A Clarence Valley Protest

Anchor Resources fails to remediate Wild Cattle Creek test drill sites and is fined

2012-01-18T08:55:00.002+11:00

Click on image to enlarge

Snapshot of Anchor Resources Ltd report to the Australian Stock Exchange
published 17 January 2012

When the China Shandong Jinshunda Group acquired this Australian registered mining exploration company it apparently did not immediately react to the evidence of its own site inspections or act on landholder complaint/s.

It was served with a notice to remediate certain test drilling sites in its Wild Cattle Creek lease area by the NSW Department of Trade & Investment Resources & Energy and fined $2,500.

Running counter to Anchor Resources antimony mining propaganda

2011-12-19T01:30:00.017+11:00

From North Coast Voices on 19 December 2011:

The 101 year-old Don Dorrigo Gazette ran this letter to the editor by Jacqueline Williams on its front page in December 2011:

Mining in Dorrigo: another perspective

The article appearing in the Don Dorrigo Gazette 16/11/2011 under the heading ‘Mining in Dorrigo’ presents information that appears to be directly from an Anchor Resources brochure on the Bielsdown Project. It would seem appropriate to question and challenge this article and highlight perhaps what we the community haven’t been told.

Anchor Resources is one of three companies holding mineral exploration licences on the Plateau and is currently the most active. Anchor Resources activities include drilling for gold at Dundurrabin, proposed drilling for antimony/gold at Wongwibinda (Fishington Mine) and further drilling at Bielsdown. This flurry of activity in our region reflects the rising price of antimony, gold and other metals and I question whether this is due to resource scarcity or market manipulation? China produces 90% of the world’s antimony, and we have seen the price of antimony skyrocket from $4K per tonne to $16K per tonne in the last two years. This price increase has largely been associated with the closure of a number of large producing antimony mines in China due to human health/safety and environmental concerns. It is pertinent to add here that Anchor Resources is now at least 96% owned by the Chinese company Shandong Jinshunda Group as of mid 2011.

I note that Anchor Resources refer to the exploration licence process, however it is difficult to find the latest approval for their Bielsdown project with the Government gazette showing an application to renew the licence in February 2011, however this licence doesn’t appear to be granted as yet. Also of concern is that a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) has not been undertaken for any of the exploration licence applications submitted by Anchor for the Bielsdown project since 2007. My understanding is that a REF is a requirement of all exploration licence applicants to undertake an environmental impact assessment of the proposed activities so that NSW DPI can make an assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to granting the licence. Given that the Bielsdown project location has state and national significance as habitat for threatened species I question the currency of the exploration licence and how the NSW government has overlooked an important part of the approval process. This is not to mention the requirements under the Commonwealth legislation that the location triggers. It is unclear whether Anchor Resources have notified the Commonwealth government to determine if their exploration activities are considered a ‘controlled action’ under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requiring further environmental impact assessment and approval. Many farmers have shared with me their frustration about their efforts and sacrifices in conserving native vegetation and habitat for the public good only to see mining companies given open slather.

I don’t wish to dwell solely on the environmental issues surrounding the potential of mining on the Plateau, as there are other issues that need to be considered. It seems that Dorrigo is not immune to the unprecedented mining expansion in regional Australia where the potential social and economic impacts need to be considered by the communities faced with these challenges. As the current legislation has been identified as inadequate to accommodate the risks, new policies are being developed and proposals to change legislation under debate. In the meantime, mining activities continue to expand. In considering the full impacts of mining, the concerns of landholders and rural communities should not be dismissed as simply ‘alarmist’......

Read the full letter here.

China Shandong Jinshunda Group caught out over fudged claims of widespread community consultation

2011-12-09T12:38:00.002+11:00

Editor David Bancroft writing in The Daily Examiner, 9 December 2011:

Miner's claim disputed

A MINING company's claim to have consulted widely about antimony mining in the Wild Cattle Creek area has been disputed by one of the area's environmental groups.

Dorrigo Environment Watch member Matt Forde said claims from Anchor Resources general manager Ian Price about community consultation did not match their own research.

Mr Price told ABC Radio on October 6 the company had consulted widely with residents, particularly in the area affected by the project.

"We are continuing that consultation into the local community," Mr Price said.

But Mr Forde said his group had members residing in the area who had received no communication, so decided to phone around to see how many had.

"Results from the survey found that 52% of landholders had received no communication from Anchor Resources, while 26% were contacted in 2009, with no further communication," he said

"Seventeen per cent of landholders had communications in 2009 and 2010 and 13% of landholders have been communicated with between 2009 to 2011.

"One of these landholders received over 96 emails from Anchor Resources in a two-year period, mostly in relation to access agreements."

Mr Price, who was in Dorrigo yesterday, said he was relatively new to the company but company records showed there had been consultation in 2009.

He said there was no timetable for drilling in the area and land access had not been negotiated.

There had been ongoing discussion with affected landowners, he said.

Once land access was negotiated, the company would undertake another round of consultation, which would be detailed.

Here we go again ... another ratbag!

2011-12-05T13:09:00.003+11:00

The title of this post is the exact wording of the opening sentence of an email sent by one Clarence Valley resident earlier today, alerting me to the fact that at least some of those irrigators (unhappy with the latest manifestation of the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan) have turned their greedy eyes and intransigent hearts towards the Clarence River catchment once more.

…managing director of South Australian citrus and dairy company Nippy's, Jeff Knispel,……. Mr Knispel advocated considering the social and economic benefits of building a hydro electricity dam at the head of northern NSW's Clarence River and dropping the water into the western-flowing river system, feeding the Darling River.

Apparently the resounding “No!” communities in the Clarence catchment have been shouting for decades to every move to dam and divert freshwater to the inevitable detriment of the local economy, agriculture, industry, visual amenity, cultural significance, water sustainability/security and biodiversity is still falling on the deaf ears of faraway irrigators who believe they have a God-given right to rape and plunder Australia’s most vital natural resource.

Well, my patience is long worn out and, Nippy’s Fruit Juices Pty Ltd, Nippy’s All Seasons Pty Ltd, Knispel Bros Pty Ltd and Nippy's Waikerie Producers Pty Ltd can confidently predict that none of their product will ever be purchased by me or mine.
That, Mr. Jeff Knispel is Natually as good as it gets.

What the Clarence Valley is fighting for (18)

2011-12-05T13:01:00.002+11:00

Tributaries flowing
from the Nymboida River high country
down towards the Clarence River

Photographs found at Google Images

Antimony becomes a dirty word on the NSW North Coast

2011-12-03T00:13:00.018+11:00

ABC Mid North Coast News 2 December 2011:

A community alliance has been formed to oppose antimony mining on the Dorrigo Plateau.

The group is working to stop the reopening of the old Wild Cattle Creek near Bielsdown.

The alliance says the Anchor Resources plan could lead to pollution in the headwaters of the Nymboida River which feeds the Coffs-Clarence public water supply.

Coffs councillor Mark Graham says recent stormwater overflows from the old Hillgrove mine on the plateau highlight concerns.

"These are essentially pristine headwaters areas, which provide drinking and good clean water important for many of the industries in our region," he said.

"We've seen in our Macleay River, major contamination because of the mining at Hillgrove.

"We need to learn lessons from that and avoid making these mistakes again."

Cr Graham says the community is determined to be heard.

"The determining authority for mining application is state and in some instances the Commonwealth Government," he said.

"Community groups have aligned and formed together in an alliance to oppose mining on the Dorrigo Plateau."

The Daily Examiner 1 December 2011:

Chinese-owned Anchor Resources holds a licence to explore the Bielsdown site, but no approval has been issued for mining.

Groups including Dorrigo Environment Watch, Antimony Action, NSW Greens and North Coast Voices fear that any mining activity in the high-rainfall area could lead to contamination of the Clarence/Coffs Harbour water supply.

"The effects of antimony poisoning are similar to arsenic poisoning," a Greens statement on the issue said. "In small doses, antimony causes headaches, dizziness and depression.

"Larger doses damage the kidneys and the liver, causing violent and frequent vomiting and will lead to death within a few days; otherwise skin contact causes dermatitis."

The ABC's 7.30 Report covered the story about prior Hillgrove spills, their impact and the Wild Cattle Creek plans in October.

ABC Mid North Coast News 29 November 2011:

There has been another heavy metal spill into the Macleay River from a gold and antimony mine in the upper catchment.

Heavy rain over the weekend caused an overflow from a stormwater dam at the Hillgrove mine near Armidale.

The Kempsey council's infrastructure manager, Robert Scott, says the contamination sounds worse than it actually is.

He says the rain caused the spill but it also helped dilute it.

"At the moment the dams in the Hillgrove mine, because they've received around about 290mm of rainfall for the month of November alone, are full, they are discharging," he said.

"We are seeing a massive dilution factor as a result of the overall flow that's coming off the New England Tablelands at the moment, which has resulted in relatively low levels of discharge directly from the mine."

However, conservationists are worried about the latest spill into the Upper Macleay.

Coffs Harbour Greens' councillor Mark Graham says the spill in the region's drinking water catchment should be grounds for concern.

"I think that all the evidence is that the river is contaminated by mining practices and it's not just the historic mining practices," he said.

"The owners of the Hillgrove mine, Straits Mining, were recently fined $50,000 in the Land and Environment Court for ongoing contamination to the headwaters of the Macleay.

"These mines are creating ongoing contamination for the catchment.

North Coast Voices 30 November 2011:

No Antimony Mine on the Dorrigo Plateau - get your bumper stickers now

The bumper stickers are available from Kombu Wholefoods in Bellingen, The Happy Frog in Coffs Harbour, The Clarence Environment Centre in South Grafton, Sawtell Paradise Fruit, The Sawtell Newsagency, Hickory Wholefoods in Dorrigo, Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc., Antimony Action and local NSW Greens groups.

Further information about the proposed reopening of the mine and about the dangers of antimony mining in high rainfall areas is available at
http://www.dorrigoenvironmentwatch.org.au/index.html

North Coast Voices 17 November 2011:

Just to remind our elected representatives in all three tiers of government that mercury and arsenic have consequences, here is a media report from New Zealand this month as one small community struggles with the reality of soil contamination from arsenic laden mine tailings dumped during the last century:

The Ministry of Health advises Moanataiari residents to:
- Take care with personal hygiene (i.e. hand washing after handling soil);
- Make sure children don't eat or play in soil;
- Remove footwear before going indoors to avoid carrying soil dust indoors - particularly for households with very young children;
- Cover soil (e.g. grassing, paving, gravel) to reduce dust and direct access by young children;
- Not to eat home grown fruit and vegetables, especially young children, until further quantification of the contamination is available and the risk can be assessed, unless it is known that the garden soil is clean fill. If you choose to eat home grown fruit and vegetables, then thoroughly wash produce that may be contaminated with soil, and peel the skin off root vegetables;
- Don't be concerned about the drinking water supply, it is separate (and safe);
- As always, if unwell for any reason, see your doctor.

O'Farrell Government blocks motion calling for moratorium on mining approvals on the Dorrigo Plateau and Clarence River Catchment

2011-11-11T19:22:00.003+11:00

Today the NSW Parliament Legislative Council was adjourned at 3.52 pm until Tuesday 22 November 2011 at 2.30 pm.

However, before the House rose the O’Farrell Coalition Government gave voters on the NSW North Coast a very good reason to reject his candidate, Chris Gulaptis, at the 19 November Clarence by-election when it used its numbers and influence to block this motion:

349. Mr Buckingham to move—

1. That this House notes that:

(a) Anchor Resources Limited have conducted scoping studies that indicate a resource of 17,500 tons of antimony have been found at both Wild Cattle Creek near Nymboida, and the Blicks River to the northwest of Dorrigo on the mid north coast of New South Wales,

(b) Anchor Resources Limited has recently been subject to a majority takeover by the Chinese minerals company China Shandong Jinshunda Group Limited which now owns over 90 per cent of the company,

(c) antimony is a mineral resource used for a range of high tech products such as polymers, fire retardants and electronics,

(d) antimony and many of its compounds are toxic and the World Health Organisation has stated that oral consumption can result in "a strong irritating effect on the gastrointestinal mucosa and trigger sustained vomiting ... abdominal cramps, diarrhoea and cardiac toxicity",

(e) the Wild Cattle Creek project is located within the headwaters of the Nymboida River, which is the highest rainfall catchment in New South Wales,

(f) the majority of the municipal water supply for more than 100,000 residents in Coffs Harbour is provided by Shannon Creek Dam which is fed by pipes directly from the Nymboida River,

(g) the Nymboida also flows into the Clarence River which provides water for domestic and agricultural purposes and is part of an important fishery based around Yamba,

(h) the high rainfall of the catchment means there is a significant risk that run off containing antimony and arsenic from any mine site could contaminate the river systems,

(i) a previous antimony ore processing plant at Urunga Lagoon has been described in the Bellingen Council 2009-10 State of the Environment Report as seriously contaminated and unable to be rehabilitated, and

(j) the Government has admitted that mining activities at Hillgrove have caused serious and long-term contamination of the Macleay River from the mine to the Pacific Ocean.

2. That this House calls on the Government to:

(a) place a moratorium on mining approvals on the Dorrigo Plateau and Clarence until the Strategic Regional Land Use Plan has been completed for this area, and

(b) consider declaring the area around Wild Cattle Creek at the headwaters of the Nymboida an environmentally sensitive area, off-limits to mining as per the Coalition's Strategic Regional Land Use Policy.

(Notice given 8 November 2011—expires Notice Paper No. 72)

Legislative Council Notice Paper No. 55—Friday 11 November 2011

Protect our NSW North Coast Water Supply from Mining

2011-11-10T21:42:00.036+11:00

Nymboida River area of the Clarence River Catchment

Coffs Harbour councillor, Mark Graham, can understand why a group of local citizens would choose to demonstrate their concern by rallying at the Karangi Dam this Saturday at 11.00 am.
“ I have already warned that the Coffs Harbour Council’s investment in a safe water supply is at risk.
“The proposed antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek has the potential to poison the waters of the Nymboida and Clarence Rivers. The Macleay River has already been poisoned with arsenic and antimony for millennia, a result of mining.
“It is extremely unlikely that this proposed Chinese owned mine can operate safely and remain safe after its Chinese owners have moved on. An open cut mine 1.5km long and 0.5km wide open to the sky in that extremely high rainfall area will generate an enormous amount of polluted water.
It could end up in the Karangi Dam and then in the taps of our homes, schools and nurseries. [Coffs Harbour City Cr. Mark Graham,media release,10 November 2011]

Greens candidate for the Clarence by-election, Janet Cavanaugh, today gave her support to the rally at Karangi Dam on Saturday morning which is demonstrating against the proposed antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek in the headwaters of the Coffs-Clarence regional water supply.

“This rally should be a reminder to the O’Farrell Government that this proposed mine is not just an issue for the Clarence electorate but also for Coffs Harbour,” Ms Cavanaugh said.

“The residents of Coffs Harbour should be demanding Andrew Fraser MP to represent their interests and secure a guarantee from the Government that no large open cut mine will be permitted in the catchment of our shared water supply.

“Voters in the Clarence Valley should be also be sending a message to Sydney by casting their vote for the candidates who are raising this issue on their behalf.

“Vague statements from the Premier that a newly formed Environmental Protection Agency will somehow guarantee the safety of our water supply are too weak. For a start, he is not recognising that compliance with pollution licensing is likely to be constrained by a lack of staff and the remoteness of the site.

“Most significantly, he is not recognising that an open cut mine in that area with extremely high rainfall will generate an enormous amount of polluted water in the Nymboida River, which could end up in the Shannon Creek Dam and also in Karangi Dam, and then our taps,” she said.

The protest picnic at Karangi Dam will be held this Saturday morning (12 November) at 11am. [Greens Clarence by-election candidate Janet Cavanaugh,10 November 2011]

The Greens issue Clarence By-election challenge in defence of water security

2011-11-10T21:38:00.001+11:00

The Greens threw down a political gauntlet in support of their candidate, Janet Cavanaugh, on 1 November 2011 and it would be foolish if any other candidate in the Clarence by-election continued to ignore these issues.

The Daily Examiner 2 November 2011:

THE GREENS have issued a challenge to all contenders for the upcoming Clarence by-election - state your position on mining at the headwaters of the Clarence River.

NSW Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham was in Grafton yesterday in support of Greens candidate for Clarence, Janet Cavanaugh.

The pair raised grave concerns for the Clarence River if a 1.5km x 0.5km open cut antimony mine was approved at Wild Cattle Creek - a tributary of the Nymboida River.

Readings near the proposed mine site, which is being explored by Anchor Resources, have already shown dangerously high levels of antimony and arsenic.

"We are calling on voters to send a message to Barry O'Farrell, letting him know that they want him to rule out mining in the headwaters of the Clarence," Mr Buckingham said. "We're not against all mining but it's got to be responsible mining.

"The risks associated with mining - especially for antimony and gold in the headwaters of the Clarence are too great.

"The experience in the Macleay should be a cautionary tale - you've got an entire river system that's been polluted that's going to be impacted for a millennia to come. "…….

"You would not want to see that happen in the Clarence and put at risk the tourism, the agriculture, the fisheries……..

Mr Buckingham called for a fast-tracking of a Strategic Regional Landuse Policy for the North Coast.

He said the Upper Hunter, New England North West, Central West and Southern Highlands would have SRLPs done out of this year's budget of $2.1 million but he was unsure when the North Coast's policy would be done.

"With the amount of mining and coal seam gas proposed in the Dorrigo Plateau, the Macleay, Clarence Richmond and Tweed Valleys - a SRLP should fast-tracked for the region."

Full article here.

The Daily Examiner editor comments on plans to mine antimony on the NSW North Coast

2011-10-27T08:30:00.002+11:00

Comment by David Bancroft, Editor, The Daily Examiner, Page 10, 27 October 2011:

Digging up mining dirt

MANY readers will be tempted to look at who is issuing the warning about antimony mining in our page three story today and not at what they are saying. That would be a mistake because what is being said has real substance.
Greens upper house member Jeremy Buckingham is clearly deeply concerned about the risks posed to Wild Cattle Creek and the Nymboida and Clarence rivers from proposed antimony and gold mining in the Wild Cattle Creek and Dorrigo plateau areas.
As we have said in this space previously, the consequences of a pollution spill during mining operations would have dire consequences for the Clarence and Coffs Harbour water supplies as well as the beef, dairy, fishing, horticulture and tourism industries of the Clarence Valley.
The ABC's 7.30 Report last Friday illustrated what can happen when the holding ponds of an antimony mine overflow.
It showed the Hillgrove mine, near Armidale, more than 100km from the coast. It has leaked contaminants into the Macleay River system and there are now exaggerated levels of pollutants from Hillgrove to the sea. Environment Minister Robyn Parker has already told parliament that pollution will be evident for "millennia".
Authorities are giving conflicting advice on the impact, on one hand saying there is no health threat to humans and on the other advising residents the water is unfit to drink.
Can you imagine what the impact on the tourism industry alone would be from the publicity that would surround pollution of the Clarence?
And it is just one of the industries that face potentially disastrous consequences from heavy metal mining.
We should not dismiss the prospect of mining out of hand because of the environmental risks - mining is essential.
But before we consider an application with such risks we should be absolutely certain we are not going to put long-term industries at risk for a relatively short-term gain.

Also Green's contamination fears by David Bancroft, 27 October 2011.

Saffin speaks out against mining threats to Clarence River catchment waterways

2011-10-25T19:11:00.001+11:00

The Daily Examiner, letters to the editor, 25 October 2011:

Significant threat to waterways

I was pleased to see the expanded Daily Examiner coverage online of a mooted mining exploration project (DEX 5 October, 2011 "Significant threat to waterways"), having been alerted to the growing concern in the area by a Dorrigo resident and having just commenced some fact finding to see if the project would impact in our backyard. (Yes, it is a clear case of protecting your own backyard.)

The Daily Examiner asked all the right questions - questions which the Federal National Party MP Luke Hartsuyker should be asking.

Granted, 60 new jobs would be of great benefit to the region but what if those jobs are at the expense of hundreds of other jobs lost as the result of contamination of the Clarence River, impacting on industries such as tourism, agriculture and fisheries?

We need to carefully consider any threat of contamination of our water supply.

The water supply that provides, among other things, drinking water, irrigation and commercial and recreational fishing activities for the Clarence Valley and surrounds.

Through earlier "NOT A DROP" campaigns started by the Daily Examiner, I have made it abundantly clear of my commitment to the Clarence River not losing a drop of water, despite questionable schemes such as diverting the Clarence inland.

This time "NOT A DROP" means we don't poison a drop of Clarence water, as the history of this type of mining is littered with pollution of waterways, water sources and nearby communities.

Mr Price of Anchor Resources is quoted as saying: "Using world best practice, there will be no contamination."

I have written to Mr Price on our behalf to ask him what "world best practice" actually involves and how it would prevent one iota of poison from entering the Clarence catchment.

I shall keep constituents informed through the local media of the progress of my approach to Anchor Resources.

JANELLE SAFFIN, MP

Federal Member for Page

*Hat tip to Clarrie Rivers of North Coast Voices for providing the transcript!

21-22 October 2011 media coverage of NSW North Coast antimony contamination risks

2011-10-22T06:52:00.002+11:00

The ABC TV program 7.30 NSW aired graphic footage of existing antimony contamination and canvassed the risks of reopening an old Wild Cattle Creek antimony mine in the Clarence River catchment.

It can be viewed here:

http://www.abc.net.au

The Sydney Morning Herald also addressed the issue of historic and recent contamination from the Hillgrove antimony mine:

A PLUME of toxic pollution from an old antimony mine appears to have killed fish for dozens of kilometres along the Macleay River in northern NSW.....
a study published by the CSIRO in 2009 described the waterways near the mothballed mine as ''highly contaminated'' and estimated about 7000 tonnes of waste had accumulated along the bed of the Macleay River.
Water tests have shown antimony levels at 250 times background levels, with high levels detected along the river to the coast at Urunga, where the mineral was once processed for export.

The ABC program is remarkable for its vivid illustration of the incompetence of the current NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker and, her willingness to utter untruths.

All that glitters is not gold

2011-10-21T14:24:00.005+11:00

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 20 October 2011:

I read with interest The Daily Examiner article “Our Valley of riches: Miners homing in on billion-dollar resources” on 10 October 2011.

The fact that “Red Sky Energy has also signaled to investors that it envisages gross revenues of $4 billion from its Clarence Moreton Project”, that on today’s gold prices Centius Gold could realize “$2.3 billion in revenues” and, that Anchor Resources is progressing towards re-opening old workings during a period of record antimony metal prices, might lead one to suppose that the NSW Treasury along with communities on the Dorrigo Plateau and in the Bellingen, Coffs Harbour and Clarence Valley local government areas might see a hefty financial benefit from all this commercial activity.

This is far from the reality of the modern mining industry in Australia.

Not only will the number of mining jobs be small, as Anchor Resources’ admission that it is only looking to create 60 positions to last less than ten years clearly demonstrates, but the bulk of mining profits derived from the projected shaft and open-cut mining may never see taxation applied.

So adding little to the O’Farrell Government coffers and thereby giving even less to NSW residents by way of government resources.

In the case of coal seam gas mining specifically, the NSW Government has granted a five year moratorium on the payment of mining royalties [NSW Dept. of Primary Industries,2011]. In that matter of gold mining, it will be exempt from the federal proposed mineral resources rent tax no matter how large the profits of individual companies [SMH 28.09.11].

As for mining generally; in 2007-08 Australian Taxation Office statistics recorded 4,290 mining companies having combined incomes which totaled $160,323,192,189, which in turn had combined taxable incomes of $29,010,243,407 and net tax actually paid was $8,068,463,15 after all allowed deductions had been made. Mining royalty payments made in that financial year added up to a tax deductible $3,924,902,975.

Of these 4,290 mining companies, there were some who paid no tax at all and these comprised 68.3 per cent of all mining companies. Which means only around 1,360 mining companies Australia-wide paid tax in that year.

How did they do that? Well, there are at least 20 deductions, rebates, concessions, exemptions, offsets etc., available to the mining industry and their combined value is literally worth billions. In 2007-08 the industry total for expenses claimed under R&D concessions alone was $2,508,321,897 and immediate deduction for capital expenditure $3,785,347,506.

It is worth noting that in 2007 the Business Council of Australia in “Tax Nation” stated: "Taxes collected are negative for the mining industry group because as major exporters survey participants reported a significant GST refund which more than offset other taxes collected." [www.bca.com.au]

In other words, from all these billions of dollars quarried from mining ventures on the NSW North Coast state government and taxpayers are likely to receive nothing or next to nothing once annual tax returns are lodged.

A state of affairs all candidates in the forthcoming Clarence by-election might like to consider before deciding on what policy position they will take in relation to mining in the environmentally sensitive Nymboida River section of the wider Clarence River catchment area.

JUDITH M. MELVILLE

The irony did not pass unnoticed

2011-10-21T14:20:00.001+11:00

The Daily Examiner Letters to the Editor 13 October 2011:

Hands off

I FIND it highly amusing to have the people out west telling their neighbours to get their hands off "our water".

The Macquarie pipeline, taking water from the Macquarie River to enhance the water supply for Orange, is being met with stiff opposition from the folk from Forbes.

They even have enlisted Ian Kiernan to head their rally on Saturday.

It seems it is okay to want to divert water from the Clarence, but when it comes to a small pipeline to help Orange out of their woes, it's hands off. Although it's okay for Wellington, Bathurst and Dubbo to have Macquarie River water for their consumption.

The fishers out west seem to understand about the impact on fish by having reduced flows, so it will be good to have them onside next time some loony starts up about all that Clarence River water going out to sea and being wasted.

BRIAN DODD,

Grafton

The Daily Examiner editor leads the way on local media questioning proposed antimony mine

2011-10-12T15:06:00.002+11:00

Photograph of rainforest on the Dorrigo Plateau
taken from
Rain, runoff and rare metals – the toxic threat to the Dorrigo Plateau
Karl Vernes Senior Lecturer,
School of Environmental & Rural Science at University of New England

The Daily Examiner Comment article by editor David Bancroft 12 October 2011 Page 10:

Digging up dirt on mine

“The spill occurred after continued wet weather produced excess stormwater which exceeded the amount of water that could be stored in the dam.”

THE NSW Minister for Finance, Greg Pearce, may have inadvertently rung an enormous alarm bell for Clarence Valley residents with comments last month about the Hillgrove antimony mine, east of Armidale.

Mr Pearce, who represents the environment minister in the Upper House, was asked by Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham what the government was doing to ensure a proposed antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek did not pollute the Nymboida River.

Mr Buckingham said there had been evidence of contamination from the Hillgrove mine and wanted to know what was being done to prevent contamination of the Nymboida or further contamination of the Macleay from the existing pollution.

Mr Pearce initially shrugged off the question, suggesting he didn’t understand what Mr Buckingham was asking.

But later he returned and said: “The Office of Environment and Heritage was notified that stormwater was overflowing from a dam at the Hillgrove mine, east of Armidale, at 11.45am on Monday, August 29, 2011. The mine is currently not operating but is in care-and-maintenance mode. The spill occurred after continued wet weather produced excess stormwater which exceeded the amount of water that could be stored in the dam.”

“I am advised that historic mining from more than 100 years ago and erosion of highly mineralised soils have deposited a plume of material containing heavy metals in the river system from the Hillgrove area to the Pacific Ocean, an area of approximately 200km. That is quite a plume. I am further advised that the plume will continue to release elevated levels of heavy metals through physical, biological and chemical processes for millennia.”

Mr Pearce, we want absolute guarantees there will be no leaching of toxins into the Nymboida and subsequently the Clarence, and if that means no mining, so be it.

O'Farrell Government shows open contempt towards NSW North Coast communities

2011-10-09T15:33:00.001+11:00

Living in regional New South Wales often leads one to suspect that any state government of the day and its minsters rarely display an understanding of (or empathy with) the aspirations, problems or concerns of distant local communities.

This was clearly demonstrated when a question raising concerns on behalf of residents and ratepayers living on the NSW North Coast in the Dorrigo, Belligen, Coffs Harbour and Clarence Valley districts was put to the Coalition Government in the NSW Legislative Council last month.

Highlighted below the contemptuous, party-politics-before-people response which was given by the O’Farrell Government:

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. I thank the Minister for his detailed answer previously revealing that the Macleay River has been contaminated by the Hillgrove antimony mine for millennia—which is thousands of years, in case he does not remember. Ancoa has a proposal to reopen the Hillgrove antimony mine responsible for much of this contamination. Anchor Resources plans a new antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek at the top of the Nymboida River. Given the toxicity of antimony and history of contamination, what is the Government doing to ensure that these mines will not further contaminate the Macleay River and contaminate the Nymboida River?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Last week I commented upon the member's North Korean controller and the need to translate his questions from Korean to code, then from code to Korean, and then from Korean to English. I said that his questions are garbled. If anyone could make sense of that question, I invite them to answer it for me. I could not follow it at all—I really could not. I invite the member to put the question on notice to get a detailed answer.

[NSW Parliament, Hansard,14 September 2011]

What the Clarence Valley is fighting for (17)

2011-10-06T03:00:00.001+11:00

Rivertree

Photograph by Debrah Novak

Antimony and arsenic pollution levels no-one speaks about - until now

2011-10-05T06:32:00.006+11:00

In North Coast Voices this week:

Water Wars: Not good enough, Richie!

“DANGEROUSLY high levels of arsenic and antimony in Mine Creek, which feeds into Wild Cattle Creek, has ignited debate about antimony mining in an area which leads into the water supply of the Clarence and Coffs Harbour regions.

Wild Cattle Creek is one of the major tributaries of the Nymboida River which leads into the Clarence and also supplies water to Shannon Creek Dam.

A map commissioned by Anchor Resources, the company which is licenced to explore, but not mine the site at Beilsdown, shows Mine Creek at one point had 377 ug/litre (parts per billion) of antimony which is 126 times the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council's (ANZECC) guidelines for drinking water.

Arsenic levels at the same spot were 85 ug/litre - more than 12 times the ANZECC drinking water guidelines.

The map is dated September 19, 2011.” {The Daily Examiner on 5th October 2011 in Significant threat to waterways}

This is a section of the map published alongside the quoted article (hat tip to Clarencegirl's friends):

Even I can work out that if past antimony and gold mining in parts of the Clarence River catchment have resulted in persistent pollution which is likely to remain for centuries, then it’s not a brilliant idea to sit back and let the O’Farrell Government in faraway Sydney agree to new mining in the area which can possibly stuff up Clarence waterways and increase health risks faced by local communities and the businesses which keep them afloat.

But lord luvva duck! Sometimes you have to wonder what happens to some men’s spines after they catch a glimpse of a golden chance – the right to strut down Macquarie Street and plant their behinds on the government pews in Parliament House alongside Bazza and his mates.

Faced with evidence from a report commissioned by the Chinese-owned mining exploration company, Anchor Resources, Clarence Valley Mayor and Nationals pre-selection candidate, Richie Williamson, had this to say in The Daily Examiner on 5^th October 2011; “Should the mine progress, council will not be taking a back seat on the issue".

Gone is any hint of outright opposition – or heaven forfend, a proactive approach - to this latest threat to the quality and safety of fresh water flowing down the Nymboida River and on into the kitchen taps of Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour homes. Instead there is p*ss weak acceptance that what China wants China gets.

Seems the boys from Anchor really did a number on Richie at that last meeting with council.

The Daily Examiner article goes on to quote concerned North Coast residents:

* John Edwards from the Clarence Environment Centre said antimony was "really deadly stuff".

"By the time they get it out the process has released carcenogenic and toxic chemicals.

"The government and council in particular should be pro-active and lobby government on behalf of residents.

"They said they're going to store all the tailings in catchments - this is a high rainfall area (the highest in NSW) - these things don't work."

Mr Edwards referred to the former Timbarra gold mine which used a similar catchments to store its tailings.

"At the end of the day the thing failed.

"A lot of things have happened over the years and we never seem to learn from it."

* Manager of Clarence River Tourism Jenny Massie said any sort of pollution which impacts on waterways could be devastating to the local tourism industry.

Projects such as Clarence Valley Council's Clarence River Way scheme recognised this, she said.

Ms Massie referred to a 2007 Tourism Profiles for Local Government Areas document which estimated that there was anywhere from 3500 to 7700 tourism industry workers in the valley depending on seasonal variations.

She said nature-based tourism was essential to the area considering the region was 56% national parks.

* "What concerns us the most is that China is closing down most of its antimony mining because of its effect on the environment and the human population.

"But then it's okay to come down and put an antimony mine on the Dorrigo Plateau."

Mr Graham slammed comments by Member for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker who welcomed the potential creation of 60 jobs from an antimony mine.

"The tourism industry down the Clarence River (rafting, fishing and swimming), the southern-most cane growing lands in Australia and the nationally renowned and highly valuable prawn fishery at the mouth of the Clarence River will all be heavily impacted should this mine proceed," he said.

NSW Nationals preselection candidates for Clarence by-election questioned

2011-09-29T06:28:00.001+10:00

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 28 September 2011:

Questions for candidates

I read with interest the names of those individuals who are standing for NSW National Party pre-selection for the forthcoming Clarence by-election to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Steve Cansdell.

Given that there is such a large field of contenders and, the importance of a sustainable and secure Clarence River catchment and Coffs Harbour-Clarence Valley urban water supply, it is not unreasonable to expect these individuals to answer a few questions in order to satisfy both their fellow Nationals and the wider electorate as to their good faith and future intentions.

Question One: If elected will you oppose any move by local, state or federal governments to further dam and divert water from the Clarence River catchment, including the granting of water extraction rights for mining operations or other large volume water users?

Question Two: If you undertake to oppose such water diversion/extraction will you publicly oppose any Coalition policy which supports it, even to the point of crossing the floor to vote against your party?

Question Three: Have you ever in a public or private capacity had contact with any representatives of a mining corporation or energy company operating within or intending to operate within Australia and/or, have you ever had contact with any representatives or agents for a mining corporation or energy company holding exploration licenses in Northern NSW?

Question Four: Have you ever given a general or specific undertaking to any representative or agent of a mining corporation or energy company that you will look favourably on their proposal or will further their consultation or negotiations with any tier of government, other businesses or communities in Northern NSW?

Public silence on any or all these questions over the next week will be taken to indicate that pre-selection candidates have something they wish to conceal from both North Coast Nationals and Clarence voters.

JUDITH M. MELVILLE

Yamba NSW 2464

Mining at what price?

2011-09-28T08:07:00.003+10:00

The Daily Examiner Editor, David Bancroft, on 28 September 2011:

IT'S going to take a lot more than the 60 jobs the Member for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker tips would come to the region from mining in the headwaters of the Nymboida River to convince people it is a risk worth taking.

While states like Western Australia and Queensland are riding high on the economic benefits mining has brought there, it is tempting for other governments - at all levels and of all persuasions - to want to cash in on the act.

But before we open our doors to the miners we need to be fully aware of what we are potentially letting ourselves in for.

The 60 jobs are unlikely to be based in the Clarence. They are more likely where the mining is occurring in the Dorrigo area and will probably be serviced from Coffs Harbour or the metropolitan areas.

So the economic and employment benefits to the Clarence are likely to be incidental at best.

And they are not likely to last long.

These positions are finite and might last only a couple of years - perhaps less.

Then there are the risks.

Gold and antimony mining both have serious environmental risks and, if there was to be a spill it would be the industries of the Clarence that would be hit the hardest.

In short, the scenario seems to be there are likely to be few benefits but plenty of risks for the Clarence.

By all means we should explore anything that will provide employment, but we should not do that with our eyes closed to the possible dangers that might present.

Federal Nationals MP Luke Hartsuyker betrays the Clarence as he aligns himself with the China Shandong Jinshunda mining group

2011-09-26T05:20:00.002+10:00

The Federal Nationals Member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, well-known for his lukewarm support of the social, cultural, environmental and economic aspirations of local communities in his electorate, is now aligning himself with the Chinese multinational mining corporation China Shandong Jinshunda Group and its plans to create an antimony mine in an environmentally sensitive section of the Nymboida River catchment (part of the wider Clarence River catchment) which supplies drinking water to people living in the Coffs Harbour City Council and Clarence Valley Shire Council local government areas.

The Australian 21 September 2011:

PLANS by a Chinese company to start exploration drilling for rare earths and gold on the pristine Dorrigo Plateau in NSW has triggered community fears of contamination of the water catchment for Coffs Harbour and nearby Grafton.

Anchor Resources, 96 per cent-owned by the Shandong Jin Shunda Group, wants to start a $2.6 million drilling program around an old antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek and a gold prospect at nearby Blicks River.

But many local residents fear the drilling is a precursor to the start of large-scale mining that would threaten the crucial Macleay catchment.

More than 100 concerned residents from Dorrigo and nearby Bellinger Valley attended a community meeting at the weekend to vent their concerns and learn more about the mining proposal.

Dorrigo Environment Watch spokeswoman Gwen Hanna said any full-scale mining operation posed unacceptable pollution risks in an area that lies close to the World Heritage listed Dorrigo National Park, a major tourist attraction.

The habitat of three endangered frogs – the Giant Barred, Stuttering and Pouched – lies within the proposed exploration area, Ms Hanna said.

"This area is in a unique environment and we're really concerned that if they do open cut, which they're proposing in addition to open shaft – it's going to be a really serious blot on the landscape," she said.

In addition to pollution fears, she said residents were worried about the prospect of ore-laden lorries travelling through Dorrigo to what would be the most likely processing facility at Hill Grove, near Armidale.

But local National Party member Luke Hartsuyker, the federal MP for Cowper, said any plans to resume mining on the plateau would create up to 60 jobs in a hard-pressed rural economy.

"This not an Olympic Dam," Mr Hartsuyker said referring to the South Australian mine site containing the world's largest known single deposit of uranium.

Antimony is used in the manufacture of fire retardants, plastics, medical applications and next generation computer memory drives. Demand for the metal is so strong, its price has rocketed from $4000 a tonne in 2006 to $16,000.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke told The Australian he was closely monitoring developments.

"If the company was to propose to mine following exploration, it is more likely federal powers would be triggered at that point," he said.

The Coffs Coast Advocate Letters to the Editor 24 September 2011:

Mining catastrophe

It is immensely concerning that the member for Cowper, Mr Luke Hartsuyker, has publicly stated that the 60 jobs that will potentially be created through the establishment of an antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek by Anchor Resources and its owner, China Shandong Jinshunda, will be a good thing for our regional economy.

This is because the tourism industry down the Clarence River (rafting, fishing and swimming), the southern-most cane growing lands in Australia and the nationally renowned and highly valuable prawn fishery at the mouth of the Clarence River will all be heavily impacted should this mine proceed.

These major industries underpin the economy of our region.

Furthermore, our three-year-old regional water supply, in which Coffs Harbour and Clarence Valley Councils have invested approximately $200 million, faces a great risk because of the toxic antimony, arsenic and mercury known to exist within the ore body that China Shandong Jinshunda seeks to mine.

On March 31, 2009, approximately 900mm of rainfall fell on the mine site.

There is nothing that can be done to capture all run-off in such extreme rainfall events.

It is inevitable that the Clarence River will be polluted should this mine proceed.

At a meeting yesterday at Coffs Harbour City Council chambers, the managing director of Anchor Resources, Mr Ian Price, stated that the lifespan of the mine will be measured in years, not decades.

Please explain your reasoning for supporting this mine on economic grounds, Mr Hartsuyker?

Councillor Mark Graham

What is galling about Mr. Hartsuyker's support for this mining venture is the admitted short life of this mine and the small number of jobs it will create in the Coffs Harbour-Dorrigo area (a possible sixty jobs of less than ten years duration) when set beside the enduring environmental and health dangers it will leave behind for a significant portion of the Clarence River catchment area.

Especially since ongoing antimony contamination of water bodies and land protected by Environmental Planning Instruments is not unknown from previous mining ventures in northern NSW.

The Macleay Argus 2 September 2011:

HIGHER than average levels of heavy metals have been recorded in the Macleay River at Bellbrook after a dam overflowed at a gold and antimony mine near Armidale.

NSW Health and Kempsey Shire Council said higher than normal levels of metals including arsenic, zinc and copper had been detected in the waters of the Macleay River.

But both organisations said the concentration of the heavy metals was not high enough to warrant concern to people.

As a precaution NSW Health has contacted residents in the upper Macleay to inform them not to drink water from the river unless it has been processed through the Bellbrook water treatment plant.

Council has undertaken further testing to determine whether the contamination has spread beyond Bellbrook….

The Office of Heritage and Environment (OHE) reported the breach occurred on Tuesday when there was a release of material from a sediment erosion control dam at the Hillgrove antimony and gold mine.

"The mine is currently not operating but is in 'care and maintenance' mode," a spokeswoman said.

"The spill occurred after continued wet weather produced excess stormwater which exceeded the amount of water that could be stored in the dam resulting in the spill - when the mine is operating the stormwater would normally have been used for mineral processing."

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Media Release 5 July 2010:

Straits (Hillgrove) Gold Pty Limited has been fined $50,000 and ordered to pay costs of $24,000 in the NSW Land and Environment Court today after being found guilty of polluting waters.

Straits pleaded guilty to the charge; pollution of water under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

The company 'Straits' conducts gold and antimony mining activities at the Hillgrove Mine, near Armidale in NSW.

In sentencing today, Justice Biscoe convicted and fined Straits $50,000 and ordered it to pay the prosecutor's legal costs of $24,000.

The court heard that in April 2009 a protective bund at the premises had been lowered to allow access for an electrical contractor. When a screening device used in the mine became blocked and 'slimes' discharged and spilled into the bunded area, it then overflowed the bund and discharged into the local environment.

The spill, of up to 3000 litres of 'slimes,' contained antimony, arsenic and lead and is toxic to some aquatic life.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), Director General, Lisa Corbyn said the penalty provided a timely reminder to companies that they must ensure measures are in place to contain pollution.

"This case highlights the potential for serious damage to occur and highlights the importance of companies having safeguards and operating procedures in place to control pollution at all times. Carelessness meant that simple containment structures which could have prevented the spill from leaving the mine site were not in place. Fortunately the environmental harm from this particular spill was low.

"Importantly, the company did report the spill to the DECCW Environment Line and cooperated with the DECCW officers throughout the investigation."

Anyone who sees pollution is urged to contact the Environment line on 131 555.

Bellingen Shire Council State of the Environment Report 2009-2010:

Urunga antimony processing site

A seriously contaminated site has been identified at Urunga, Portions 138 & 169 Parish of Newry. Contamination also affects adjacent Crown Land and a SEPP 14 wetland. The site was previously used for antimony ore processing, since abandoned without rehabilitation of the site. DECCW have undertaken an investigation of the site and researched remediation options.

General

Council maintains records of properties known to be affected by contamination. Council must consider the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land in assessing proposed changes to the use of land.

Antimony and arsenic dispersion in the Macleay River catchment, New South Wales: a study of the environmental geochemical consequences February 2007:

A baseline geochemical study of stream sediments and waters of the Macleay River catchment in northeastern New South Wales indicates that although most of the catchment is unaffected by anthropogenic or natural inputs of heavy metals and metalloids, the Bakers Creek - trunk Macleay-floodplain system has been strongly affected by mining-derived Sb and As. The dispersion train from the Hillgrove Sb - Au mining area to the Pacific Ocean is over 300 km in length. Ore and mineralised altered rock from Hillgrove contains vein, breccia-hosted and disseminated stibnite, arsenopyrite, pyrite and traces of gold. Historic (pre-1970) mine-waste disposal practices have resulted in high to extreme contamination of stream sediments and waters by Sb and As for ∼50 km downstream, with high Au values in the sediments…..

Estimates of sediment migration rates and amounts of Sb and As transported in suspension and solution imply that the catchment contamination will be long-term (centuries to millennia) such that environmental effects need to be ascertained and management strategies implemented…

[Ashley, P. M.; Graham, B. P.; Tighe, M. K.; Wolfenden, B. J in Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 54, Number 1, February 2007 , pp. 83-103(21)]

Water body in antimony contamination area Urunga 2011

Dorrigo Environment Watch has online links for further information concerning antimony and the NSW North Coast.

Lock the Gate Alliance to conduct a mining forum, North Coast Regional Botanic Garden, Coffs Harbour at 2pm 31 July 2011

2011-07-27T20:15:00.000+10:00

The Coffs Coast Advocate, Forum to explain mining plan, 27 July 2011:

The Lock the Gate Alliance has convened a Mining the Coffs Coast forum at the North Coast Regional Botanic Garden in Coffs Harbour at 2pm.
Alliance spokesman Michael McNamara said the session was the result of “unprecedented pressure to mine sensitive parts” of our region.
“With proposals to mine coal seam gas throughout the Clarence Valley, antimony in the headwaters of Coffs Harbour's drinking water supply, and gold throughout the forested hinterland, there has never been as much pressure on the mineral resources of the region,” Mr McNamara said.
“There are serious conflicts between mining and the internationally-significant biodiversity of the region and even more serious conflicts between toxic mining practices and the protection of clean water supplies.”
Mr McNamara said he and his wife, Julie, were so passionate about the issue they were undertaking a promotional speaking tour of NSW during August and September to promote National Day of Action on October 16, also the start of National Water Week.....

Will the O'Farrell Government protect local government investment in NSW North Coast sustainable urban water infrastructure?

2011-07-18T19:47:00.000+10:00

There are ninety kilometres (90 km) of underground pipelines linking the Nymboida River with the Shannon Creek Dam in the Clarence Valley, the Rushforth Road Reservoir at South Grafton and the Karangi Dam near Coffs Harbour. The combined value of this infrastructure to Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour local government has been estimated at $200 million.

On 18 July 2011 The Coffs Coast Advocate reported Coffs Harbour City Cr. Mark Graham as stating:

…he had inspected a site on Wild Cattle Creek where Anchor Resources was exploring for antimony and there were already large plumes of antimony which could leach into Wild Cattle Creek and into the Nymboida River.

“There is a massive plume washing from the exploration site into the headwaters of our drinking water catchment,… There is a great need to protect the catchment of the regional water supply and our collective investment of about $200 million"

If these plumes are as reported, then the China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd through its Australian mining exploration arm, Anchor Resources Ltd, is placing local government investment, an urban water supply (which supports an estimated 3 million residents and visitors/tourists each quarter across Clarence Valley-Coffs Harbour regions) and, a high-value natural environment, at risk even before antimony mining and processing has begun.

According to a report commissioned by Clarence Valley Council in 2008; On average, domestic overnight visitors spent $118 per night, International overnight visitors spent $76 per night and domestic day trippers spent $80 per trip.

Will NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister for Resources and Energy Chris Hartcher ignore potential risks to the interests of Northern Rivers and Mid-North Coast communities in order to facilitate the interests of this international mining corporation?

Mining plans in the Clarence River catchment

2011-07-08T02:54:00.000+10:00

On 8 July 2011 The Daily Examiner again addressed the subject of mining exploration in the Clarence River catchment in journalist Terry Deefholt's article Gold mine plan causes concern:

PLANS to build open-cut gold mines in the steep terrain and high rainfall areas of the Orara Valley and near the Little Nymboida River have raised the concerns of well-known Clarence Valley campaigner Judith Melville.

Some of the old gold mine areas targeted are near world heritage-listed rainforest, some is farmland and some is state forest.

Ms Melville, the blog administrator of the community website North Coast Voices, pointed to the prospectus documents of three mining companies, Centius Gold, Anchor Resources and Altius Mining, which have exploration licences for large areas of bushland south and south-west of Grafton (map on page 8).

“The mining boom has led to an increase in exploration pressures in the Clarence catchment and I have serious concerns over the potential impacts on catchment water and the level of water required to successfully run these mines,” she said.

“A lot of these old mines are based in high elevation with pronounced slopes. How are they going to be stabilised?”

Ms Melville described the State Government's regulations on tailings dams as woefully inadequate, referring to a Dam Safety Committee document which outlines how mine owners had to self-assess the risk to public safety from their tailings dams.

She said even a minor spill of mercury or arsenic into the water system could have a major impact.

“It's about perception ... can you imagine how quick Sydney restaurants would stop buying Clarence seafood if there was a perception of contamination?”

She also expressed concern about water usage.

“A thumbnail guide is that processing a tonne of ore requires a tonne of water,” Ms Melville said.

“What happens in a low-flow regime? Are we going to have less water coming in to support a healthy estuary because these companies want to operate all year round.”

Centius Gold's managing director John Slade said the company would conduct aerial magnetic surveys of the Bobo area (south-west of Grafton) in the next couple of weeks with plans to commence drilling shortly after, if the surveys stood up.

Mr Slade said it could take five years of planning, environmental impact statements and decision making before drilling led to a mine.

He said the company would not need to negotiate with any landholders in the next five years because there was enough prospect of gold in state forest areas.

As to concerns about mine tailings, including arsenic, reaching river systems, Mr Slade said the company's gold mining operations “don't touch the water table” unlike coal seam gas.

He said water used to extract gold was pumped into tailings dams unconnected to river systems and the water evaporated over time.

He said the high rainfall of the area would need to be taken into account when planning the size of tailings dams.

An independent geologist's report contained in an Anchor Resources prospectus rates the processing risk of a Bielsdown mine (about 15km north of Dorrigo) as “moderate to high”.

“The mineralisation at Bielsdown contains some mercury, which may be difficult to eliminate from antimony concentrates. If the mercury level in concentrates is too high it could render them unsaleable,” the report said.

A prospectus from Altius mining states the Karangi exploration licence covers at least 150 old gold mines, most of which closed early last century.

“The high grades mined would indicate that there is a strong possibility of developing a number of open-cut mining projects,” the prospectus says.

"Who cops the risk if a tailings dam fails and mercury or other heavy metals spew into the tributaries of the Nymboida River?"

2011-07-05T06:03:00.001+10:00

North Coast Voices post on 5 July 2011:

…………wealth is about more than money.
Quality of life and the environment feature pretty high on my agenda. And we need to be mindful of what happens after we sell off the farm. In the case of the proposed antimony and gold mines in the Wild Cattle Creek and Tyringham areas - the mining company would be Chinese, the approving authority the Bellingen Shire Council and most of the workers (and there is unlikely to be too many of them) would probably be based in Coffs.
But who cops the risk if a tailings dam fails and mercury or other heavy metals spew into the tributaries of the Nymboida River?
The Clarence Valley, of course.
And it appears unlikely to receive any of the benefits.
Mining has helped Australia ride out an international financial storm, but we need to be careful that we look at more than dollar signs when considering projects. There's more to lose than a few dollars.

[David Bancroft, Editor, The Daily Examiner 2 July 2011]

No problems with any new Wild Cattle Creek tailing dams for antimony mining by-products arsenic and mercury, according to the China Shandong Jinshunda Group

2011-06-30T17:11:00.001+10:00

One has to admire the chutzpah of mining corporation China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd as reported in The Clarence Valley Review on 29 June 2011:

Anchor Resources managing director, Ian Price, said the Dorrigo mine would operate under vastly improved practices to those carried out in the past.

“One of the key aspects is containment of any of materials from the particular site so they don’t enter waterways, or don’t go off-site.

I think that’s the critical thing, and that’s proper containment of tailings in proper containment dams, and diversion of water around sites so they don’t enter the site … lots of old mining sites going back 50 or 100 years were not built with good tailings dams, and standards have developed over the past decades where those standards are much better,” he said.

First its spokesperson attempts to distance the mine from those North Coast local government areas in which residents are expressing concern, about the potential for negative environmental and public health impacts from mining for antimony and gold in a high rainfall, elevated and environmentally sensitive area within the Clarence and Nymboida river catchments, by calling it the “Dorrigo” mine.

Then the same spokesperson talks up modern tailing dams despite problems with these dams being experienced both in Australia and overseas and, finally he neglects to point out that the NSW Government allows mine owners to self-assess risk in relation to the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of the same tailing dams.

The primary goal of the DSC, relevant to this Guidance Sheet, is that all prescribed NSW tailings dam owners apply appropriate dam safety management practices to their dams using a risk management approach in line with a whole of Government approach to public safety.

Another goal is that risks to community interests from the potential for dam failure are tolerable, the owner’s determination in this regard being satisfactory to the DSC.

This requires that the risks are detected, identified and assessed, that they are reduced, when necessary, as soon as reasonably practicable and in a way that best serves community interests, and that they are kept under review throughout the life cycle of the dams.

It is for each dam owner to determine how these goals, including DSC requirements, (see Section 2.2) will be achieved and to demonstrate that the goal has been achieved, or will be achieved following safety improvements. The following sections of this sheet aim to provide guidance to assist dam owners in the achievement of the DSC goals. [NSW Dam Safety Committee, June 2010, “Tailing Dams”,pp2-3]

Energy and Resources Minister Hartcher is a little economical with the truth

2011-06-29T16:21:00.007+10:00

On the 29 June 2011 in an article titled Toxic metal hunt at proposed site State Energy and Resources Minister Chris Hartcher's position on any future mining proposal in the Wild Cattle Creek area of the Nymboida sub-catchment of the larger Clarence River catchment was elucidated:

“An exploration licence allows a company to undertake exploration, environmental assessments and feasibility studies only.”
Before any mine was opened strict guidelines had to be adhered to.
"Any future mining proposal would be required to obtain development consent through the relevant consent authority...As part of this process, proponents are required to prepare and submit a comprehensive environmental assessment that assesses all potential impacts of the proposal, including potential impacts on aquifers and water resources as well as cumulative impacts.”
Planning approval rests with the State Government until its plan to scrap Part 3A of the Planning Act is legislated.
Then it would be up to individual councils to sign off on any approval for the proposed mine.
“Local communities and councils are fully involved in the process, with planning approvals going out for public consultation,” Mr Hartcher said.

Unfortunately this is not the entire range of possibilities for progressing any future mining development application within the Nymboida or Clarence River catchment areas.

O'Farrell Government policy documents concerning the repeal of Part 3A of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 reveal that certain mining proposals will still fall into a category which can attract a State Significant Development (SSD) classification which allows the Minister to ‘call in’ a development application and possibly hand it back to the Planning Assessment Commission or over to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for determination.

Should any mining proposal in the aforementioned catchment areas be ‘called in’ in this way then:

Under the proposed delegation, the PAC will determine larger and more controversial projects, while senior officers of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will determine projects which have attracted fewer than 25 submissions by members of the public objecting to the proposal and where the local council has not objected.
[NSW Planning & infrastructure (June 2011) Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011: an overview]

This is a flow chart indicating the more likely route that any development application by China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd, Sunstar Capital Pty Ltd and Anchor Resources Ltd will take with regard to anitimony mining at Wild Cattle Creek.

Given the background of the mining corporation and Minister Hartcher's previously expressed sentiments on regional mining, I sincerely doubt that local communities will be more than a token consideration in any development determination.

Background:

Is Chinese Government policy encouraging mining in the Clarence River catchment in order to conserve its own national resources?

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011

The major project assessments system

Policy statement: State significant development – procedures
Policy statement: Proposed State significant development and infrastructure classes
Policy statement: Ministerial ‘call in’ for State significant development
Fact sheet

Is Chinese Government policy encouraging mining in the Clarence River catchment in order to conserve its own national resources?

2011-06-27T00:05:00.003+10:00

From North Coast Voices on 25 June 2011:

China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd as principal shareholder and new 'owner' of Anchor Resources Ltd (through its wholly-owned Australian subsidiary Sunstar Capital Pty Ltd) has been reported as having signalled its intention to mine for antimony in the Nymboida River sub-catchment of the larger Clarence River catchment.

The Australian Government’s National Pollutant Inventory recognises Antimony compounds show toxic properties similar to those of arsenic and sets its safe upper level in water at a maximum of 0.003 mg/L (i.e. 0.000003 g/L) in fresh water and 500 micrograms/L (i.e. 0.0005 g/L) in sea water.

The four mining projects this Chinese-owned mining corporation identifies in the Northern Rivers region are within an estimated 100 kms of Coffs Harbour and, post-takeover, the project at Wild Cattle Creek is 100% owned by Anchor Resources and its majority shareholder Shandong Jinshunda.

This mining group expects that mining processes at Wild Cattle Creek will produce mercury and arsenic as by-products, according to its own scoping study. This same study indicates mineral deposit potential in excess of 2 million tonnes.

Any accidental or adverse weather related catastrophic release of these toxic substances into the Clarence river systems could have longterm consequences for riverine ecosystems, public health and the local commercial fishing industry which supports an estimated 199 jobs and generates in the vicinity of $19.9 million annually.

On 23 June 2011 The Daily Examiner reported:Coffs Harbour's Greens councillor Mark Graham will table a notice of motion at today's council meeting calling for the prohibition of all antimony mining in the Nymboida River catchment, a move that is supported by Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson.Cr Williamson said alarm bells should be ringing as the proposed location of the mine was in an extremely environmentally sensitive area of high rainfall.“With that environmental sensitivity comes a great deal of responsibility that the proposal meets the strictest environmental guidelines,” he said.He said the council would keep a very close eye on any developments involving the proposed mine. “We have invested greatly in the water which we drink and in the catchment,” he said.“We have worked closely with landholders and farmers along the riparian zone of the Nymboida River and its tributaries to ensure water quality has always been improved.”Similar to arsenic in its effects on human health, antimony is a toxic element.Use of the element is limited due to its toxicity, with the growth in micro-electronics seeing demand for antimony rapidly increasing. This demand has seen the price of antimony skyrocket by 300% in the past two years.

The Shandong Jinshunda Group is reputed to have no antimony mining experience and the Chinese Government’s Ministry of Land and Resources suspended (apparently for the third time since 1999) antimony exploration and mining applications until mid-2011, in an action designed to prevent over-exploitation and protect existing resources within its own national borders and possibly to address longstanding pollution concerns.

On 24 April 2011 China Daily reported China will not grant any new licences for prospecting or mining antimony until after 30 June 2012.

The Coffs Harbour City Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting 23 June 2011 NOTICE OF MOTION:

NOM11/14 PROHIBITING ANTIMONY EXPLORATION AND MINING AND PROTECTINGWATER QUALITY IN THE HEADWATERS OF THE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY(NYMBOIDA CATCHMENT)
Purpose:
Councillor Mark Graham has given notice of his intention to move:
Recommendation:That Council:
1. Strongly oppose all exploration for, and mining of, Antimony within the catchment of the Nymboida River because of the unacceptable risks to the Regional Water Supply posed by these activities;
2. Inform all relevant authorities of this opposition including directly contacting relevant Ministers, Directors General and agencies with responsibilities for approval and regulation of such activities;
3. Seek the prohibition of all Antimony exploration and mining activities within the NymboidaCatchment to protect the Regional Water Supply from contamination;
4. Inform residents of the City of the unacceptable risks to drinking water quality posed by Antimony mining in the Nymboida Catchment;
5. Approach Clarence Valley Council to seek a partnership for protecting the Regional Water Supply from Antimony contamination.
Rationale:
The majority of the municipal water supply for Coffs Harbour is provided by Shannon Creek Dam, part of the Regional Water Supply Strategy shared with Clarence Valley Council. This 30,000 megalitre dam is located southwest of Grafton. It is an off-river storage reservoir gravity-fed by pipes directly from the Nymboida River. The Nymboida River has its headwaters across 1700 square km of the Dorrigo Plateau, an area renowned as the highest rainfall catchment in NSW.
Anchor Resources Ltd owns the Wild Cattle Creek/Bielsdown project within the headwaters of the Nymboida River, describing it as “an advanced Antimony project”. The company released a scoping study early in 2011 indicating that “positive financial returns are achievable from the project”. Anchor Resources Ltd is currently recommending that shareholders accept a takeover offer from the Chinese minerals company, China Shandong Jinshunda Co Ltd (Jinshunda).
Antimony is a “strategic mineral resource” used for a range of high-tech products such as polymers, fire retardants and electronics. Chinese national interests control over 90% of global supply of Antimony and they are seeking global dominance of all such strategic resources.
Antimony and many of its compounds are toxic; the effects of antimony poisoning are similar to arsenic poisoning. In small doses, antimony causes headaches, dizziness and depression. Larger doses damage the kidneys and the liver, causing violent and frequent vomiting and will lead to death within a few days; otherwise skin contact causes dermatitis. Major Antimony contamination is known from over 50km of the headwaters of the Macleay River to the east of Armidale, emanating from the Hillgrove and Bakers Creek Antimony and Gold mines.
Furthermore Urunga Lagoon immediately south of Coffs Harbour Local Government Area is heavily contaminated with Antimony as a result of a processing plant established there in the 1960s. Both areas have proven impossible to remediate and are gazetted as Contaminated Sites.
The proposal by Anchor Resources Ltd to undertake Antimony mining activities within the headwaters of the Nymboida River is of immense concern, particularly when considering that this catchment provides drinking and potable water for in excess of 100000 residents between Yamba and Sawtell. Of further concern is the extremely high rainfall in the Wild Cattle Creek sub-catchment, some years exceeding 3m of rainfall per annum. It is impossible to prevent migration of toxic minerals from mines established in such high rainfall areas, as evidenced by the high levels of contamination known from the Upper Macleay River, downstream of the Hillgrove Mine.
All efforts must be expended to protect the source of the Regional Water Supply from Antimony contamination, as clean water is the most critical resource for all life. A partnership should be established with Clarence Valley Council as a matter of urgency to prevent contamination of the Regional Water Supply with toxic Antimony.
Staff Comment:
The Executive Manager Coffs Water has compiled information regarding this issue and would be able to provide this to Council at a briefing.

It is understood that Coffs Harbour City Cr. Bill Palmer moved and Cr. John Arkan seconded a motion to defer consideration of Cr. Graham’s motion pending a briefing for councillors.

Local government and residents in the Dorrigo, Coffs Habour and Clarence Valley areas need to be proactive in their response to this proposal and those who are concerned at the prospect of mining within this environmentally sensitive catchment can contact China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd Chairman of the Board, Wang Gan, at sdjinshunda@sdjinshunda.cn and the NSW Minister for Mining and Agriculture Chris Hartcher at office@hartcher.minister.nsw.gov.au, as well as their own councils and state/federal members of parliament.Media Release 24 February 2011 Wild Cattle Creek Scoping Study Outcomes.

What the Clarence Valley is fighting for (16)

2011-04-22T17:16:00.005+10:00

NASA image of the lower Clarence River NSW from space

From The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth

Regional Australia Committee Inquiry: Bourke favours Clarence River water diversion

2011-03-14T01:48:00.007+11:00

From the Hansard transcript of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia’s Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on regional Australia - Bourke hearing on Tuesday, 15 February 2011:

Cr. John Holmes, Bourke Shire Council

There are other ways to rectify this river system than to starve out your little towns, which is going to happen. There has been mention of diverting water from the Clarence. Not only would you get water to shore up some of these rivers; you would also get another 28 meg of power.

Wayne O’Malley, former mayor of Bourke Shire Council

When talking about some sort of solution for the future, we need a fundamentally different approach. We need the conservation of more water to deal with the boom and bust nature of our climate. I put on the table again the diversion of the Clarence needs to be reconsidered, or at least some other major water infrastructure project not only for this part of the state but also for Australia. As a nation we have to be more mindful of our ever-increasing population, and we have to do more planning to provide water for them for the future.

Bourke Council was not alone in putting the case of the water raiders from over the Great Divide. During the hearing held at Gunnedah, the Citizen’s Electoral Council took this line with the Committee - rather strangely asserting that NSW flooding was confined to Grafton in 2010 and more oddly admitting that Bradfield was "not very bright":

Mr Witten

There are things such as the Clarence River scheme, which was mooted some 70 or 80 years ago by some idiot called Bradfield—and of course you know he was not very bright or did not have much ability. Nevertheless, he dreamt up a massive scheme to develop this nation…… The use of the Clarence River scheme, we believe, would inject around a thousand gigalitres into the system, plus provide electricity for our dying power supply.

Mr Stringer

We desperately need some of the eastern fall water up and down the New South Wales coast—and the Clarence is but one of these rivers; you have the rivers heading down towards Macleay. That water could come across to the Namoi, no problem. It is all going to waste. How many floods have we had in Grafton in 2009? How many floods in 2010? They are all in Grafton, and all the water goes to the sea, wasted.

North Coast Voices has some fun with Windsor's 'feral' jibe

2011-02-06T10:24:00.002+11:00

Along with local politicians and media in the Clarence Valley, North Coast Voices had fun at Tony Windsor's expense with its feral edition:

Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor calls Clarence Valley residents 'feral' and Windsor labels Valley 'feral' ran headlines in both the mainstream media and blogosphere.

This was the swift response.....................

The Daily Examiner, 4 February 2011

Federal Labor MP for Page Janelle Saffin:"Well, too right we go feral because my view is they should just stop talking about an idea that's so stupid anyway; and it's not going to go anywhere. But we do go feral because everybody agrees that we cannot divert or dam the Clarence River.

NSW Nationals MP for Clarence Steve Cansdell: ..as far as damning and diverting the Clarence, I am happy to be classed as a 'feral'. I will always be against any such proposal.

Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson: We do, and we will, go absolutely feral because a majority is clearly against the diversion or the damming of the Clarence River. We as a community are definitely against any damming of the Clarence River.

The Daily Examiner, 4 February 2011
Click on image to enlarge

Boy the Wonder Cat: Tony Windsor doesn't know the meaning of 'feral' yet. If he keeps this dam nonsense up, one fine morning he will wake to find I've peed on his verandah posts, crapped on the front door mat, scared his hens eggless and bonked his dog so thoroughly that it won't come out from under the house for the next ten years.

Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor considers Clarence Valley communities to be feral

2011-02-03T09:30:00.004+11:00

In which the Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor considers Clarence Valley communities to be feral.

Exchange between Ernest Kitta and Chair of the Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia Tony Windsor, at the Griffith hearing on Tuesday 25 January 2011

Mr Kitta—First of all, I have a couple of questions. What is the environment? It is a very loose term. In the dictionary it says the environment is your surroundings. I think that in Griffith here we are in the most beautiful surroundings you could have, so why take water away? You are taking water from the environment if you send it out to the lakes; you are not giving it to the environment at all. The other one—I am not an irrigation farmer—is that probably, when we get a good flood, some of the water comes in this direction, but by our dams and crops we have provided an environment for the roos and everything else that they would not have had before.This question has been raised quite a bit, and I will not go over it again, but I think it needs emphasising. It is the top end. They are working on the wrong end. They are rationing at the bottom end instead of increasing the supply at the top. The designs have been done for many years for these dams that the previous speaker mentioned. What they do is to go over to the Clarence River and tell the people there—real scare tactics—‘We’re going to take all your water and send it west.’ No such thing has ever been proposed. They proposed to take, I think, the flood waters of 30 per cent of the catchment. I think they would be quite happy to see the flood waters go; they had a flood recently. So it is plain political scare tactics to tell those people that there is no water to come over here. It has really had the lie given to it in Queensland now with the good flood they have had up there. Surely they would not miss a bit of water if they sent it down here. That is my whole point.

CHAIR—Thank you, Ernest. That site for the Clarence dam is in my electorate, and when you go over there and mention that they go absolutely feral! I will tell them you have endorsed it!

It's more pipelines, bigger dams and inter-basin water transfers

2011-01-25T03:23:00.003+11:00

The Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia is being offered a wide range of options to ensure sustainable Murray-Darling Basin river systems.

Few of which admit to any need to limit current water consumption by reducing diversion caps and, some follow that tired old route of more pipelines, bigger dams and inter-basin water transfers.

Here are a few examples.

One option put forward by Wakool Shire Council in its submission:

Look at alternative supply for productive use – i.e.pipeline from river systems to high value use.

Another viewpoint from Lodden Shire Council:

The Authority should also consider the construction of environmental dams in key sites to store significant volumes of water devoted purely to environmental benefits. The cost of such infrastructure projects could be borne by all Australians or at least by those who will receive a direct benefit from the health of the Murray Darling Basin.

Carrathool Shire Council offered this:

New infrastructure projects, including additional and/or expanded water storages……….

Harvesting and redirecting surplus water resources from northern Australia.

While Hay Shire Council complained:

There is no possibility of any harvesting of additional water for the environment by the construction of additional dams or further investigation of diversion schemes. Such water would be harvested in wet periods such as we are now experiencing to be used in providing environmental flows as required in drier seasons. Why as a country are we not investigating this alternative?

Leeton Shire Council put forward these 'solutions':

Harvesting and re-directing surplus water resources form northern Australia and the eastern seaboard in Queensland and New South Wales;………

New infrastructure projects, including additional and /or expanded water storages, for example a new storage at Wellington in South Australia, or expansion of storages such as Lake Buffalo and Lake William Hovell in north east Victoria.

The Citizens Electoral Council informed the Inquiry that:

The proposed Clarence River Scheme would add upwards of 1,000 Gl/y of reliable flows into the Murray‐Darling Basin, which would transform the Basin's productive power.

Professional Fishermen's Association tells Regional Australia Committee: 'No A Drop!"

2011-01-20T19:04:00.003+11:00

This is the text of the Professional Fishermen’s Association submission sent to the House Standing Committee on Regional Australia’s Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia in which the Association tells the Committee:

The following brief submission is referred to you for consideration by the Inquiry members.

Diverting the Clarence River is not an option in our view and any consideration of this should be rejected outright. The Clarence River is the base for the largest commercial fishery in NSW. Some 150 active commercial fishers catch a range of species in the river and offshore from the mouth of the river at different times of the year .The species include the following and are caught in varying quantities depending on seasonal conditions.

eastern school whiting, stout whiting, sand whiting, flathead, bream, mullet, luderick, mud crab, blue swimmer crab, eel, herring, silver biddy, garfish, leather jackets, octopus, redfish, balmain bugs, deepwater bugs, cuttle fish, squid, (arrow, bottle and calamari), eastern king prawns, royal red prawns, school prawns, tiger and endeavour prawns, squid, snapper, pearl perch, morwong (red and rubberlip), yellow tail kingfish, bonito, long tail tuna, mack tuna, cobia, spanish mackerel, spotted mackerel, wahoo, mulloway, samson, sweep, amberjack, scorpio fish (red rockcod), tailor, tarwhine, trevally, teraglin, parrot fish, yellow fin tuna, bar cod, sand crabs, coral crab, red mullet (barbounia), pop eye cod, john dory, black tip and sand shark, yellowtail scad.

Many of these species spend part of their life cycle in estuaries including the Clarence and rely upon nutrients, water flows and the like to survive, reproduce and to maintain stock levels which in turn provides a range of sustainable fisheries in NSW. Fresh water flow is essential to the well-being of the river including ecosystem health and biodiversity within the river system.

One of the biggest fisheries on the Clarence is the Estuary Prawn Trawl (EPT) fishery. The catch varies, due to a range of reasons including freshwater flow levels, but averaged 375 tonnes per year over the past 25 years. The highest catch volume in that period was 597.9 tonnes in 1984/85 with 595.9 tonnes caught in 1988/89. The EPT industry relies on fresh water flow regime to stimulate growth, spawning and it greatly assists catch levels as the river is closed to trawling above the Ulmarra ferry.

Diverting water from the Clarence River will result in a decreased flow of freshwater and this combined with the tidal regime pushing saltwater further upstream will result in the fishery being destroyed as the stock will be upstream and outside the fishing area for the EPT.

The Clarence is also a large producer of finfish (mullet, bream, whiting, flathead, luderick), crab, eel and other seafood. The catch of these species averages about 500 tonnes per year. The reduction of the water flow, through diversion, and the subsequent decrease in nutrient loads will reduce the supply of seafood and will also impact on life cycle of the species in the river and immediately offshore.

The Clarence River fisheries are an important seafood supply source. With food security high on the agenda for Australia the commercial fishing industry on the Clarence and the adjacent ocean plays an important part of the food supply for this nation.

To replace the world’s fish catch by land grown meat, an area equal to twenty-two times the world’s rainforest would be required.

The commercial fishing industry on the Clarence is in the top two industries for output and employment. It is an extremely important industry for the social fabric of the Lower Clarence region. A recently completed socio-economic evaluation of the commercial fishing industry in the Clarence identifies the critical importance of the industry to the area. A copy of that report is provided for the Inquiry and the following two paragraphs are an example of the content of the report.

“The Lower Clarence area which is home to the majority of fishers in Northern NSW area has a fairly high level of socio-economic disadvantage, therefore the employment and income generated by the industry, though relatively small, remains important in the local economy. The long term connection of fishermen and their families to their local area suggests that they make up an important part of the local community and contribute to the social fabric of the towns they live in.

In a future where the sustainability and security of food resources will become so important, it is vital that the local commercial fishing industry is supported both by government and the wider community. People need to recognise the contribution of the industry to the provision of local and regional food security, and the efforts the industry has made to ensure that the harvest of resources remains sustainable. It is important that the productive capacity and the unique skill-set of commercial fishers are maintained. The development of new markets, value adding and the full utilisation of the harvested product will assist in maintaining the viability of the commercial fishing industry into the future.”

The commercial fishing industry on the Clarence generates $92M output, $15.4M income and, 431 employment positions.

The Professional Fishermen’s Association is fundamentally opposed to any diversion of water from the Clarence River. We support the Clarence community views that have been said repeatedly ‘not a drop’.

Something Rotten in the State of Winsdor?

2011-01-17T20:15:00.006+11:00

The Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia's Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia is one strange entity.

Throwing process transparency to the wind, it is now selectively publishing copies of the 535 submissions received to date.

This is a snapshot example of what the list looked like on 17 January 2011 after the first 160 submissions:

So what is being hidden? Naive submissions of which there were already plenty in the first 160 received? A committee or secretariat in organizational disarray?
Or is it that the the Chair just doesn't want the bulk of the over 300 unpublished submissions out in the public arena before the mainstream media reports on the public hearings and the Committee delivers its findings?

It goes without saying that such questions would not even come to mind if submissions had been published in the order in which these were received and not as this highly selective hotch potch.

Barnaby's on the dam(mn) trail again with Abbott trekking in the rear

2011-01-07T08:01:00.002+11:00

With the flood waters still making their way down the eastern length of Australia and so much of Queensland still under water, Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce is back on the dam trail again and, obscuring his intention to endorse proposals to dam and divert freshwater from the Clarence River catchment within broad sentences such as these:

The Coalition took to the last election a very specific strategy on the construction of dams….

CJ Bradfield was a Queensland engineering visionary for our nation. He designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Story Bridge in Brisbane and the inland water scheme in the 1930’s.Unfortunately the final and most important part of his vision was never constructed compromising the wealth of this nation that would have been delivered from this agricultural bounty……..

Australia not only can, but must have the vision to construct the infrastructure that gives us the capacity to create the agricultural, industrial and mining wealth for our future. If we don’t we only have ourselves to blame at the next drought, not climate change, just our lack of management and foresight. We can not afford a reliance on desalination, we must build dams and we must move water.

Never backward in coming forward for a swift political jab, his Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has joined Joyce for the media moment according to The Business Spectator:

Sensing that water policy will be a significant election issue stemming from the severe Queensland flooding and the controversial Murray-Darling project, opposition leader Tony Abbott says he will develop a plan to build a series of dams across Australia as part of the Coalition's next election platform, according to a report in The Australian.

Citizens Electoral Council's Clarence River proposal filed under rubbish

2010-12-22T03:50:00.003+11:00

The Daily Examiner on 22 December 2010 recounts efforts by that LaRouche-inspired, climate change denialist, fringe political party, the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia, to further their conspiracy theories and support of the water raiders:

AN IMPROMPTU visit by members of the radical, right-wing political party, The Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), to Clarence MP Steve Cansdell's office last Thursday resulted in the former boxer coming out swinging in defence of the Clarence River.

Mr Cansdell said his “fight” lasted only five minutes before the campaigners were asked to leave. He said the two women conned their way into his office under false pretences, claiming they wanted to talk about flood mitigation of the Clarence.

“They started talking about world order and conspiracy theories and I said if you don't want to talk about anything local, I'm not interested,” he said.

The women went on to ask Mr Cansdell about his views on the management proposals for the Murray Darling Basin, and whether he supported the diversion of the Clarence to revive the Murray River system.

“There is no way I would support diverting the Clarence River and if that's what you want to talk about you are wasting your time,” he told the women.....

When the CEC members visited The Daily Examiner's Grafton office, a journalist listened to their theories and filed their leaflets in the bin when they left.

What the Clarence Valley is fighting for (15)

2010-12-15T07:11:00.003+11:00

The Mann River, a tributary of the Clarence River
Debrah Novak photograph

What the Clarence Valley is telling the new House Regional Australia Committee inquiry

2010-12-14T07:32:00.003+11:00

Reported in The Daily Examiner on 14 December 2010:

With less than a week to go before submissions close for the inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on Regional Australia, Clarence Valley environment groups are ensuring their voices are heard.

Clarence Environment Centre and Valley Watch Inc have both made submissions to the inquiry, which was set up to examine the human impact of the proposed Murray Darling Basin plan.

Of concern to both groups – as well as many others in the Clarence Valley – is the on-going call from some outside of the Valley to divert water from the Clarence River.

One Clarence Valley submission to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Regional Australia Committee Inquiry into impacts of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on Regional Australia talking about some of the unrealistic expectations which have been expressed this century:

When Malcolm Turnbull announced a feasibility study for the transfer of water from the Clarence to South East Queensland in early 2007, the Bourke Cobar, and South Australian Alexandrina Councils immediately launched their individual bids for a million megalitres per year, and 1.3 million megalitres respectively, to be diverted from the Clarence River.

So called facts and figures, and various methods to achieve the desired ends, were bandied about by everyone who had an opinion, regardless of their qualifications. Sydney Shock Jock, Alan Jones, led the charge for three days (that's as long as any one issue catches his attention), using the usual scientific measure of water in terms of 'Sydney Harbours' , “going to waste” out through the heads each day. One engineering firm claimed the entire transfer could be achieved by damming the river, and simply running the water downhill through a 20km tunnel with no pumping required.

What is evident in submissions received by the Committee from the Clarence Valley to date is the remarkable level of patience displayed in the face of yet another round of emotive calls by individuals and organisations in the Murray-Darling Basin to let them raid Clarence catchment fresh water and blithely ruin that coastal river system.

Bravo, Clarence Environment Centre and Valley Watch!

2010-12-11T11:56:00.008+11:00

To date there have been only eighty-seven submissions to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia.

Ever mindful of the reported remarks of various vested interests and those of the Inquiry's Chair, the Clarence Valley community responded.

Clarence Environment Centre (CEC) made one of the earliest submissions pointing out valid reasons why the Clarence River catchment was not for the raiding.
The complete CEC 33 page submission in PDF file can be viewed and downloaded here.

Valley Watch also made a succinct formal submission which is found here.

I have to say that these submissions were part of only a handful which attempted reasoned argument supported by data. Most submissions simply registered opposition to the Murray Darling Basin Plan on the basis of emotion and supposition.

Unfortunately it would appear that at least twenty-seven of the eighty-seven submissions supported the idea of investigating interbasin water transfers and/or new dams, although only four of these made specific mention of possible water diversion from the Clarence River and/or NSW coastal rivers generally.

What was evident in the bulk of these submissions is that many of those individuals who live in the Murray-Darling Basin would apparently rather kill off that river system entirely before they will concede one litre of the water entitlements they currently possess.

Fringe parties still making hay with Clarence water diversion talk

2010-11-26T04:34:00.004+11:00

August and November 2010 sees political opportunism continue.........

# The following is on the website of the fledgling political party the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia:

Newly elected National Party MP for Riverina, Michael McCormack, described the plan as "a guide to depopulate inland Australia". Although this was said in passing, it reflected our material, and was the most truthful thing any Federal MP has said about the implications of the plan. He also asked what effect this is having on our kids, as they hear their parents talk about the meaning of the plan……………………..

What we lead with in one meeting, we find is raised more in questions at the subsequent meeting, ie repealing the Water Act, or the Wentworth Group. Circles discuss it, and raise it at the next one. An Italian farmer talked about the Clarence River scheme, and had our leaflet from Griffith on him when he asked the question.

The LYM spoke to a Hay councillor who recognised the CEC, and was very responsive on water projects, the Clarence and Bradfield, saying we should’ve done this a long time ago. All of the MDB Fraud DVDs were distributed, to a very good response.

* Michael McCormack is on the parliamentary committee currently inquiring into the regional social/economic impacts of the proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan and probably looking at interbasin water transfer.

# The Agmates website indicates that another fringe political party Climate Sceptics Party of Australia is also out in the Basin stirring up support for interbasin water transfer:

Climate Sceptics candidates Steve Davies (Barker) and Leon and Nathan Ashby (Senate) will tour Murray river towns early next week explaining their policy on water.

The party believes there is plenty of water in Australia and it would not support a water buy back policy for the River Murray but rather support diverting water from Northern Australian rivers as the solution for extra water to SA. It would be a vastly improved Bradfield scheme something proposed over 70 years ago by the designer of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, John Bradfield. Lead Senate candidate Leon Ashby says "Rivers such as the Clarence, Tully, Herbert, Burdekin, and Flinders in northern Australia have vast amounts flow into the sea during floods.
These floods could be diverted to flow to many places inland including down as far as Murray Bridge via gravity fed pipelines and channels."

# The Murray Darling Basin Authority is noting this discussion:

The Authority heard:
•That the MDBA should consider the need for extra dams.
•That the Lake Mejum scheme should be reconsidered as an option for storing water for irrigation.
•Support for building the Clarence river scheme.
•That the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme being built to generate power but also for irrigation and to look after the environment – it was straight forward, why are we moving away from this?
•There is a need for real works and measures to water the environment.
•Concern that vast amounts of water are lost to evaporation.

More press on that call to dam and divert the Clarence River

2010-11-21T00:30:00.000+11:00

Shan Goodwin in The Land on 19 November 2010 reports on the Clarence Valley response to calls for diversion of freshwater from the Clarence River catchment to the Murray Darling Basin.

Unfortunately like many other journalists she neglects to closely read a map and falls for the old furphy that the headwaters of the Clarence River lie in Queensland’s McPherson Ranges – instead of the more accurate Rivertree area in New South Wales. Even its northern-most minor tributary Koreelah Creek apparently begins below Wilson’s Peak on the NSW side of this mountain straddling the NSW-QLD border.

Nevertheless in this instance Shan attempts to take a balanced view of this issue and that is much appreciated by many Clarence Valley residents.

Clarence River can’t ‘spare a drop’ Shan Goodwin

CALLS for the mighty Clarence River in north-eastern NSW to come to the rescue of the Murray-Darling Basin have met with a firm “not possible” from those making a living on its banks.

Western NSW and Victorian irrigators facing up to 37 per cent water cuts under the just-released basin plan are agitating for excess water from the Clarence to be diverted over the Dividing Range into the western rivers system, arguing it is “criminal that thousands of gigalitres are running out to sea while a food producing industry is being shut down”.

With its headwaters in the McPherson Ranges in Queensland, the Clarence flows for nearly 400 kilometres through beef and cropping country to empty into the sea off the popular holiday towns of Yamba and Iluka.

The National Water Commission has measured its annual flow at about 3.25 million megalitres.

Siphoning of the Clarence was first touted in the 1930s as part of Sydney Harbour Bridge engineer Dr John Bradfield’s scheme to divert monsoon-fed Queensland rivers inland.

Feasibility studies into constructing dams with a 22km tunnel under the Gibraltar Ranges which would feed into the Beardy River, then the McIntyre and ultimately the Darling and Murray, show the technology is available but the costs would be phenomenal.

Inland politicians and industry leaders have long been pushing for further development of the concept – and Clarence River communities have continually fought off the “water raiders”.

In 2006, a “raid” from the Gold Coast and Brisbane proposing water be diverted there, where multi-storey housing had gone up at a much faster rate than services could cater for, met with fierce objection.

While North Coast primary producers have a lot more sympathy for the plight of inland irrigators than they do for the Queenslanders in population overdrive, they say that despite the image most people have of the massive Clarence the reality is the river cannot spare a drop.

The fresh water flushes during floods are the lifeblood of the region’s fishing industry, the biggest supplier of seafood in NSW, sustaining 140 wild harvest commercial fishermen.

Professional Fishermen’s Association executive officer, John Harrison, Maclean, said the fresh water flows brought nutrients and the opportunity for fish growth and there was “no room for a single drop” to be taken from the system without a detrimental impact on the fishing industry and environment.

More here.

Clarence Valley Council responds to Windsor, Xenophon and the rest of those would be water raiders

2010-11-19T21:57:00.003+11:00

From the Minutes of Ordinary Monthly Meeting of Clarence Valley Council on 16 November 2010:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 10.017/10

(Cr Williamson)

That:

1. The Council again register it strong opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

2. Council makes a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia inquiry into the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP), noting Council’s opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

Voting recorded as follows:

For: Councillors Williamson, Comben, Dinham, Howe, Hughes, McKenna, Simmons, Tiley and Toms.

Against: Nil

Clarence Valley shows its resolve to fight water raiders

2010-11-12T14:20:00.007+11:00

Mayoral Minute included in the Clarence Valley Council ordinary monthly meeting business paper for 16 November 2010:

Committee:		MAYORAL MINUTE
Section:
Date:		16 November 2010
Item:	10.017/10	DIVERSION OF THE CLARENCE RIVER

ATTACHMENT

REPORT SUMMARY

Clarence Valley Council has always opposed any plans to divert water out of the Clarence catchment (Reports are attached).

It is now timely that Council again register its strong opposition to any plans to do so.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Council again register it strong opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

2. That Council makes a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia inquiry into the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP), noting Council’s opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

BACKGROUND

The Federal Government has begun an inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

For the information of the Council the terms of reference are:

The Standing Committee on Regional Australia will inquire into and report on the socio-economic impact of the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Authority's 'Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan' (the Proposed Basin Plan) on regional communities, with particular reference to:

• The direct and indirect impact of the Proposed Basin Plan on regional communities, including agricultural industries, local business activity and community wellbeing;

• Options for water-saving measures or water return on a region-by-region basis with consideration given to an analysis of actual usage versus licence entitlement over the preceding fifteen years

• The role of governments, the agricultural industry and the research sector in developing and delivering infrastructure and technologies aimed at supporting water efficiency within the Murray-Darling Basin.

In examining each of these issues, the Committee will also consider community views on:

• Measures to increase water efficiency and reduces consumption and their relative cost effectiveness;

• Opportunities for economic growth and diversification within regional communities; and

• Previous relevant reform and structural adjustment programs and the impact on communities and regions.

This will include consultation with Local Government, Regional Development Australia, community groups and individual stakeholders to better understand the local and community issues raised by the Proposed Basin Plan.

The committee will report back to Parliament by end of May 2011.

While it is noted the diversion of “other” river systems or inter basin transfer is not in the terms of reference, the plan is getting some space in the national media and (if reports are correct) has been raised in community consultation to date on the MDBP.

Our community has long held the view that the idea of diverting the Clarence River is something that we will not accept and as such, Council should make a submission outlining the socio-economic impact, environmental impacts and community views on the issue.

Again the words ring true - “Not a drop”.

The diversion of the Clarence River when assessed against Council’s adopted sustainability framework cannot be justified, as outlined below.

Environmental

The Clarence is one of the nation’s great wild rivers, and one of the few rivers in Australia which has no major dam. The only across-river structure for water diversion is the relatively minor Nymboida Weir. The river is also the only place in the world where the endangered Eastern freshwater cod now exists. Much of the river is also surrounded by national parks and many of the tributaries by World Heritage declared rainforest.

The studies for the off-river storage urban water supply at Shannon Creek proved that any large dam on the Clarence River, if it diverted the highest or the lowest flows, could have dire environmental impacts on aquatic lifecycles. This is why the Shannon Creek dam (30,000 mega litres) was designed to only take a small amount of medium river flows from the Nymboida and was not located on the river. The science is beyond doubt, all those rivers which have large cross-river dams have had major environmental impacts on aquatic eco-systems, wetlands and fish habitats. This is the very reason that the Federal Government has released the Murray Darling Basin plan (on display now) and is trying to stop the river dying from too much regulation by dams and irrigation use.

Note: a relatively small urban water supply across-river dam on the Mary River in Queensland did not go ahead due to the environmental impact the dam would have and it only had a fraction of the environmental values of the Clarence.

Economic

The effects of major dams would inevitably decimate the Clarence River commercial and recreational fishing industries. It is well proven that variable flows and the flood flows are essential for a viable fishing and prawn industry. The commercial fishing industry is worth over $92 million in the Valley and generates over 430 jobs. The recreation fishing industry forms a large part of the $280 million tourism industry in the Valley which generates much of the economic base of Yamba, Iluka and Maclean.

The engineering reports carried out in the 1960’s and 70 have proved even then that any diversion scheme could not possibly be economically justified without a huge Government subsidy. Even then, the cheapest option was going to cost over $500 mega litre, which in today’s terms would be many thousands of dollars per mega litre. Note: irrigators now complain about paying less then $10 mega litre in the Murray Darling Basin for their irrigation water. The reports done did not analyse the economic or environmental costs to the Clarence River and on the community.

Any diversion of water to the West is not going to give any more irrigation water accept for those irrigators in the upper catchments eg Namoi, Gywdir, as system losses mainly by evaporation would not see any Clarence water reaching the Murray system. As well, any new water in the system would further accentuate the already major irrigation salinity problem in the Murrumbidgee and Murray irrigation areas.

Socially

The Healthy River Commission, in its report of the Clarence in early 2000’s, found that the one thing that absolutely unites the whole Valley is its river and everybody agrees that this river has great significance and should not be diverted to the West.

The Aboriginal community has a great mythological link to the river with every nation having a dream time story about the Clarence River’s creation.

Governance

The net result of any crazy scheme to divert the Clarence would be that instead of having one river system which is on its knees environmentally, socially and economically, you would instead have two systems in a similar state.

Financially, without huge Government subsidisation, any diversion scheme is totally uneconomic and cannot be paid for by water users in the west.

Cr Richie Williamson

MAYOR Prepared by:

Mayor Richie Williamson

Section:

Mayoral Minute

Attachment:

1. Report 12.005/06 (18 October 2006) Water Diversion – Clarence River

2. Report 05.006/07 (17 April 2007) Clarence River Diversion

Not A Drop [Second Edition 2010]

2010-10-25T22:51:00.003+11:00

The Daily Examiner 25 October 2010

Click on image to enlarge

Exactly how many coastal rivers systems would Senator Xenophon like to lay waste?

2010-10-24T08:29:00.003+11:00

South Australians Senator Nick Xenophon and Family First Legislative Council Member Robert Brokenshire are calling for the Gillard Government and Federal Parliament to look at damming and diverting the Clarence River across the Great Divide and into the Murray Darling river systems.

Xenophon appears to believe that the total volume of additional annual environmental flow (which the Murray Darling Basin Authority has identified as being required to stop the Basin rivers and wetlands irreversibly failing) can be found through interbasin water transfer.

Brokenshire envisions water diversion on a similar scale to the Snowy Mountains Scheme which ruined the iconic Snowy River.

Both men clearly have the Clarence River in their sights.

In 2004 a South Australian state government water diversion investigation decided on the basis very limited data that the average annual discharge for the Clarence River system is 3,700,000 ML/year and the 2007 SMEC desktop study gave a very optimistic top annual freshwater figure of 100,000 ML/year allegedly available for diversion [www.waterproofingadelaide.sa.gov.au,March 2004,"Water Proofing Adelaide: Large Scale Water Supply Schemes",information sheet,pp.3-4 and Australian Parliament,Senate 2007,RRAT Committee, Inquiry into Options for additional water supplies for South East Queensland,Report].

While according to The Clarence Environment Centre; the Lilydale gauge readings (which provide the most accurate flow figures available) indicate that water discharge into the sea is less than two million megalitres per year on average [Submission No. 214,May 2007].

Senator Xenophon mentions a water volume of 4,000 GL/year as the diversion level required to ‘save’ the Murray Darling Basin:

Going in to bat for farmers in the basin, he said diverting 4000 gigalitres annually into the river system would alleviate the need for irrigation cuts and secure environmental flows.

Now 4,000 gigalitres is 4,000,000 megalitres – so at first glance Xenophon is either supporting future zero flow in the Clarence River and its inevitable death or he has more than one coastal catchment in mind.

So how many rivers would Senator Xenophon like to lay waste in order to satisfy the greed of Murray Darling Basin irrigators?

The greedy jackals gather.............

2010-10-21T05:38:00.003+11:00

In Adelaide Now… online 21 October 2010:

Senator Xenophon said he also had asked powerful independent MP and head of an inquiry into the social impact of River Murray water allocation cuts, Tony Windsor, to look at additional sources of water for the basin, including the Wivenhoe and so-called Clarence River Scheme in NSW.

"I had a meeting on Tuesday with Tony Windsor to discuss the scheme and I know the idea that more water could be put into the Murray Darling Basin is back on the radar in Canberra," Senator Xenophon said.

Windsor confirms that parliamentary inquiry will look at raiding Clarence water

2010-10-19T09:52:00.001+11:00

In The Daily Examiner earlier today:

FEDERAL independent Member for New England Tony Windsor says diverting water from the Clarence River is an option to revive the Murray Darling basin.
Mr Windsor, whose electorate shares a border with Page, said diversion of east coast rivers, including the Clarence, would be looked at by a parliamentary inquiry, of which he was a member, into the impact of Murray Darling Basin Plan.
“Diverting water into the Murray Darling system to avert the effects of climate change is a possibility,” he said.
“But where it comes from is an issue I don't want to get into debate about right now. There are a lot of options out there to be looked at yet.”
Mr Windsor, who previously flagged the idea of diverting the Clarence in 2007, said sending water west was possible.
“It's technically possible to bring eastern flowing water to the west as we have done with the snowy mountains scheme,” he said.

A Message to the Two Tonys - Not A Drop!

2010-10-19T06:24:00.004+11:00

The Federal Labor Member for Page Janelle Saffin taking the Clarence Valley's message to Water Minister Tony Burke and New Englland Independent Tony Windsor on 18 October 2010, according to the Commonwealth Hansard:

Page Electorate: Clarence River

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10.57 am)—I have a message on behalf of my community in Page that I want to give to the parliament and everybody who is going to be involved in the Murray-Darling Basin plan and debate. The message from my community, which is home to the Clarence River—and a lot of people seem to be talking about wanting to get their hands on it and are looking at it for diversion—is this: not a drop. Right across my electorate thousands of cars have that on their bumper stickers: not a drop. In effect it is saying hands off the Clarence River.
The idea that the Clarence River can be diverted is one of those issues that have been around for quite some time.
Everybody has raised this issue at different times. In particular, there was some engineering plan that it could be done. My message to the two Tonys is: not one drop will be taken out of the Clarence River. I have also been told, and I do not want to verbal the honourable member for Kennedy, that on the member’s website he talks about those not in favour of looking at some sort of diversion as being political pygmies. While I am not going to comment about my size and whether that is correct, I would say to the honourable member that the people in the Clarence Valley and in Page are certainly not political pygmies. The catchment area of the Clarence River falls within 100 kilometres of the New South Wales coastal strip. Our industries are fishing—we have a huge commercial fishing industry—and agriculture, and the economy is heavily underpinned by that commercial fishing. There is also forestry and tourism. It is all worth a lot to us. This debate is one of those debates that come up every now and then. Engineering wise, we can do anything—we can do marvels—but in terms of the environment and also the viability of the Clarence it would be a disaster. They can look all they like but—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has expired.

Local MP tells Federal Water Minister and those MDB water raiders to "Rack off"

2010-10-16T07:44:00.002+11:00

In The Daily Examiner on 16 October 2010 Water diversion an option:

FEDERAL Water Minister Tony Burke has not ruled out diverting Clarence River water as a solution to irrigation problems in the Murray Darling basin.
Facing severe backlash from irate farmers about the proposed reduction in irrigation allocations at public consultation meetings held by the Murray Darling Basin Authority this week, Mr Burke said he would not discount any options as solutions to help revive Australia’s ‘food bowl’.
“The consultation is real and I’m not going to play the game of ruling things in or out,” he said.
“Lots of options will be put on the table in the next few months and I don’t want people to hesitate from putting ideas on the table.”
Mr Burke hinted the enormity of the engineering involved in a diversion may save the Clarence River.
“Certainly in the past, projects like this have not been considered as practical as other options,” he said.
Outraged at the suggestion of any potential for diversion by Minister Burke, Federal Member for Page Janelle Saffin said she would fight to see that the Clarence remained untouched.
“I will stand by my community. Not one drop goes from the Clarence,” she said.
Ms Saffin said she would be raising the issue of any potential diversion in parliament next week.
“They can all rack off. I will make that clear next week,” she said.

A response over at North Coast Voices and if you feel the need to express an opinion The Daily Examiner comments section is open on the subject here.

Murray Darling Basin Plan: Water raiders now chair both parliamentray inquiry and two consultation meetings

2010-10-16T00:05:00.000+11:00

One has to wonder if the Gillard Government has lost control of the Murray Darling Basin Plan guidelines debate or whether the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has ceded control of its community consultation process and, what this might mean for NSW North Coast Rivers which are often seen by primary industry as a preferred alternative to curtailment of water rights/cuts in annual allocations.

One well-known would be water raider, Federal Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor is to chair the parliamentary inquiry into social and economic impacts of any proposed basin plan.

This is Mr. Windsor in a 2007 media release:

Mr. Windsor said he was also keen to see the possible diversion of the Clarence River examined under the new policy.
"The ideal site to divert the Clarence to is the New England Electorate...."

The Murray Darling Association is to chair two community forums in Broken Hill and Menindee on 19 and 20 October 2010.

In 2009 this association at its national conference and annual general meeting endorsed these motions:

13.2 Clarence River Region 2
For many years, Region 2 has been raising the issue of a feasibility study to dam part of theClarence River and divert some of the water inland to the Murray-Darling Basin to help alleviatewater shortages. The Federal Government has made it quite clear that it will not support any suchproject but the NSW Government has not been as clear on the issue. Some years ago, theAssociation supported a feasibility study into the idea.
RECOMMENDATION: That the NSW Government be asked to respond directly tocommunity 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 FraserGovernment allocated $4 million to fund a feasibility study into the scheme. The HawkeGovernment discontinued this. The proposal, if feasible, would involve the construction of aheadwater dam on the Clarence River, with a 22km tunnel under the Gibralta Ranges in NorthernNSW. This tunnel would emerge on the Murray-Darling Basin side of the ranges and feed intothe Beardy River, then the McIntyre River and, ultimately into the Basin. The Gibralta Ranges aresituated 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 MountainsScheme.• 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 toprovide 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 climaticevents 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.

Tony Windsor demonstrates a dangerous parochialism in water debate

2010-10-14T07:43:00.003+11:00

Federal Independent MP for New England Tony Windsor has apparently threatened to push for alternatives to mass water buybacks, including redirecting water into the struggling Murray according to The Australian today.

Mr Windsor said that if the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was going to use climate change as part of its justification to take 3000-4000 gigalitres of water from irrigators, it could look at diverting water into the basin from areas of higher rainfall elsewhere...........
Mr Windsor said he would conduct an objective valley-by-valley analysis of where the authority's recommended cuts to water allocation could be tolerated. He said that where the risk of a significant socio-economic fallout was high, "there may be other strategies to fixing this not identified by the authority". He said "the political process" would examine these and other issues in the coming months.
Mr Windsor said the MDBA should not allow water to be taken away from irrigators on account of climate change, because they were not responsible for the problem.

Mr. Windsor does not elaborate on where any potential water diversion would originate except to vaguely point in the direction of far north Queensland.

However, as the Clarence River began to be mentioned within days of the release of the Murray Darling Basin Authority's draft basin plan, on has to suspect that the fate of this NSW coastal river is once more being discussed by politicians and interested parties who are still unwilling or unable to understand that wrecking one catchment area to apply what is little more than a band-aid to the Murray-Darling catchment is not an environmentally or economically sustainable response.

Is Tony Abbott planning to join the coastal river water raiders?

2010-08-09T00:45:00.003+10:00

From North Coast Voices this week.

Has Abbott joined the coastal river water raiders?

This is Tony Abbott speaking at the Official Coalition Election Campaign Launch on 8 August 2010:

The Coalition will end Labor's procrastination and fully and finally implement the Howard/Turnbull/Anderson plan for the Murray Darling basin.

NSW North Coast residents will no doubt recall that in 2006-07 the Howard Government (with Malcolm Turnbull as Water Minister) was actively exploring the possibility of damming and diverting fresh water from the Clarence River catchment and then piping this water into either the lower part of the Queensland section or the upper part of the New South Wales section of the Murray Darling Basin river system, with a view to providing water to inland irrigators, mines, power stations and, as an afterthought, to increase environmental flow.
Other North Coast rivers were also being considered by Howard, Turnbull and Anderson.

A brief history of proposals to raid the Clarence River catchment:
Clarence Valley Council Mayoral Minute CLARENCE RIVER DIVERSION, April 2007
Dam the Clarence? No Way? June 2007
Dam the neighbours, April 2007
Clarence River dam proposal slammed as deceptive, August 2009

Rudd Government soundly rejects Traveston Dam

2009-11-12T06:00:00.002+11:00

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

2009-10-13T08:30:00.003+11:00

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

2009-09-04T03:22:00.005+10:00

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)

2009-08-12T10:15:00.006+10:00

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

2009-08-11T10:53:00.004+10:00

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

2009-08-10T11:33:00.003+10:00

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

2009-08-08T17:58:00.002+10:00

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

2009-08-05T17:53:00.006+10:00

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

2009-08-04T00:05:00.001+10:00

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

2009-08-03T08:45:00.005+10:00

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

2009-08-03T00:05:00.001+10:00

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)

2009-08-01T00:05:00.000+10:00

Photograph from Flickr

Clarence Gorge

South Australian LGA Water Security Hall of Shame

2009-07-31T00:05:00.000+10:00

It isn't only Alexandrina Council in South Australia which doesn't seem to understand that it would be environmental vandalism of the worst sort to attempt to cure a desperate lack of water security in one inland catchment area ie., the Murray Darling Basin, by placing a relatively healthy coastal catchment at risk by diverting part of its freshwater flow which sustains both a growing population base, significant primary industry and a large, productive estuary system and wetlands.

There are other local governments which appear to be hitching their star to an impossible dream with clearly no understanding of either geography or hydrology, particularly when it comes to Coorong District Council's idea that damming the headwaters of the Clarence River would actually result in high water volumes comparable to the Snowy Mountain Scheme.

In the Clarence Valley locals are well aware that these headwaters are often so sparse that it is almost possible to leap the flow in a single bound.

What is also most noticable is that these councils are all singing from the same song sheet.

Here is the beginning of the 2009 Water Secuirty Hall of Shame:

Victor Harbour Council:

16.1 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Moved: Cr P Chigwidden Seconded: Cr P Lewis

That Council forward a letter to the Secretary of the Murray Darling Association (MDA) Region 6 Committee in support of the following recommendations:

1. That the MDA Conference expresses its dismay at the outcome of the deliberations regarding the final results of the inter-government agreement on the governance of the Basin andcalls upon the Federal Government to intervene and take overthe governance arrangements and to create a truly independent Murray Darling Basin Authority; and

2. That the MDA Conference call for the Federal Government to re-examine the question of the Clarence River Diversion Studyrelative to water flows through the Murray Darling System.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mid Murray Council :

Region 6 - Murray Darling Association:

11120/2 Cr Bormann moved that Council support Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association in putting forward the Notice of Motion to its National Conference calling for the Federal Government to re-examine the question of the Clarence River Diversion Study, relative to water flows through the Murray Darling River System.

Seconded Cr Burgess.

CARRIED

Coorong District Council:

Councillor Wright moves;

"That The Coorong District Council, through Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association, request that the new Murray Darling Basin Authority ask the Federal Government to re-examine the Clarence River Diversion Proposal relative to water flows through the Murray Darling River System.

Cr. Peter Wright

Process

The request would proceed via a Notice of Motion to be presented at the 2009 Annual General Meeting of the Murray Darling Association.

Explanation

This proposed diversion of the Clarence River was first discussed in the 1930's. More recently, the Fraser Liberal Government allocated $4 million to fund a feasibility study into the scheme. This was subsequently discontinued by the Hawke Labor Government.

The proposal, if feasible, would involve the construction of a head water 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. The Clarence River is like most east coast rivers in that it is very short, with a high volume discharge into the sea during high volume events.

Benefits of the scheme include:

• The capacity of the dams would have a storage ability approaching that of the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

• The capacity of head water storage would provide flood control to the Clarence Valley.

• The diversion would only require 24% of the total maximum storage volume to provide similar volumes of water to the Basin as the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

• No pumping of water is required – the entire scheme would be gravity-fed.

• The generation of hydroelectricity is another major benefit.

This Notice of 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.

Cr. Peter Wright

NOTICE OF MOTION

081/09

Moved Cr. Wright Sec. Cr. Bland that The Coorong District Council, through Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association, request that the new Murray Darling Basin Authority ask theFederal Government to re-examine the Clarence River Diversion Proposal relative to water flows through the Murray Darling River System.

CARRIED

Council of the Rural City of Murray Bridge:

804 MOTIONS ON NOTICE

804.1 CR BOB ENGLAND – REGION 6 MDA – CLARENCE RIVER DIVERSION STUDY (SF316)

I, Councillor Bob England having complied with the requirements of Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000, hereby give Notice of the following motion to be submitted at the meeting of the Council of theRural City of Murray Bridge to be held on 14 April, 2009 at 7 pm.

I will move:

That Rural City of Murray Bridge note that Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association intends moving a resolution along the following lines at the September AGM of the MDA:

That Region 6 calls on the Murray Darling Association to urge the Federal Government to re-examine the Clarence River Diversion

Cr England moved

That Rural City of Murray Bridge note that Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association intends moving a resolution along the following lines at the September AGM of the MDA:

That Region 6 calls on the Murray Darling Association to urge the Federal Government to re-examine the Clarence River Diversion Study relative to water flows through the Murray Darling River system.

Seconded by Cr Schubert and CARRIED

Alexandrina Council water raiders refuse to take resounding "No" for an answer

2009-07-30T08:43:00.006+10:00

Given that the Clarence Valley has firmly said no to any Clarence River catchment freshwater diversion scheme it is surprising to find that some people cannot abide having their will crossed.

ITEM 36 ELECTED MEMBERS REPORTS
36.1 Clarence River Diversion Study - Cr Tuckwell
File Ref: 9.24.1
Officer: Councillor Frank Tuckwell

REPORT
A proposed submission to the 2009 National Conference of the Murray Darling Association to be held in the Playford Council area, SA in September 2009.

The Process
The Murray Darling Association (Region 6) at their February meeting passed a resolution requesting its five member Council’s support for placing a Notice of Motion in reference to the Clarence River Diversion Study on the AGM of the National Conference to be held at Playford in September. It is important that all member Councils respond before April 30 to allow the Region 6 Board to prepare a full submission to the MDA Federal Board meeting in May. This will allow any redrafting that may be required to be done to be completed and returned to the Federal Board by June.

The Proposal
As this Council has led and supported this proposal for the past two years, once again we have the opportunity to lead the call for a Clarence River Diversion Study to be placed before the Federal Government by the National Conference of the Murray Darling Association. The MDA has for almost thirty years pressed for a complete scientific, environmental and engineering study for this proposal. The concept has been called for from within the Basin by its communities since the 1930’s and it gained support of the Fraser Government who put $4M on its estimates to do the study. However they were succeeded by the Hawke Government who had other important priorities, so the proposal lapsed Now more than ever it is important that this proposal be put into the political field again. The worst drought the Basin has lived through has ironically seen massive flooding on almost all of the east coast rivers just scores of kilometres across the Great Divide from the dry Basin.
There are many calls for pipelines and other schemes to provide large scale water diversion to the lower sections of the continent, but the MDA has been both consistent and persistent in pursuing the Clarence River Study. Once again the MDA stresses that in calling for the study that this is not a question of whether the Diversion shall or shall not be built, but that as a matter of urgency this important study should be carried out to determine which case is proven.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Alexandrina Council supports Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association in putting forward the Notice of Motion to its National Conference calling for the Federal Government to re-examine the question of the Clarence River Diversion Study, relative to water flows through the Murray Darling River System.

See: http://www.alexandrina.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Council_Agenda_6th_April_2009.pdf