who disagree can still greet each other, share a room, be civil, and listen.
The next major flood will not care who attended Wednesday’s meeting, who sits beside whom in council, or who argued on Facebook.
The Hawkesbury deserves more than political point-scoring. It deserves people prepared to put their differences aside long enough to investigate how we might protect the community we all call home. And that, in my opinion, should be our common point.
