Rudd Government soundly rejects Traveston Dam

From North Coast Voices on 12 November 2009:

Mary Valley celebrates Garrett's decision to veto Traveston Dam

It has been a long fight against the proposed Traveston Dam for Mary River catchment communities in Queensland, and they now have what is hopefully a long respite from any talk of new dams with Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's announcement rejecting the dam on solid environmental grounds.

Everyone who took part in this marathon lobbying deserves congratulations - from the Save the Mary River co-ordinating committee and those who turned out at protest rallies right down to anti-dam letter writers and tweeters. Collectively they have been a pattern card of perseverance in the face of tremendous political pressure.

NSW Northern Rivers residents will remember that the 2006-07 proposal to dam the Clarence River was at one time linked to Queensland Government plans for water security in the south-east of that state.

The Courier Mail said it all early today:

THEY screamed, they hugged, they danced and tears of joy rolled down their cheeks.

After an eerie few moments of silence as more than 100 protesters and supporters put down their glasses and held their breath to watch federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett deliver his verdict on the Kandanga Hotel's bar television, complete pandemonium erupted as soon as he said the word "no".

Nobody heard any more of his speech. The cheers almost lifted the roof off the pub as farmers, business folk, mums, dads and kids were swept up in the moment of joy after 3½ years of fighting the proposed $1.8 billion Traveston Crossing Dam.

The overwhelming feeling was one of relief – and disbelief.

Hard-core protesters who had spent the morning grimly putting more "no dam" information into mail-outs and arranging protest signs for tourists passing by on the Mary Valley Rattler steam train had to pinch themselves.....

Most had expected the dam would get the green light, with even more conditions added to the 1200 already imposed by the Queensland Co-ordinator General. Secretly they had prayed for the best but expected the worst.

Australian National Water Week begins on 18 October 2009 with a less than subtle hint on raiding coastal rivers

National Water Week is almost upon us and it is hard not to be a bit suspicious of this particular event as it seems to be primarily pushing the barrow of the big water utility companies.

After all, the week is co- sponsored by the 40 year-old Australian Water Association which identifies itself as Australia's peak water industry body, having the largest – and most broadly based – membership, connecting professionals around the country and across all water-related disciplines. AWA has over 4,000 individual, and 700 corporate members nationally.

Created water supplies of course mean money to many of these companies and not just as sources of drinking/agricultural water.

The multinational Maunsell AECOM which currently employs the AWA president Peter Robinson is in the business of:

• Land, sea and air transportation
  
• Hydro and geothermal power generation, transmission and distribution
  
• Mining and heavy industry
  
• Natural resource management and rehabilitation
  
• Buildings, infrastructure construction and management

The National Water Week website contains a resource page which should ring alarm bells for the NSW North Coast as it implies that a high percentage of freshwater could be safely diverted inland from coastal rivers and specifically mentions the Clarence River in Turning back rivers inland.

Murray Darling Association members may be bickering at their annual conference but they are still fixed on the idea of Clarence River water diversion

The 65th Murray Darling Association annual conference is drawing to a close at Playford, SA and today at its annual general meeting the association will vote on not one but two motions concerning Clarence River water diversion.

Although association members are throwing around vague accusations about water theft and abuse within the Murray Darling Basin, they seem oblivious to the fact that this is the intent behind their motions concerning the NSW North Coast Clarence River catchment.

According to the Playford AGM Agenda:

13.2 Clarence River Region 2
For many years, Region 2 has been raising the issue of a feasibility study to dam part of the
Clarence River and divert some of the water inland to the Murray-Darling Basin to help alleviate
water shortages. The Federal Government has made it quite clear that it will not support any such
project but the NSW Government has not been as clear on the issue. Some years ago, the
Association supported a feasibility study into the idea.
RECOMMENDATION: That the NSW Government be asked to respond directly to
community requests over the years that part of the Clarence River be dammed to minimise flood damage and to divert some of the water inland to the Murray-Darling Basin.

13.3 Clarence River diversion Region 6
This proposed diversion of the Clarence River was first discussed in the 1930s. The Fraser
Government allocated $4 million to fund a feasibility study into the scheme. The Hawke
Government discontinued this. The proposal, if feasible, would involve the construction of a
headwater dam on the Clarence River, with a 22km tunnel under the Gibralta Ranges in Northern
NSW. This tunnel would emerge on the Murray-Darling Basin side of the ranges and feed into
the Beardy River, then the McIntyre River and, ultimately into the Basin. The Gibralta Ranges are
situated in one of the highest rainfall areas in Australia. Benefits of the scheme include:
• The dams would have storage capacity approaching that of the Snowy Mountains
Scheme.
• The capacity of the headwater storage would provide flood control to the Clarence Valley.
• The diversion would only require 24% of the total maximum storage volumes of water to
provide similar volumes of water to the Basin as the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
• The generation of hydro-electricity is another major benefit.
This motion is not a request to build the scheme, but to revisit it in the context of recent climatic
events and over-allocations in the Murray Darling Basin.
RECOMMENDATION: That the MDA requests the Federal Government, as a matter of urgency, to commission a report on the Clarence River Diversion Proposal relative to water flows through the Murray-Darling system and to make that report widely available.

What the Clarence Valley is fighting for (14)

Commercial fishing boat moored near Maclean on the Clarence River

Riverbend near Grafton

Photographs from Suburbanbloke at Flickr

Clarence River dam proposal slammed as deceptive

Local opinion continues to firm on the Region 6 Murray Darling Association proposal to request that the Federal Government not only undertake yet another investigation of a Clarence River catchment freshwater diversion, but also give consideration to a larger scheme involving what is perilously close to being a mega-dam.

In The Daily Examiner today it was reported:

ABSOLUTE misinformation, unacceptable, highly misleading, a great lie, half-baked, inordinately expensive and of negligible benefit ... these are a few of the terms environmental groups have been using in response to the latest proposal to divert the Clarence to the west.

The Clarence Valley Environment Centre's John Edwards was particularly scathing in his assessment:

He said if the proponents were seeking 24 per cent of flows, it would equate to a dam of 8,000,000 megalitres.
“The largest dam ever proposed for the Clarence had a capacity of 5,000,000 megalitres,” he said.
“That dam would have seen the inundation of Jackadgery and the Nymboida village, require re-routing of the Gwydir Highway and Armidale roads totalling 60km and the complete closure of the Old Glen Innes Road between Buccarumbi and Dalmorton.
“The claim that no pumps would be required and that water would flow downhill through a 22 kilometre tunnel is the greatest lie of all. The water would need to be pumped more than 800 metres upwards through a minimum 60km tunnel to reach the Beardy River.
“This half-baked plan has most likely been dreamed up by an engineer wanting to build something, who has not the faintest link to reality.”

Valley Watch slams "harebrained scheme" to raid Clarence River water

The Daily Examiner, 10 August 2009

click on image to enlarge

Clarence Valley environment group Valley Watch points out that both government and communities have been down the path of exploring Clarence River catchment water diversion proposals before and, that the Healthy Rivers Commission had hit the idea on the head in 1999 on environmental and economic grounds.

Nationals MP for Clarence says the mighty river is not for diversion

The aptly named Clarrie Rivers over at North Coast Voices posted this earlier today:

Nationals MP for Clarence maintains 'total, over-my-dead-body opposition to any diversion of the Clarence River'

Steve Cansdell, State MP for Clarence, has told the Murray-Darling Association and Councils from western New South Wales they are wasting their time with their proposal to raid the Clarence River.

I have never believed in the saying that politics is the art of compromise. In life, you have to stand up for what you believe in or step out of the ring

That is why I maintain my total, over-my-dead-body opposition to any diversion of the Clarence River.

The latest bid to raid our river comes from the Murray-Darling Association backed by some Councils from western New South Wales.

You're wasting your time guys, because the answer is still no. We are sympathetic to your water problems, but this is not the way to solve them.

It is far too expensive both in dollar terms and in environmental costs, and you just couldn't pump the volume of water needed to fix the Murray-Darling water crisis anyway.

I am not sure if the plan has ever been costed, but it is unquestionably beyond the financial reach of the state and federal governments, which are already deeply in the red.

Ecologically it is about as smart as our forefathers' decision to introduce to Australia rabbits, foxes and cane toads.

It is a bit like raising the rate of the GST. The only way it can happen is if both the State and Federal Governments agree to it.

The NSW Parliament passed a motion against the proposal a little over two years ago. When I spoke in that debate, I said people wanting Clarence water are welcome to it, but only if they move here.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd also gave an unequivocal pre-election pledge it would not happen under his watch, and this is one promise he has to keep.

Finally, congratulations again to the Daily Examiner for its "Not one Drop" campaign. With his front-page story on Monday, David Bancroft was once again bang on the mark. It is good to see the local media in touch with the local community.

Sources: cansdell.com.au and The Daily Examiner

Mr. Cansdell's support for Clarence River communities is appreciated, however this support is somewhat at odds with the political arm of the National Party in New South Wales which fourteen months ago was still clinging to the notion of turning coastal water inland.

Jack Hallam comes out with a fighting "No" to new Clarence water diversion proposal

Former NSW Labor Minister for Agriculture & Fisheries and current Uki resident Jack Hallam (who started his career as a Riverina rice farmer) has come out strongly against the latest push to divert Clarence River catchment water, according to ABC News today:

But a former state agriculture and fisheries minister says the proposal would be a total disaster.
Jack Hallam, who served on the front bench for the Wran Government, rang ABC Local Radio today after hearing of the latest campaign by the Murray Darling Association.
Mr Hallam says floodwaters play a key role in maintaining one of the coast's most important fisheries.
"Flood is a good thing," Mr Hallam said.
"We are concerned about the damage of floods very often because of extremely bad planning 30 and 40 years ago, but if you don't have these events you don't have the fish spawn," he said.
"The fish, the prawn fishery, other major fisheries are totally dependent on these flood events," Mr Hallam said.
"It (the diversion plan) would be an absolute total disaster," he said.

Well said, Jack.

Photograph from the Tweed Shire Echo

Liberal MP for Farrer Sussan Ley supports 2009 call to invesitgate NSW Northern Rivers water diversion again

Liberal Party MP for Farrer, Sussan Ley, attempts to whip up support for yet another NSW Northern Rivers water diversion investigation in a letter to the Editor of The Border Mail.

In the past Ms. Ley has been an ardent political lobbyist on behalf of the interests of southern irrigators, sat on a 2002-04 House of Representatives Inquiry into future water supplies for Australia's rural industries and communities (which in an interim report urged government to postpone increased environmental flow into the Murray River) and, as parliamentary secretary to the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Peter McGauran was supportive of the Howard Government's 2006-07 push to dam and divert freshwater from the Clarence River catchment.

Diverting water a valid option

26/06/2009 12:00:00 AM

I REFER to recent letters in The Border Mail raising concerns with the long-term effects of drought in Australia and the implementation of a mechanism to bring water from the Northern Rivers of NSW (or even the Ord River scheme of WA) to the stressed southern Murray Darling Basin.

These concerns are very valid and raise awareness of our country's management of our most precious resource.

They come at a time when the Rudd Government is spending millions of dollars to buy "'phantom" water allocations from southern properties.

To date, the only large-scale water diversion scheme implemented in Australia is the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

However, other schemes were developed, but for various reasons were not implemented.

The most famous, and probably most controversial, was the Bradfield Scheme which involved piping water from the rivers of northern Queensland over the Great Dividing Range and down south to recharge the Murray Darling River system.

Developed by the engineer of the Harbour Bridge John Bradfield in the 1930s, the original scheme hoped to drought-proof eastern Queensland; and thereby improve river inflows into the Murray Darling system.

It was modified in the 1980s, and was introduced by then Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, into negotiations on the Federal Government's $10 billion national water plan.

While proponents of the scheme said it would have reduced the massive natural erosion problems in areas of central Queensland, and produced climactic changes by providing extra water and vegetation in the inland, the scheme has been ruled out three times as too expensive.

When these schemes were first talked about years ago, the world was a very different place; global warming was barely an issue and food production was assumed to continue uninterrupted.

I support more work being done to research the possibility of diverting water resources from the north to the south. Of course the impacts on communities — both positive and negative — must be fully assessed.

— SUSSAN LEY MP, member for Farrer

“They can take it to Her Majesty, but it is not going to go anywhere”: Saffin on new Murray-Darling bid for Clarence River water

In The Daily Examiner front page article today on Region 6 Murray Darling Association's bid to open another investigation into damming and diverting freshwater from the Clarence River system, Labor's Janelle Saffin lays down Rudd Government policy:

Member for Page Janelle Saffin said the councils were wasting their time. She said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had made an 'iron clad' guarantee before the 2007 election that Labor would not allow any diversion of the Clarence River.

She said she could understand the councils' desperation but diverting the Clarence was not a solution. "They should not waste their energy, their money or their time on this," she said. "They can take it to Her Majesty, but it is not going to go anywhere."

Photograph: The Daily Examiner

Investigation into Murray Darling Water Buyback scheme

The Australian Government has requested the Productivity Commission to conduct an investigation into market based alternatives to the purchasing of water entitlements from willing sellers that could be used to restore environmental flows in the Murray Darling.

The Commission will also examine the impediments to water purchasing and how these could be overcome.

The study was part of an agreement in February with Senator Nick Xenophon relating to the Government's $42 billion Nation Building Package.

The Productivity Commission will examine a range of issues such as the pace of environmental water recovery and depth of water markets, transaction and compliance costs for both applicants and governments, impacts of Government purchasing on the water market, the implications of developing water markets and limited price information and the potential to use water exchanges or other options to facilitate water purchasing.

The potential to achieve synergies between water purchase and water use efficiency programs, the capacity to purchase a mix of entitlements with different levels of security to achieve environmental needs and the requirements of Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines are also to be examined.......

An issues paper is to be released by the Commission in mid August and submissions are requested by September 18, 2009.

A draft report will be released in early November with submissions on the report due by early December. A final report will be submitted to the Government on January 24, 2010.

[Taken from Queensland Farmers Federation weekly bulletin on 31 July 2009]

What the Clarence Valley is fighting for (13)

Photograph from Flickr

Clarence Gorge