Regional Australia Committee Inquiry: Bourke favours Clarence River water diversion

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.

Something Rotten in the State of Winsdor?

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.

Bravo, Clarence Environment Centre and Valley Watch!

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.

Clarence Valley shows its resolve to fight water raiders

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