Given the current flood on the Mary River I have two serious questions:
1: Would the Traveston Dam have been ableto mitigate this flood in a meaningful way?
2: Is a major flood any LESS a threat than a dam is to the lungfish or any other endangered species of the river?
I suspect the answer to the first is possibly yes, even though the premise of it needing to be built was predicated on mitigating drought, the shallow nature of the valley it would have flooded would tend to at the absolute least flatten the peak of floods, and with a bit of luck and timing could have absorbed most of it.
With the second question, I suspect the flood would have done the lung fish little damage, but I am not aware of how it copes with floods. Most fish use it as an opportunity to spread. Endangered land animals already marginalised by drought and the encroaching humanity might have been better off with a mitigated flood, however.