Showing posts with label Clarence River. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clarence River. Show all posts

Wednesday 10 August 2016

Memo to potential investors in the Yamba Mega Port scheme


Dear Potential Investors,

You may have seen promotional material created by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd or Y.P.R. Australia Pty Ltd for the unsolicited proposal often called the Port Yamba Development (Eastgate) or the Yamba Port Rail Project.

The material probably looks rather intriguing to many of you.

However, there are some matters that this promotional material either does not address or merely skates over.

Today is Wednesday, 10 August 2016.

This is the Port of Yamba Development project timeline still up on Australian Infrastructure Developments’ official company website:


Even if one allowed for the possibility that the NSW Baird Government is politically suicidal enough to give consent for a mega port in the Clarence River estuary and that the first terminals would not be operational until 31 December 2018, that only leaves Des Euen, Thomas Chiu and Lee Purves a mere 873 days to push this project to Stage 1 bulk terminals completion.

Before any part of the extensive port expansion scheme can be progressed there is the sensitive matter of Dirrangun reef, the breakwater walls and possibly the internal training walls, to be addressed. 

Once the potential impact of the removal or significant alteration of breakwater walls sinks in with the communities of Iluka and Yamba I suspect that the friction between community and Yamba Port Rail proponents will increase dramatically.

If any activity required to open up the river entrance for those mega ships looks like placing Dirrangun at risk I’m sure that the Yaegl people, who have now spent twenty years fighting to legally protect their river and dream time reef, will not be happy with the port expansion proceeding and they will have a right to be concerned. A right that is now legally recognized as existing since before written history began in Australia.

As neither Des, Thomas or Lee has held a public information night for Lower Clarence communities to date, that particular failure is going to place a drag on the company’s project timetable from the start.

The hypothetical clock is now ticking.

The dredging of an est. 20km of navigation channel inside the river, at the very least is going to require:

*negotiations with NSW government departments/agencies;

* a least two advertised tender invitations if investors are not planning to just throw their money away;

*sediment sampling at the proposed dredging site and particle size distribution and acid sulphate soils testing to assess sediment properties over the full depth to be dredged;

*assessment of potential impacts on threatened species including wading birds along the est 20 km length of the dredging site;

*assessment of potential noise impacts including what day or night hours of dredging/placement are acceptable; 

* the creation of a dredge spoil management plan;and

*consultation with Birrigan Gargle Local Aboriginal Land Council, Yaegl Traditional Owners Corporation as native title trustees, the general public, local residents and commercial operators, commercial and recreational fishermen, waterway users and environmental groups.

Staying with this hypothetical scenario. Once these lengthy negotiations, assessments and consultations are finalised I suspect the actual dredge and spoil disposal would take up to three years to complete. After all this dredge has to remove at least est.13 metres of river bed in every square metre of a continuous 20 km long line an est 60m wide.

Add to this the time needed to purchase privately held regionally important farm land which the company hasn’t even commenced yet – land held by a number of individual owners some of who are adamant they will not sell - and then allow time for the rezoning process which is bound to be resisted by local residents and affected Lower Clarence communities.  Now those 873 days are beginning to look very inadequate.

At this moment you may be thinking that if all the individual planning procedures were undertaken at the same time the port expansion might move forward faster. However, any large project is only as fast as its slowest strand of required assessment/modelling/
testing and this particular project is being undertaken by a company which admits it has never handled any sort of development project before.

By the time one factors in the many studies required to create a viable development application to commence construction of the built environment then 2023 would not be seen as a long enough time frame to finish Stage 1 bulk terminals.

Some of these studies would be obliged to include the sourcing, transport and stabilzation of enough fill to raise 36 sq.km of terminals and berths above projected flood levels and modelling of existing & changed flooding conditions - because all the proposed terminal & berth areas will be submerged in a 1 in 100 flood to est. depths of 0.05 to 2.8m unless the land is raised. 

At this point in the development process state and local government may become alarmed at the amount of flood water in even a 1 in 20 year flood that will be displaced by a mega port at the end of this ancient floodplain. 

Displaced water (that has likely in some flood events to come at some speed down both the Clarence River and out of the Esk River) which will almost inevitably inundate the proposed remaining undeveloped half of Palmers Island, along with low lying sections of  Woombah, Iluka, Yamba and Wooloweyah, as well as exacerbate upriver flooding as far as MacleanQuite rightly both tiers of government would quail at the thought of this occurring in conjunction with a king tide entering the mouth of the Clarence River and the clock might be permanently stopped on the mega port scheme then and there.

If not and planning madness prevails, the fact that a freight road bridge and new road/s would need to be built so that bulk product can actually reach the bulk terminals - because Stage 1 will not see a completed Pacific West Rail Link stretching from the coast to north-west NSW - and 2023 turns into a rather sad phantasy because the number of planning hoops the company has to jump through just grew in number.

Australian Infrastructure Developments and its shadowy backers would be foolish to believe that Stage 1 would be remotely achievable by 2028.

It is hard to imagine that Australian Infrastructure Developments will ever be able to establish the social contract with the Clarence Valley it needs to proceed, when its grand plan will diminish or destroy so many existing aesthetic, environmental, cultural, social and economic values within the estuary.

Twelve years is a long time to have investment money tied up in a mega port scheme that in all probability will be successfully scuppered by Northern Rivers people power.

Twelve years in which your company reputations and that of your principal shareholders will be held up for global scrutiny. 

Given the power of almost instant communication that the Internet will give to over 50,000 people and the ability of anyone of those with a personal computer to identify and research your company or superannuation fund, are you sure that the hope of future financial returns is worth the public relations risk?

If you think I exaggerate, ask Metgasco Limited what community resistance across the Northern Rivers did to its plans to develop gas fields.

So, potential investors – you might like to consider taking your money and committing it to an infrastructure project in a locality that actually wants what you believe you have to offer.

This is entirely friendly advice, because I like many others would prefer quietly enjoying the Clarence River estuary and the easy, relaxed lifestyle its healthy environment allows me, rather than spending the next twelve years as part of a peaceful but relentlessly effective grassroots protest movement making your corporate lives a misery.

Sincerely,

Clarencegirl

Mouth of the Clarence River

Tuesday 9 August 2016

Clarence River Catchment Fresh Water Diversion: facing today's threat while remembering yesterday's response


2007 bumper sticker

Clarence Valley Council, Ordinary Monthly Meeting Business Paper, 9 August 2016:

Policy or Regulation

Council has previously established its policy position on proposals to divert the Clarence River through various Council resolutions. At its meeting of 18 October 2006 Council resolved (Resolution 12.005/06):

That Council oppose the diversion, damming or re-directing of water from the Clarence River. 

Council again resolved at its meeting of 17 April 2007 (Resolution 05.006/07): That the report on the Clarence River diversion proposal be received and noted and that Clarence Valley Council reiterates its policy position of total opposition to any proposal that would result in any diversion of water from Clarence catchments. 

When the issue of diversion was proposed to be debated at the Local Government & Shires Association (LGSA) Conference in 2007, Council resolved at its meeting of 15 May 2007 (Resolution 05.008/07): 

That the following late Motion be placed before the forthcoming Annual Conference of the Shires Association of New South Wales. “That the Associations approach both the State and Federal Governments expressing their total opposition to any proposal for river diversion.”

As outlined in Report 05.009/07 to the Council meeting of 19 June 2007, it was not possible to put the late motion as the LGSA Conference resolved “That the Association pursue with the Federal Minister for Environment and water, measures to address the current and future concerns with water shortages for inland cities, towns and communities posed by the current drought and future droughts, and that the National Water Initiative consider ways and means of so addressing”.

At its meeting of 16 November 2010 Council again confirmed its opposition to Diversion (Resolution 10.017/10):


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

Clarence Valley Council submission to a NSW Upper House inquiry to which Griffith City Council made a submission asking that an old scheme for damming and diverting freshwater from the Boyd, Mann, Nymboida and Timbarra rivers (Clarence River tributaries) be considered:

10 August 2016
Reference:
DWS#1682591 Contact: Greg Mashiah

The Director
General Purpose Standing Committee No 5 
Legislative Council
Parliament House
Macquarie Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Sir

Inquiry into Water Augmentation in Rural and Regional New South Wales - Submission

Thank you for the opportunity for Council to make a submission to the above enquiry. Clarence Valley Council is located on the north coast of NSW and contains most of the Clarence River catchment within its area. The Clarence River is the largest coastal river in NSW. Council is a Local Water Utility (LWU) responsible for sewer and water services to urban area and also provides bulk water to the adjoining Coffs Harbour City Council. Clarence Valley Council is also responsible for floodplain management.

Council’s submission responds to three items in the terms of reference which are considered relevant to Council’s operations:

1b) Examine the suitability of existing New South Wales water storages and any future schemes for augmentation of water supply for New South Wales, including the potential for acquifer discharge.
Clarence Valley and its neighbouring Coffs Harbour City Council have jointly developed a Regional Water Supply (RWS) scheme to provide water security to residents until at least the year 2046. The RWS comprise:
· A “non build” element of water efficiency measures, which commenced in 1997 and is implemented through the joint Water Efficiency Strategic Plan (http://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/page.asp?f=RES-UHJ-43-64-30), and
· A “build” element, which comprises a pipeline linking the two Council water supplies which was completed in 2004 and construction of a 30,000ML off-creek storage at Shannon Creek which was completed in 2009. The Shannon Creek Dam storage is designed for future raising to 75,000ML capacity to service demand beyond 2046. The storage is “transparent” to its catchment in that all runoff from the catchment is required to be released to match the pre-storage hydrologic.

The RWS project, which was recognised with multiple industry awards including the prestigious International Water Association’s Asia-Pacific Project Innovation Award in the planning category, demonstrates how regional Local Water Utilities can jointly plan and deliver water infrastructure to meet future needs including provision of suitable water storages.

One significant concern for Council is that, while the RWS storage has been designed to be augmented to 75,000ML to provide capacity for development beyond 2046, future legislative changes may adversely impact this option. It is therefore requested that the Committee consider this issue.

1d) examine the 50 year flood history in New South Wales, particularly in northern coastal New South Wales, including the financial and human cost. Since 1966 the Clarence River has experienced 29 floods which exceeded the “minor” flood level at the Prince Street gauge in Grafton (2.10m), and of those 17 were classified as “major” floods (>5,40m). Four floods in a single year were experienced in both 1974 and 1976, and three floods in a single year were experienced in 1967 and 2013.

The town of Grafton is protected by a flood levee which provides protection up to approximately the 5% Average Exceedance Probability (AEP) event, and the town of Maclean is protected by a levee which provides protection up to approximately the 2% AEP event. Since the Grafton and Maclean levees were constructed in the 1970s they have not been overtopped, although in January 2013 at Grafton the flood height was equal to the top of the levee, requiring evacuation of a small area of the town.

In the March 2001 and May 2009 floods, evacuation of all of Grafton was ordered due to uncertainty about whether the flood levee would be overtopped if the predicted flood heights were reached, and how the flood would behave once the levee was overtopped. As well as the evacuation having a significant financial and social cost for residents, as the levees were not overtopped it also increases future risk of people not evacuating when ordered. In 2011 Council completed a detailed flood levee overtopping study which included extensive 2-D computer modelling. The flood levee overtopping study is considered to have given excellent value for money as in 2013 it enabled evacuation to be confined to the immediate affected area.

A significant human cost of flooding on all residents is post flood clean-up. To reduce the impact on residents Council generally collects flood damaged items which are put on the kerbside by residents, waives its tip fees for disposal of flood damaged items and also offers residents affected by flood mud a rebate on their water bills. Council also assisted with the provision of the Flood Recovery Centre for residents, which provided a “one stop shop” for flood impacted residents.

A significant issue for Council is the increasingly limited and narrow interpretation of Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA), which have left the full cost of much essential infrastructure flood damage repair with Council.

As one example, a flood levee damaged in the 2013 flood incurred repair costs of $710,000 but only $98,625 funding was received for this item. The apparent basis for the reduced funding was that under the NDRRA the works were assessed as “riverbank” works; notwithstanding that detailed geotechnical and engineering reports supported Council’s position that the riverbank formed an integral part of the levee at this location and should therefore have qualified as essential public infrastructure. It is requested that as part of this item of the terms of reference the committee consider the NDRRA arrangements as the current interpretation results in cost shifting of repairs to essential public infrastructure to Council.

There are financial and human costs of flooding beyond Council’s costs. Financial costs are common for industries such as agricultural, transport and tourism. The financial impacts on these industries has been repeatedly mentioned after the three recent major flood experiences in the Clarence Valley in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Agricultural financial impacts are usually associated with the loss of crops, livestock, fences, machinery, etc. Transport impacts are associated with the closure of key transport routes resulting in the very long truck ‘parking’ areas either side of locations such as Grafton. The tourism industry impacts are both short-term (cancellations of bookings) and longer term with potential of a tarnished tourism image. Regarding human costs, a recurring theme in the post flood recovery mental health problems related to flooding. The NSW State Government established Clarence Valley Flood Recovery Committees after the 2009 and 2013 floods which comprised representatives from state government agencies and Council, and the final reports from these Committees should assist the Inquiry with further information on the financial and human cost of flooding.

1e) examine technologies available to mitigate flood damage, including diversion systems, and the scope of infrastructure needed to support water augmentation, by diversion, for rural and regional New South Wales. The diversion of the Clarence to west of the Great Dividing Range has been suggested by some people as a possible way that flood damage could be mitigated, with a supposed benefit of providing water for western areas. Council has considered this issue and its position has consistently been that diversion of the Clarence is opposed, as summarised by Council resolution 10.017/10 at its meeting of 16 November 2010:
The Council again register it strong opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

Council’s position in this matter has not changed, and Council considers that any proposal to divert the Clarence River cannot be justified from an economic, environmental or social perspective.

If you require further information please contact Council’s Manager Water Cycle, Mr Greg Mashiah, telephone 6645-0244 or 0428-112-982.

Yours faithfully

Scott Greensill 
General Manager

The assault on the water security of NSW coastal rivers is not just head on. Murray-Darling Basin councils are also now lobbying to change the federal Water Act so that more weight is given to their social and economic arguments when freshwater augmentation or inter-basin water transfer is considered.

Naranderra Shire Council, Committee Minutes, 21 June 2016:

Item 6.1 - Final Report of the Commonwealth Senate Select Committee into the Murray Darling Basin Plan
The Final Report titled “Refreshing the Plan” was tabled in the Senate on 17th March 2016 and is currently the subject of review through the Minister for Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP and the Departmental Officials, with a response due by mid June 2016.
RESOLVED that RAMROC continue to strongly advocate to the Commonwealth Government the merit and value of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee into the Murray Darling Basin Plan, particularly Recommendation 25 relating to proposed amendments to the Water Act 2007 to provide for a triple bottom line equal balance of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. (Moved Albury and seconded Hay)

Now that local governments in the Murray-Darling Basin are again discussing raiding Clarence Valley fresh water, it is worthwhile remembering 2007......

The Daily Examiner
, 23 April 2007:

BY JOHN McGUREN
Clarence River Professional Fishermen's Association
STORM clouds continue to gather over the Clarence River, but sadly they are the type that threaten its ruin rather than rain.
In comments reported in The Daily Examiner on Tuesday, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull made it very clear the Howard Government was now virtually committed to the diversion of water from northern NSW into Queensland.
Alluding to the imminent release of results from his feasibility study into such a concept, Mr Turnbull also said a water diversion from NSW would be far cheaper than one from anywhere in Queensland.
Why is he saying that? Because he already knows the outcome of the study and is simply being too cute by half in playing politics with its release and treating us all like little mushrooms.
No surprise there as he hasn't even bothered to speak to any of the tens of thousands of NSW residents who will be directly affected by his fool hardy scheme.
The National Water Commission (NWC) has confirmed this week a desk top study by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) will show it is technically feasible to divert water from both the Clarence and the Tweed rivers into Queensland.
Commissioned by Mr Turnbull and due to be released in the coming weeks, an early draft of the SMEC report has ruled the Clarence and Tweed rivers in as potential diversion candidates, while rejecting the Richmond River.
The outcomes of the SMEC study are focused on engineering feasibility and costs, including constructing dams and other infrastructure and derived from a review of existing information and previous studies.
As we have feared all along, this study has been commissioned for the express political purpose of giving Mr Turnbull's grand act of environmental vandalism economic credibility.
The report estimates up to 100,000 mega litres ? roughly enough water to fill Sydney Harbour twice ? per year could be harvested from the Clarence at a cost of between $1.60 and $2.05 per kilolitre, giving a total supply cost of around $160million to $200million. Mr Turnbull knows all this already.
In his Droplets newsletter, Mike Young, of the University of Adelaide, suggests on average Murray Darling system high security water allocations ? which can include municipal, industrial and irrigation uses ? cost around $1,500/ML, which is just below the SMEC report lower estimate of supply costs for water diverted from the Clarence.
This would seem to put the whole diversion concept very much in the ballpark from a cost and feasibility standpoint and should shake us all out of any complacency stemming from misguided and outdated misconceptions that it's all just too expensive and too difficult.
Add to that the growing willingness of the states to cede powers to the Australian government and this nightmare starts to look very much more like a frightening reality.
Figures like that also give added credence to the growing concerns of state premiers regarding who will ultimately have their hands on the Australian water cash register as it rings up billions of dollars of water allocations into the future.
Just how high might the selling price of water go and just who exactly stands to pocket the wealth generated off the back of the Clarence River being plundered for profit, like the Murray, the Darling, the Snowy and so many other great river systems before it?
Make no mistake, this proposal is as much about money and profits as it is about any notion of pulling together for the national good.
As a community and as responsible Australians are we really prepared to stand by and see the ecology of the Clarence River and the vital industries and unparalleled quality of life that it underpins sold off to the highest bidder?
I sincerely hope we are made of better stuff than that and can look back in years to come and say with pride that we saw through all the politics and fought hard to save the magnificent Clarence River.

The Daily Examiner, 5 June 2007:

Renee Ford

TWO prominent Clarence Valley leaders made their voices heard yesterday, giving submissions opposing any damming or diversion to the Clarence River at an inquiry into water supplies for south-east Queensland.
Clarence River Professional Fishermen's Association industry representative, John McGuren told the Senate Standing Committee a dam in the upper reaches of the Clarence would adversely affect the fishing industry, which he described as the 'engine room of the Clarence Valley'.
"Numerous studies have clearly shown the positive correlation between water flows and catches of key commercial and recreational species, both estuarine and ocean," he told the inquiry. "These relationships don't just exist in the river themselves."
He explained productivity of Australian fisheries was heavily reliant on the terrestrial nutrients delivered by large rivers such as the Clarence.
"It's a key driver to fisheries productivity generally up and down the East Coast," he said.
By overlaying data Mr McGuren was able to illustrate a strong correlation existed between critical environmental flows and Clarence River school prawn catches.
"It's not the percentage of overall total flows to be removed that is the critical factor here, and it is misleading to describe any flow extraction and its potential impacts in these matters," he said.
Clarence Valley Landcare chair, Brian Dodd told the inquiry via teleconference, the upper reaches of the Clarence River were experiencing drought, much like south-east Queensland and Western NSW.
"Damming just doesn't work.
It's been proven around the world, that if you build large dams on streams, it always causes more problems than what they are worth," Mr Dodd said. During the next two days, the NSW Annual Shires Association conference will debate two motions put forward by Western Divisions supporting the diversion of the Clarence River catchments to western NSW.
Clarence Valley mayor Ian Tiley and general manager Stuart McPherson are attending the conference and hope to gain support to squash both proposals put forward by Cobar and Bourke Shire Councils.

Sunday 7 August 2016

Fishers not in favour of Australian Infrastructure Developments' plan to industrialise the Clarence River estuary


Fishing World, 2 August 2016:

THE Clarence River port of Yamba in Northern NSW has been proposed for a huge development that would see it potentially become one of the country's biggest ports.

The $12 billion takeover would see about 36 sq. km of infrastructure development along the Clarence covering approximately 27 per cent of the estuary system, according to the No Yamba Mega Port Facebook page.

River dredging would be required to a depth of 18m from the mouth through to Harwood Bridge with the complete removal of Turkey, Gourd and Palm Islands.

The project would also require the removal of two of NSW's most iconic fishing breakwalls, Iluka and Yamba walls, which lie on the North and South Banks of the Clarence River.

The company behind the proposal, Australian Infrastructure Developments (AID), states on its website that the first stages of the Port Development Plan will be open for trade by 2023 and be in full operation by 2028.

The website also lists “unconstrained land-side access for future long-term expansion” as a location specific advantage for the Port of Yamba project.

Saturday 30 July 2016

Which NSW coastal town has "world-class surf, more beaches than you can shake a stick at, friendly, easygoing locals and over 300 days of sunshine a year"?




Aerial photograph found at www.visitnsw.com

Yamba, situated where the Clarence River meets the sea, received some well deserved media attention this week.

It is now a year round go to destination which helps produce tourism statistics like this for the NSW North Coast:

NSW destination preference: regional and Sydney, 2015 vs 2016
Source: Roy Morgan Single Source (Australia), April 2014-March 2015 (n=15,913) and April 2015-March 2016 (n=15,074). Base: Australians 14+

Travellers who’d like to holiday on the NSW North Coast are also a high-value group (27.9% of them spent $200+ per night on their last holiday); just ahead of those with a preference for Sydney Surrounds – North (27.2%). The Murray Riverina (23.3%) is the least likely of the new Destination Networks to be on the radar of big-spending holiday-goers. [Roy Morgan Research, July 2016, Destination NSW: A Regional Perspective]



News.com.au, 24 July 2016:

YAMBA, NSW

With world-class surf, more beaches than you can shake a stick at, friendly, easygoing locals and over 300 days of sunshine a year, Yamba has understandably been a longtime favourite for surfers in-the-know. However, since Australian Traveller Magazine named it “Australia’s best tourist town” back in 2009, word has quickly started to spread and the former-fishing village is now truly coming into its own.

Yes, it’s still populated by surfboard carrying, wetsuit clad beach bums but amid the salty surfers, the number of both visitors — and city slickers relocating — is increasingly annually and with this increase of stressed urbanites flocking to Yamba for a sea change, a burgeoning food scene has been born.

You can see this in action at Irons and Craig, a cafe where fresh produce rules and everything is made on site, from the bread to the custom-blended coffee.

In contrast to the jam-packed beaches of Byron, Yamba’s 11 pristine stretches of white sand, five of which are close to the town centre, are positively Robinson Crusoe-like and with 16 great surf spots, an empty break is virtually guaranteed.

But for serious surf-hounds, the nearby beachside enclave of Angourie — just 5km down the road — is bona fide surfing Mecca. A National Surfing Reserve — the second site in Australia to be recognised — it remains a fixture on the international surfing map.

Friday 29 July 2016

In awe of the strength of first peoples protecting land


Sometimes two sentences hold a wealth of meaning.....


Post on the Facebook page No Yamba Mega Port announcing that the corporation which manages the two Native Titles over the Clarence River on behalf of the Yaegl People will not support Australian Infrastructure Development's scheme to industrialize the high environmental and cultural value Clarence River estuary.

Tuesday 26 July 2016

Time for Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan to do more than shrug his shoulders


The Daily Examiner, Letter to the Editor, 6 July 2016:

Hogan no hero on Yamba mega port proposal

THE Nationals' Kevin Hogan was quoted in a June 26 Daily Examiner article as stating of the Yamba mega port proposal that "it was disappointing this was still an issue. There is absolutely no chance this will ever happen. It's absolute pie-in-the-sky stuff. The project is not feasible and has no support at any level of government."

Fine words which display little understanding of the situation.

For starters, neither the Turnbull or Baird Governments have formally rejected this proposal for the industrialisation of the Port of Yamba as set out by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd, because the first stage documents are still being prepared for submission to state government according to the company directors.

Then there is the fact that in May this year a Moree local government councillor made a pro-mega port presentation to the Namoi Councils Joint Organisation and, two of the persons present were a regional co-ordinator with the NSW Dept. of Premier and Cabinet, which has the carriage of unsolicited proposals such as this, and the chair of Regional Development Australian Northern Inland.

The end result of that meeting was that Australian Infrastructure Developments was sent a letter inviting it to a joint organisation meeting to further explain its 36 sq. km Eastgate plan for the Clarence River estuary.

As the Baird Government has already privatised three major coastal ports (Newcastle, Port Kembla and Botany) to consortiums which include foreign investors and will be required to sell off more assets in order to receive federal government funding for future public infrastructure under the Asset Recycling Initiative, there is no guarantee that this particular privately funded overdevelopment won't be considered by Macquarie Street.

Finally, there is the matter of the degree of National Party support - examples of this being a NSW National Party member agreeing to be the talking head for a promotional video for the mega port, at least one North Coast Nationals politician being happy to be photographed while being lobbied on export potential by a mega port supporter, and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce allowing the company CEO a photo opportunity to accompany his April 2016 corporate statement in which Mr. Joyce was quoted as saying he could see no impediment to the proposal [being submitted to the NSW Government].

None of this inspires confidence in Mr. Hogan's view that the matter should not concern Lower Clarence.

Concerned residents can let the issue rest when the Baird Government formally announces it has rejected the unsolicited proposal and the Turnbull Government publicly supports that rejection.

Judith M. Melville, Yamba 

On  7 July 2016 Namoi Councils Joint Organisation continued its conversation with the greedy Australian and foreign corporations intent on laying waste to the aesthetic, environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the Clarence River estuary for their on financial benefit.

This is the second time this organisation has listened to a presentation of an expanded proposal which is yet to make it into the first stage of the Dept. of Premier and Cabinet's unsolicited proposal process.

Monday 25 July 2016

Iluka hall packed for information night on the risks of large scale port dredging


No-one moved as they listened to Dr. Matt Landos

The community hall in Iluka filled quickly and it was standing room only when around 162 people gathered on the night of 21 July 2016 to hear Dr. Matt Landos give a talk on the effects of large scale port dredging on marine environments using Port of Gladstone, within the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area as an example** and, explain what the as yet unrealised proposal to industrialise the Clarence River estuary might mean for the environment, local communities, tourism and the commercial fishing fleet.

Aboriginal elder Elizabeth Smith gave the Welcome to County and briefly spoke of how the elders were against this mega port plan.

Residents from Iluka, Yamba, Harwood, Grafton and elsewhere along the river sat intently listening for almost two hours as the potential risks were laid before them.

The response to this information predominately ranged from increased concern though to shock and outrage.

Here are some quotes from the Facebook page No Yamba Mega Port:



People talking in groups as organisers pack up the chairs at the end of the night
Photograph: Debrah Novak


https://www.scribd.com/document/319121314/Gladstone-Development-at-any-cost-Govt-Industry-Science-Spin 

Further information:
https://www.scribd.com/document/319064034/Status-Great-Barrier-Reef-World-Heritage-Area-Gladstone-Region-post-dredging

UPDATE

The Daily Examiner, 25 July 2016:

STORM OVER PORT: The crowd at the Iluka Community Hall meeting listens to concerns about plans for a major port development at Yamba.

ANY attempt to build a mega port on the Clarence River estuary will meet a similar show of community strength to the one that stopped CSG mining here, says community activist Ian Gaillard.

Mr Gaillard was among a crowd of 162 who packed into the Community Hall at Iluka to hear an address from marine scientist Dr Matt Landos about what they can expect if a development of that size goes ahead in the Clarence estuary…..

Mr Gaillard said sedimentation, acid sulphate and heavy metals disturbed by dredging were key contributing factors to the loss of water quality, sea grass beds and mangroves.

Dr Landos said if the port development went ahead the dredging would be ongoing and that movements of massive ships in the port would also create major problems.

These would include pollution from paints and anti-foul, fuel and oil contamination as well as the introduction of pests from other parts of the world.

Mr Gaillard said people needed to be alert to the possibilities, although he did gain some comfort from statements from political figures who have dismissed the project.

"But I think that if they can get their project up as something of state significance it could appeal to the government we've got in Sydney at the moment," Mr Gaillard said.

"They've had one attempt and failed but they're not going away."

Meetings are planned for Yamba and other communities along the Clarence this year.

Clarence Valley pouring cold water on wanabee dam builders



"Water in the Clarence catchment area river systems does not belong to Australia as you assert and, only nominally belongs to New South Wales.
It more truly belongs to the land through which it flows and, is held in trust by local communities for future generations." [A Clarence Valley Protest, It'sWar, June 2007]

ABC North Coast Radio, 22 July 2016:

A council in the south of New South Wales is lobbying to have water piped inland from the Clarence River.

The Griffith City Council has submitted a 30-year-old proposal to divert water from the Clarence River into the Murray Darling Basin via a tunnel through the Great Dividing Range.

The submission has been made to an NSW Upper House inquiry into dams, flooding and water management.

Councillor Dino Zappacosta said it could be done without any adverse effects to the Clarence Valley.

"Our preliminary studies have shown that the amount of water which we'd be looking at diverting would be around about 25 per cent of the water that currently flows into the seaboard," he said.

"That would not affect any activities currently going on along the Clarence at the moment.

"A few engineers have looked at the scheme and by using only gravitational methods through tunnels, the cost would be reduced," Cr Zappacosta said.

"At the same time we would be able to use that flow of water for hydro-generation as well, so it has an extra benefit.

"If we're going to look at Australia developing, particularly west of the ranges where there is so much fertile area all over the place, and if we're going to be the food bowl of the world we must be looking at ways to have more water in our region."

Proposal 'unlikely' to get support: Clarence Valley Mayor

Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science at the University of New South Wales, Professor Richard Kingsford, is not a fan of the idea.

"The water that comes down rivers and goes out to sea is not wasted water," he said.

"We're learning that our estuaries, our fisheries, are so dependent on not just the water that comes down but the nutrients and the sediment."

The Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson said the idea was floated every five or six years.

He said it would cost billions of dollars and was unlikely to get much support at a state or federal level.

"I've previously raised this with the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, when this was part of his ministerial responsibility," Cr Williamson said.

"He told me absolutely that any proposal was not certainly on the Federal Government's radar.

"My understanding is it's also not on the State Government's radar in any way shape or form."


Save his breath to cool his porridge

Ed,

What is it with many of the local councils and councillors in the Murray-Darling Basin?

They seem to be firmly of the belief that the Clarence Valley catchment is an est. 22,700 sq. km supermarket whose shelves can be browsed at will.

Where they can pile their trollies high with items which will enhance their own regional economies and, when they get to the checkout pay for the natural resources they take not with dollars but with degradation, destruction and death.

Approximately once every twenty years these councils lobby state and federal governments to industrialise the Port of Yamba so they can export minerals, ore, grain, cattle etc., through the Clarence River estuary and, at least twice a decade they want to dam and divert water from the Clarence River catchment so that they can grow their own regions at the expense of Clarence Valley communities.

Each and every time these local government raiders appear on the horizon the people of the Clarence Valley point out the limitations and risks of these grand plans for an ancient floodplain and river system that began its life at least 23 million years ago and, which due in part to happy historical accident and good management remains a relatively health system to this day.

They politely point out the fact that like north-west NSW they too suffer from the same droughts and rely on this particular river system to see us through them. They tell them the limits of safe water sharing have been reached because the catchment already supplies drinking water to the growing Coffs Harbour region further south.

They remind them that river system flows in the catchment are highly variable and natural freshwater flows are vital to keep a highly productive main river (which is saline for almost half its length) healthy and biodiverse in order to sustain our own agricultural, commercial fishing and tourism industries into the future.

Locals also point to the environmental studies done down the years by various governments which are not in favour of altering the rate or volume of river flows, that the native title holders are very protective of these waters and, when these councils won’t listen they stop being polite and put their foot down.

If Cr. Zappacosta of Griffith (The Area News, 11 June 2016) doesn’t remember the last time that happened I’m sure Bourke Shire Council will, because that was the time that it proposed a Clarence River water diversion plan which relied on the estimated $1.5 billion dollar cost being “financed by the private sector against sales of water licences and long-term operation and management rights” and was actively seeking to identify sources of diversion funding [A Clarence Valley Protest, 23 August 2007].

That was the time the Clarence Valley declared “Not A Drop”, successfully lobbied a NSW Coalition government, gave evidence before a Senate inquiry and saw off a federal government in late 2007.

Cr. Zappacosta would be wise to save his breath to cool his porridge because he can talk to each and every politician in Canberra and Macquarie Street but it will get him nowhere if the people of the Clarence don’t agree with his current plan to divert 1,000 gigalitres of fresh water annually – and I strongly suspect that they won’t.

Judith M. Melville, Yamba