ABC News, 12 March 2019:Plans to drill in the middle of the Great Australian Bight have led to a fierce battle, as a Norwegian Energy giant faces off with Aussie surfers, environmentalists and fishermen. #TheProjectTV pic.twitter.com/2ppO02m0or— The Project (@theprojecttv) April 8, 2019
Showing posts with label environmental vandalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental vandalism. Show all posts
Wednesday 17 April 2019
Norway needs to withdraw its majority-owned petroleum mining company from the Great Australian Bight
A Norwegian MP has
called for a state-owned Norwegian oil and gas company not to start drilling in
the Great Australian Bight, while a scientist says noise from the project could
hurt marine life.
The Norwegian Government
has a 67 per cent majority stake in Equinor, which wants to start searching for oil off the coast of South
Australia at a depth of almost 2.5 kilometres by the end of 2020.
It needs approval from
the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority.
MP Kristoffer Robin Haug
addressed the Norwegian Parliament last week and said going ahead with the
project could see Norway become the enemy.
"Will the
[Petroleum and Energy] Minister use this power as a majority shareholder in
Equinor to instruct their company to stop their oil exploration in the
Bight?" he asked.
Fight For The
Bight, April
2019:
New
research from The Australia Institute shows that 60% of Australians are
opposed to drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight, while the rate of
opposition amongst South Australians is even higher at 68%.
The first ever national
poll on the issue found that only one in five Australians, and 16% of South
Australians, support drilling in the Bight, while more than two thirds of
Australians want to see the area given World Heritage protection.
The poll also found
there is greater support, both nationwide and in SA, for ending coal, gas and
oil exploration across Australia than there is for allowing it to continue.
“The Great Australian
Bight is a national treasure and now we know that people across the country
want to see it protected from exploitation,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, The
Australia Institute’s SA projects manager.
“Equinor and the other
oil giants looking to drill in the Great Australian Bight are attempting to do
so in direct opposition to the wishes of the Australian people.
“We’ve known for some
time that the Great Australian Bight holds a special place in the hearts of
South Australians, but this research has shown that opposition to exploiting
the Bight exists across the country.
The Norwegian Greens
Party has also adopted the Australian Greens slogan "Fight for the
Bight".
South Australian Greens
senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Mr Haug's speech showed the fight was now
receiving international attention.
"This is starting
to cause problems and waves overseas," Senator Hanson-Young said.
"People are questioning why Australia would put
at risk our beautiful pristine areas.
"This is a whale
sanctuary. This is an untouched wonderland. Why would we put this at
risk?"….
Protesters took to
Encounter Bay this morning to protest against oil drilling in the Great
Australian Bight.
Sunday 14 April 2019
Who will be to blame if Essential Energy cuts down koala trees in Lawrence, NSW?
Koala habitat within Lawrence, NSW |
Essential Energy is a NSW state-owned corporation supplying
‘poles and wire’ infrastructure to communities on the North Coast.
One of those
communities is the small village of Lawrence
on the Lower Clarence River.
An attractive feature of living in this village is that it is one of the ever
diminishing small regional/rural urban areas which still have resident koalas.
Koalas like
this one sitting in a tree line marked by Essential Energy for felling.
Photograph of Lawrence koala supplied |
Koala mid-canopy & circled in black Photograph supplied |
Apparently those surveying the short new route for a section of poles and wires in Lawrence neglected to look up into the trees – what else can explain the fact that known koala trees have been marked for destruction?
So who is it
that employs such incredibly blind staff?
Well
Essential Energy has a Board
of Directors (very comfortably remunerated from $60,600 up to $764,200 pa) and all apparently living far from this particular group of
koalas.
These board
members are:
Patricia McKenzie – Chair, Non-Executive Director
Robyn Clubb – Non-Executive Director
Jennifer Douglas – Non-Executive Director
John Fletcher – Non-Executive Director
Peter Garling – Non-Executive Director
Patrick Strange – Non-Executive Director
Diane Elert – Non-Executive Director
John Cleland – CEO and Executive Director.
The
shareholders are represented by the NSW
Treasurer and Minister for Finance,
Services and Property. Current Treasurer is MP for Epping Dominic Perrottet.
With the
exception of the Treasurer all these people belong to what might be called the
professional directors class and, between them are associated with a number of other businesses and a research facility:
APA Group, Health
Direct Australia,
Australian Wool Exchange Ltd,
Craig Moyston Group Ltd, Elders Ltd, NSW Primary Industries Ministerial Advisory Council, Rice Marketing Board of NSW,
Hansen Technologies Limited, Opticomm Pty Ltd, Peter MacCullum Cancer Foundation,
Hansen Technologies Limited, Opticomm Pty Ltd, Peter MacCullum Cancer Foundation,
Charter Hall Funds Management Limited, Charter Hall Limited, Energy Group Limited, Downer EDI Limited, Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Limited, Tellus
Holdings Limited,
Auckland International Airport Limited. Chorus
Limited, Mercury Energy, NZX Limited.
A fair number of people in Lawrence have told Essential Energy that they want these koala trees to be left standing and the corporation states it has taken its plan under review.
So if Essential Energy does decide these koala trees are to be cut down in the next few months, don’t blame the men with chainsaws, blame these eight professional directors and the successive NSW Coalition governments who appointed them - from the O'Farrell Government in 2013 through to the Berejiklian Government in 2018.
So if Essential Energy does decide these koala trees are to be cut down in the next few months, don’t blame the men with chainsaws, blame these eight professional directors and the successive NSW Coalition governments who appointed them - from the O'Farrell Government in 2013 through to the Berejiklian Government in 2018.
Because state government is clearly appointing directors who cannot even ensure that Essential Energy’s
environmental
policy (for which they are responsible) is comprehensive and actually mentions vulnerable and threatened
flora and fauna.
It is a policy which (aside from a brief mention of greenhouse gas emission reduction) fails to give clear direction to staff, given there is only a single broadly worded line in its 12 point health, safety & environmental policy to cover all manner of environmental issues ie., "Comply with relevant legislation, regulations, standards, codes, licences and commitments"
These directors appear so divorced from real life that they apparently never thought that their regional/rural staff need to be trained to look up into tree canopies before they decide to mark a tree line for destruction.
It is a policy which (aside from a brief mention of greenhouse gas emission reduction) fails to give clear direction to staff, given there is only a single broadly worded line in its 12 point health, safety & environmental policy to cover all manner of environmental issues ie., "Comply with relevant legislation, regulations, standards, codes, licences and commitments"
These directors appear so divorced from real life that they apparently never thought that their regional/rural staff need to be trained to look up into tree canopies before they decide to mark a tree line for destruction.
The bottom
line is that the Koala as a species is at risk of localised extinction across the areas in which
populations still survive and, sadly is at risk of total extinction across the entire country by as early as 2050 if those in positions of power continue to be
deliberately blind to the fate of this Australian icon.
Sunday 10 March 2019
More fish kills predicted along the Darling/Barka River
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
6 March 2019:
Residents at Menindee
are bracing for a fourth mass fish kill in the Darling River in about three
months, as a new paper finds water savings in the Murray Darling Basin may be
just one-tenth the amount modelled.
The NSW Department of
Primary Industries has warned the arrival of a cold front after another
heatwave in the region this week posed a "high risk" of another bout
of widespread fish deaths.
Possibly millions of
fish, mostly bony herring but also endangered perch and Murray cod, were killed
in the three previous events. A sudden drop in dissolved oxygen levels - as
blue-green algae died and began decaying - was the prompt for the previous fish
kills.
"They're
super-stressed. It takes less [to kill the fish]," Graeme McCrabb, a
Menindee resident, said on Tuesday. "The numbers of golden and silver
perch and the cods got less [during each die-off]."
Separately, a report
published in the Australasian Journal of Water Resources by John
Williams and Quentin Grafton from the Australian National University found the
$3.5 billion spent on water-saving infrastructure - such as concrete canals -
may have saved 70 billion litres a year compared with the federal government's
estimate of more than 10 times that figure.
Professor Grafton said
their analysis showed the average cost of water recovery could be as much as
$50,000 per megalitre returned to the Murray-Darling Basin every year, or about
25 times more expensive than buying the water back from willing sellers.
The key issue is the
failure to measure and account for so-called return flows - the leakage of
water into aquifer that ceases when irrigation becomes more efficient.
"It's a travesty
for all Australians," he said. "You've spent billions of dollars and
you've not measured what you've got."….
Monday 4 March 2019
From September 2019 onwards underwater seismic blasts will rock the Great Australian Bight around the clock over a 30,100 sq kilometre area
ABC
News, 15
January 2019:
Oil and gas testing is
set to take place in the Great Australian Bight this year, after the national
petroleum regulator granted permission to exploration company PGS.
Environmental groups
have slammed the decision to allow seismic testing near Kangaroo Island and
Port Lincoln, while the tuna industry has questioned whether it is even likely
to go ahead.
Seismic testing involves
firing soundwaves into the ocean floor to detect the presence of oil or gas
reserves….
The National Offshore
Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) granted
permission for the testing to be done over a 30,100-square-kilometre area,
located 80 kilometres from Port Lincoln and 90 kilometres west of Kangaroo
Island.
The testing is set to
take place between September and November.
The fishing industry has
long had reservations about the impact seismic testing would have on the local
tuna industry.
PGS has been ordered not
to interfere with or displace pygmy blue whales, southern bluefin tuna, and
southern right whales…..
The Wilderness Society
has slammed the permit, saying the practice can deafen whales and even kill
smaller marine animals.
"It's obvious that
blasting massive amounts of noise constantly for months on end through a water
column in a space where animals communicate and navigate and live by sound and
sonar, it is obvious that this is going to have a terrible impact on those
animals," the environmental group's Peter Owen said.
"I fail to see how
you can actually approve this type of seismic activity in the middle of one of
the most significant whale nurseries in the world.
"It's totally
unacceptable."
The Greens say the
seismic testing is the first step to drilling in the Great Australian Bight.
"Why on Earth would
we be wanting to sink oil wells in the Great Australian Bight, put our marine
life and beaches at risk and make climate change worse," senator Sarah
Hanson-Young said.
"We've got to be
getting out of fossil fuels and transitioning to a clean, green economy."
There has been little research into the impact of
seismic testing in Australia, but Western Australian researchers have
found noise from seismic air guns significantly increased mortality in
scallops.
Commencing on
or about 1 September 2019 for an initial period of 91 days a fofeign-owned PGS survey vessel will
be operating sounding equipment 24/7 in the Bight at a seismic source pressure of est.
~2,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with the two or three arrays firing
alternately every 16.67 to 25 m, each with a maximum volume of 3260in. (See Duntroon
Multi-client 3D and 2D Marine Seismic Survey Environment Plan at pp.24-25).
This is what happened when
such testing went ahead in the Atlantic Ocean……..
Earthjustice is suing
the federal government to prevent seismic testing in the Atlantic Ocean. The
process involves the blasting of shockingly powerful seismic airguns every few
seconds for hours or even days on end and can cripple or kill marine life in the
search of offshore oil or gas deposits.
Earthjustice is challenging the
administration’s actions in court, and on Feb. 20, we joined a coalition of
other conservation groups asking a
federal judge to block the start of seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic
Ocean until our case has been heard.
The tests, harmful in
their own right, are just the first step in the administration’s broader plans
to open up 90 percent of U.S. federal offshore waters to the fossil fuel
industry, despite widespread opposition from Americans across the nation.
Wednesday 27 February 2019
Monday 25 February 2019
Is the Great Barrier Reef not dying quickly enough for the Morrison Government and Australian Environment Minister Melissa Price? Are they trying to hasten its death?
Australia's Great Barrier Reef has been under threat from increased human activity for generations.
Sediment runoff due to land clearing and agrigultual activity, pollutants from commercial shipping, unlawful discharge of waste water from mining operations and coral bleaching due to climate change.
North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation is a port authority responsible for facilities at Weipa, Abbot Point, Mackay and Hay Point trading ports, and the non-trading port of Maryborough.
Three of these ports are in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. One of these, Hay Point is reportedly among the largest coal export points in the world.
This is what the Morrison Government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has given this corporation permission to do.............
The Guardian, 20 February 2019:
The Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority has approved the dumping of more than 1m tonnes
of dredge spoil near the reef, using a loophole in federal laws that were
supposed to protect the marine park.
The Greens senator Larissa
Waters has called for the permit – which allows maintenance dredging to be
carried out over 10 years at Mackay’s Hay Point port and the sludge to be
dumped within the marine park’s boundaries – to be revoked.
“The last thing the reef
needs is more sludge dumped on it, after being slammed by the floods recently,”
Waters said. “One million tonnes of dumping dredged sludge into world heritage
waters treats our reef like a rubbish tip.”
Acting on concerns from
environmentalists, the federal government banned the disposal of dredge spoil
near the reef in 2015. But the ban applied only to capital dredging.
Maintenance work at ports – designed to remove sediment from shipping lanes as
it accumulates – is not subject to it.
On 29 January the marine
park authority granted conditional approval for North Queensland Bulk Ports to
continue to dump maintenance dredge spoil within the park’s boundaries. The
permit was issued just days before extensive
flooding hit north and central Queensland, spilling large amounts of
sediment into the marine environment.
Waters said the
distinction between capital and maintenance dredging made little difference to
the reef…..
North Queensland Bulk
Ports, in a statement posted online shortly after the permit was issued, said
it had to meet conditions to protect the marine environment. The ports
authority said its dumping plan was peer-reviewed and considered best practice.
“Just like roads,
shipping channels require maintenance to keep ports operating effectively,” the
ports authority said. “Maintenance dredging involves relocating sediment which
travels along the coast and accumulates over the years where our shipping
operation occurs.
“Importantly, our
assessment reports have found the risks to protected areas including the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and
sensitive habitats are predominantly low with some temporary, short-term
impacts to (bottom-dwelling) habitat possible.
“The permits allow for
the long-term, sustainable management of maintenance dredging at the Port and
will safeguard the efficient operations of one of Australia’s most critical
trading ports.”
Maintenance dredging
will begin in late March. Initial dredging will take about 40 days.
BBC, 22 February 2019:
Australia plans to dump
one million tonnes of sludge in the Great Barrier Reef.
Despite strict laws on
dumping waste, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) gave the
go-ahead.
A loophole was found -
the laws don't apply to materials generated from port maintenance work.
It comes one week after
flood water from Queensland spread into the reef, which scientists say will
"smother" the coral.
The industrial residue
is dredged from the bottom of the sea floor near Hay Point Port - one of the
world's largest coal exports and a substantial economic source for the country....
It's just "another
nail in the coffin" for the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier
Reef, which
is already under stress due to climate change, according to Dr Simon Boxall
from the National Oceanography Centre Southampton.
"If they are
dumping it over the coral reef itself, it will have quite a devastating effect.
The sludge is basically blanketing over the coral.
"The coral relies
on the algae, that's what give them their colour and what helps them feed -
without this partnership the coral will suffer dramatically."
Dr Boxall says his
worries about sludge-dumping are short-term - with the current Australian
summer a time for "rapid algae growth".....
Dr Boxall says the
impact will be lessened if the sludge is taken far enough offshore, but that it
will still contain high amounts of harmful materials such as trace metals.
"If it's put into
shallow water it will smother sea life," he says.
"It's important
they get it right.
"It'll cost more
money but that's not the environment's problem - that's the port authorities'
problem."
Last year,
Australia pledged
A$500 million (£275m) to protect the Great Barrier Reef - which has
lost 30% of its coral due to bleaching linked to rising sea temperatures and
damage from crown-of-thorns starfish.
Thursday 21 February 2019
Mining Exploration without Social Licence in 2019: Castillo Copper expects to make an announcement in respect of the status of its exploration tenements on Monday, 4 March 2019
The Daily Examiner, 19 February 2019:
Member for Clarence
Chris Gulaptis has told an anti-mining group he does not support short-term
mining that risks the environment of our area.
It comes while Castillo
Copper has again requested an extension to the voluntary suspension of its
securities on the Australian Security Exchange.
This is the third time
they have requested an extension following their initial suspension on December
27.
The initial suspension
came after the NSW Resources Regulator suspended two exploration licences near
Cangai, northwest of Grafton.
Resources Regulator
director of compliance operations Matthew Newton said action was taken to
suspend the operations due to a number of serious compliance issues being
identified at a recent inspection.
“The contraventions
related to alleged non-compliance with conditions of both exploration licences,
which were uncovered during an inspection on November 22, 2018,” Mr Newton said.
Castillo’s letter said
their board remained in active engagement with the Regulator as it continued
its inquiries.
Meanwhile,
representatives from the Stop Cangai Mine group and the Gumbaynggirr Nation met
with Nationals MP Mr Gulaptis in Grafton on Monday to voice their concerns
about Castillo Copper’s optimistic reports to shareholders that could lead to a
mine in the Clarence Valley.
“The hype promising jobs
for locals when the exploration licence was first reported in 2017 was
misleading,” Stop Cangai Mine’s Karen von Ahlefeldt said.
“Any mining jobs gained
will be at the loss of jobs in fishing, farming and tourism.
“We need more
inspectors, paid for by exploration licence fees to enforce contractors
compliance. Self-regulation does not work.”
The group told Mr
Gulaptis they were concerned there could be plans to ship tailings from the old
Cangai Mine to China for processing, which would fund the development of an
open-cut cobalt mine, but Mr Gulaptis said an approval to do so would require a
development application to be lodged and at the moment the exploration
activities had been suspended.
“I was glad that their
exploration licence was suspended by the NSW Resources Regulator for breaches
of their licence,” Mr Gulaptis said.
“The whole purpose of
having a Resources Regulator is to ensure mining companies comply with the
terms of their licence and if companies breach their licence conditions then
they should answer for it.”
The group said that both
Greens state candidate Dr Greg Clancy and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers
candidate Steve Cansdell had publicly announced their strong opposition to the
mine.
Castillo
Copper informed the Australian Stock Exchange on 4 February 2019 that it had completed remedial work at the exploration site and awaits notice of NSW Resources Regulator approval to recommence mining exploration at
Cangai.
On 18 February it applied for a third voluntary trading suspension
pending an announcement in respect of the status of its exploration tenements
which Castillo expects to make on Monday, 4 March 2019.
Labels:
Castillo Copper,
environmental vandalism,
Mann River
There isn't enough water in the Darling River system to avoid catastrophic outcomes
Australian
Academy of Science, media
release, 18 February 2019:
Scientists lay out new plan to save the Darling River
Scientists lay out new plan to save the Darling River
Scientists asked to
investigate the fish kills in the Murray-Darling River system in NSW say a
failure to act resolutely and quickly on the fundamental cause—insufficient
flows—threatens the viability of the Darling, the fish and the communities that
depend on it for their livelihoods and wellbeing.
The multidisciplinary
panel of experts, convened by the Australian Academy of Science, also found
engagement with local residents, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, has been
cursory at best, resulting in insufficient use of their knowledge about how the
system is best managed.
The scientists say their
findings point to serious deficiencies in governance and management, which
collectively have eroded the intent of the Water Act 2007 and the
framework of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (2012).
Chair of the expert
panel, ANU Professor Craig Moritz FAA, said the sight of millions of dead fish
from the three fish kills was a wake-up call.
“To me, it was like the
coral bleaching event for the mainland,” Professor Moritz said.
“Our review of the fish
kills found there isn’t enough water in the Darling system to avoid
catastrophic outcomes. This is partly due to the ongoing drought. However,
analysis of rainfall and river flow data over decades points to excess water
extraction upstream.”
The expert panel
recommends that urgent steps can and should be taken within six months to
improve the quality of water throughout the Darling River.
“That should include the
formation of a Menindee Lakes restoration project to determine sustainable
management of the lakes system and lower Darling and Darling Anabranch,”
Professor Moritz said.
The panel also
recommends a return to the framework of the 2012 Murray Darling Basin Plan to
improve environmental outcomes.
“The best possible
scenario is water in the Darling all the way to the bottom and in most years.
We are hopeful that this could be achieved if the panel’s recommendations are
implemented,” Professor Moritz said.
Australian Academy of
Science President, Professor John Shine, said the scientific advice of the
expert panel is a synthesis of the best available knowledge.
“In undertaking this
body of work the multidisciplinary expert panel has collaborated with other
relevant experts as required and received extensive data from a number of
Federal and State agencies,” Professor Shine said.
These agencies include
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Land and Water Division of the NSW
Department of Industry, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, the NSW
Department of Primary Industries, the Queensland Department of Natural
Resources, Mines and Energy, and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office,
in addition to data and information provided by researchers in many related
fields. The expert panel wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of these bodies
and individuals in promptly providing data.
The expert panel also
operated closely with the Independent Panel to Assess Fish Deaths in the Lower
Darling, initiated by the Government and chaired by Professor Robert Vertessy,
including sharing data and a reciprocal review of findings.
The expert panel report
Read the report: Investigation
of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee Region NSW over the summer of
2018–2019
The main findings and
recommendations are in the executive summary. The report was independently
assessed by seven independent peer reviewers, including one international
reviewer.
Related media releases
Tuesday 19 February 2019
Murray-Darling Basin's historical maladministration continues
The
Guardian, 13
February 2019:
Water flows at key
environmental sites in the Murray-Darling
Basin are unimproved or worse than before the basin plan was
implemented, a scientific report has found, raising serious questions about
where the $8.5bn of environmental water purchased by taxpayers is going.
The Wentworth Group of
Concerned Scientists, a group of eminent environmental scientists formed a
decade ago to advocate for the river system, have looked at two key sites which
they identified when the plan was put in place in 2010.
They have found that environmental
flows are not meeting the government’s own objectives for improving the health
of the river at these sites.
At one site flows have
actually declined, compared to pre-plan days.
The work, the first time
anyone – including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority – has tried to look in
detail at progress against the plan’s own environmental objectives, paints a
worrying picture of whether the plan is working.
In coming up with the
environmental water recovery targets in the plan, the federal government
identified 122 indicator sites – sites that needed more flows to ensure
biodiversity was preserved or restored.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
16 February 2019:
An
unsolicited modification of licences for irrigators on the Macquarie River
has allowed water earmarked for protecting one of the most important wetlands
in the Murray-Darling Basin to be diverted for a cotton crop.
Documents obtained by
the Herald show farmers were alerted a year ago by the NSW
Department of Industry's water division to changes of the conditions on their
unregulated water licences. That prompted the Office of Environment and
Heritage to seek to nullify the changes' impact.
One stakeholder, who
declined to be named, said he "sat here in shock" when the letter
from the water department arrived. "It was like a gift from heaven."
The change effectively
gave permission for the licence holders to extract environmental water flows
even though they had been paid for by taxpayers in both NSW and the
Commonwealth.
Enabled by the new
rules, Michael Egan, owner of the Kiameron farm near the eastern side of the
marches, alerted agencies of his plans to pump environmental flows even as the
drought across the region intensified.
Between September 9 and
October 5 last year, the farm extracted about 600 million litres of a 10
billion-litre flow headed for the marshes, assisting the irrigation of his
cotton crop.
"When it's in an
unregulated part of the system, [the agencies] lose control of the water,"
Mr Egan told the Herald. "I'm just running with the rules."
The Commonwealth
Environmental Water Office said "most of the flow was protected from
pumping by licence conditions". Still, the agency was continuing to work
with NSW agencies "to address anomalies in the licencing framework and
improve the protection of environmental flows".
The Murray-Darling Basin
Authority said it had alerted the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator
(NRAR) to investigate the matter after "satellite monitoring of
environmental water picked up images of water being diverted".
It said amendments to
NSW's Water Management Act would "allow environmental water to be
left in stream for environmental purposes".
A former water compliance
officer said, "That's not an anomaly; that's maladministration. How do you
get environmental water to grow a cotton crop?"
Friday 1 February 2019
Murray-Darling Basin Commission Report Précis: hard right ideology, ignorance, politics and greed have all but killed the largest river system in Australia
The Guardian, 29 January 2019: The fish kill near Menindee in NSW on Monday left the Darling River carpeted in dead fish. A South Australian royal commission is likely to find the Murray Darling Basin Plan to be in breach of the federal Water Act. Photograph: Graeme McCrabb |
ABC
News, 30
January 2019:
The Murray-Darling Basin
Royal Commission has found Commonwealth officials committed gross
maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions in drawing up the
multi-billion-dollar deal to save Australia's largest river system.
Commissioner Bret Walker
SC recommended a complete overhaul of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan,
including reallocating more water from irrigation to the environment.
The report found the
original plan ignored potentially "catastrophic" risks of climate
change….
Commissioner Walker
accused the original architects of the multi-billion-dollar plan of being
influenced by politics, with the report finding "politics rather than
science" drove the setting of the "Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL)
and the recovery figure of 2,750 GL".
"The [water]
recovery amount had to start with a 'two'," he said.
"This was not a
scientific determination, but one made by senior management and the board of
the MDBA……
Murray-Darling
Basin Royal Commission Report,
29 January 2019, excerpts:
Triple
bottom line myth
The most pernicious of the polemical
uses to which the slogan of the triple bottom line has been turned is to argue,
in various forums and with varying approaches to frankness, that the triple
bottom line requires the volume of reduction in consumptive take (sometimes
called the water to be ‘recovered’, ie for the environment) somehow to be less
than it would be on solely the environmental grounds stipulated in the Water
Act, whenever it can be seen that recovering less would benefit farming,
therefore the economy and therefore society. It is, admittedly, hard not to
travesty the argument, so bereft as it is of a serious purposive reading of the
actual enacted text.
No-one,
in or out of this Commission, has explained how this triple bottom line is
meant to work, directed as it must be to a numerically designated ‘limit’ of
take. If all three dimensions are operating equally and simultaneously, as the slogan
and the statutory term ‘optimises’ might at first sight suggest, how does a
statutory decision-maker adjust — up or down — the recovery target by reference
to each of the three dimensions? They are, at least partially,
incommensurables. And what is the real difference, when it comes to irrigated
agriculture, between economic and social outcomes? How far does one project in
order to assess the best available outcomes?
None
of these imponderable puzzles exists on the plain reading of the Water Act, by which
the environmental threshold level (no ‘compromise’ of key environmental values)
is set — and then as much irrigation water as can sensibly be made available is
made available, in order to optimise the economic and social outcomes generated
by the continuation of modern and efficient irrigated agriculture. Of course,
from time to time, not least because of the inter-generational ecologically
sustainable development principles, social outcomes — and even economic
outcomes — may well come to be seen as mandating less rather than more (or the
same) volume of consumptive take. But the true, single, bottom line is that no
more water may be taken than at the level beyond which the key environmental
values would be compromised.
The
late Professor John Briscoe, whose distinguished career culminated at Harvard,
was a doyen of international water resources management studies. His insights
and eminence were acknowledged by, among many other weighty assignments around
the world, his selection to play a leading role in the 2010 High-Level External
Review Panel convened by the MDBA to scrutinize and critique the beleaguered
draft Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (Guide) (see Chapter 4). In 2011, he
corresponded with the Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, which has published his notable letter dated 24 February 2011, by way
of a submission by him to the Committee’s inquiry into provisions of the Water
Act. The whole letter is instructive, as might be expected. The following
extracts pungently address the triple bottom line myth, expressing conclusions
which command agreement. (As opposed to some other conclusions expressed in his
letter, where Professor Briscoe is arguably too pessimistic, concerning in
particular the aptness of the Water Act itself.
The letter, to repeat, deserves
re-reading.)
The substance of the Act 2: Balance between the
environment and human uses
There
are claims that the Water Act of 2007 was not an environmental act but one that
mandated balance between the environment and human uses. Digging deep into the
turgid 236 pages of the Water Act for confirmatory phrases, the Honorable
Malcolm Turnbull claims, now, that the Act was all about balance.
To a
disinterested reader this is poppycock. The National Productivity Commission’s
interpretation of the Water Act (2007) is that “it requires the Murray-Darling
basin Authority to determine environmental water needs based on scientific
information, but precludes consideration of economic and social costs in
deciding the extent to which these needs should be met”. Similarly, the
High-Level Review Panel for the Murray Darling Basin Plan (of which I was a
member) stated that “The driving value of the Act is that a triple-bottom-line
approach (environment, economic, social) is replaced by one in which
environment becomes the overriding objective, with the social and economic
spheres required to “do the best they can” with whatever is left once
environmental needs are addressed.”
This
interpretation was also very clearly (and reasonably, in my view) the
interpretation taken by the Board and Management of the MDBA in developing the
Guide to the Basin Plan. This was transmitted unambiguously to the members of
the High-Level Review Panel for the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
(As an
aside, I have wondered whether this logic is derived from (a) a belief that
this is the right thing to do or (b) an understanding that this was the only
constitutionally-defensible approach given that state powers were being
abrogated in the name of meeting the Commonwealth’s Ramsar obligations.)
The substance of the Act 3: The roles of science and
politics
The Act
is based on an extraordinary logic, namely that science will determine what the
environment needs and that the task for government (including the MDBA) is then
just to “do what science tells it to do”.
In the deliberations of the High
Level Review Panel, we pointed out that, taken literally, this would mean that
100% of the flows of the Basin would have to go to the environment, because the
native environment had arisen before man started developing the basin. The
absurdity of this point was to drive home the reality — that the Murray is one
of the most heavily plumbed river basins in the world, and that the real choice
was to decide which set of managed (not natural) environmental (and other)
outcomes were most desirable.
The job
of science in such an instance is to map out options, indicating clearly the
enormous uncertainties that underlie any scenario linking water and
environmental outcomes. In its final report, the High-Level Review Panel
stated:
Far from being “value neutral”, a set of value judgements are
fundamental to the aspirations of all Acts, including the Water Act. … It is a
fundamental tenet of good governance that the scientists produce facts and the
government decides on values and makes choices. We are concerned that
scientists in the MDBA, who are working to develop “the facts”, may feel that
they are expected to trim those so that “the sustainable diversion limit” will
be one that is politically acceptable. We strongly believe that this is not
only inconsistent with the basic tenets of good governance, but that it is not
consistent with the letter of the Act. We equally strongly believe that
government needs to make the necessary tradeoffs and value judgements, and
needs to be explicit about these, assume responsibility and make the rationale
behind these judgements transparent to the public.
A
basis in science The crucial steps of setting a SDL, which governs its localized
component parts, and observing its mandatory reflection of the ESLT, are among
the most important decisions called for by the Water Act. They are forbidden to
be politically dictated, say, by Ministerial directions (eg para 48(5)(b)).
Their nature is ‘factual or scientific’, and so they are to be addressed as the
Water Act requires for such matters.
That is, both the MDBA and the
Minister, who between them are statutorily responsible for making the Basin
Plan, ‘must … act on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge’
(para 21(4)(b)). As appears throughout this report, this is a serious and
fundamental requirement that it appears has most regrettably not been
consistently obeyed (see Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10). It is most certainly not some obscure
technical point that could excite only administrative lawyers.
To
the contrary, the invocation of science, with the strong epithet ‘best’ to
qualify it, brings in its train the demanding and self-critical traditions of
empirical enquiry. It definitionally recognizes the provisional and improvable
quality of the state of art. It proceeds by testing, and thus needs exposure
and debate. Above all, it shuns the ipse dixit of unexplained, unattributed,
blank assertions, such as too often emanate at crucial junctures from the
MDBA.6 Perhaps the MDBA was not entirely responsible for this ‘aberration’, as
Professor Briscoe described it in his letter to the Senate Committee. He
suggested it resulted from the ‘institutional power concentration’ created by
the Water Act.
Leaving
blame aside, it can be readily accepted that Professor Briscoe described in
2011 what he had experienced, and what has continued far too much and for far
too long. That is, the highly secretive ‘we will run the numbers and the science
behind closed doors and then tell you the result’ MDBA Basin Plan process that
Professor Briscoe scorned as ‘the
Commonwealth-bureaucrats-and-scientists-know-better-than-states-andcommunities-and-farmers-do
model’. He deplored the excessive MDBA ‘confidentiality’ process, which meant
‘there was very little recourse in the process to the immense worldleading
knowledge of water management that had developed in Australia during the last
20 years’. He wrote, ‘time and again I heard from professionals, community
leaders, farmers and State politicians who had made Australia the widely
acknowledged world leaders in arid zone water management that they were
excluded from the process’……. [my yellow highlighting]
Recommendations
1.
New determinations of the ESLTs, and SDLs for both surface water and
groundwater that reflect those ESLTs, should be carried out promptly. Those
determinations must be made lawfully — that is, according to the proper
construction of the Water Act as outlined in Chapter 3. Those determinations
must:
a.
be made on the basis of a proper construction of the Water Act, rather than
using a triple bottom line approach
b.
ensure that each water resource area’s ESLT is correctly determined based on
the best available science, including for floodplains, and accordingly is reflected
in the Basin-wide ESLT
c.
result in an ESLT that ensures Australia fulfils its obligations under the
treaties referred to in the Water Act
d.
ensure there is no ‘compromise’ to the key environmental assets and ecosystem
functions of the Basin — it must restore and protect those that are degraded
e.
be made on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and by taking
into account ESD, including climate change projections
f.
be made in such a manner that all of the processes, decision-making and
modelling that underpin the determinations are fully disclosed and subject to
scientific peer-review and consultation with the broader public.
2.
Those determinations will require a greater recovery amount than that which has
already been recovered. In order to achieve a higher recovery amount,
additional water will need to be purchased by the government and held by the
CEWH. That water should be purchased through buybacks.
3. The MDBA — or some other appropriately
funded body — should be required to urgently conduct a review of climate change
risks to the whole of the Basin, based on the best available scientific
knowledge. This should be incorporated into the determination of the ESLT. 4. A
Commonwealth Climate Change Research and Adaptation Authority should be
established. This Authority must be independent of government. It should be
appropriately funded so that it can properly conduct research into climate
change, and formulate plans and give guidance on how the Basin (and other)
communities can best adapt to climate change.
There
are 44 recommendations in the Commissioner’s report in total and the full
report cane be read here.
BACKGROUND
Hard right ideology, ignorance, politics and the greed of irrigators on display over the years.
BACKGROUND
Hard right ideology, ignorance, politics and the greed of irrigators on display over the years.
The
Courier, 15
December 2011:
Opposition Leader [and Liberal MP for Warringah] Tony
Abbott has given his strongest indication yet he will block the Labor
government's Murray Darling Basin plan, telling a rowdy meeting of irrigators
near Griffith the Coalition would "not support a bad plan"…...
The meeting, for which
most businesses in Griffith shut down for the morning so workers could attend,
was the fourth public consultation meeting for the Murray Darling plan, which
aims to return water from irrigation back to the ailing river system to boost
its environmental health….
The scale of irrigators'
anger was made clear by a string of speakers who said towns such as Griffith
would be battered by the basin authority's plan to return 2750 gigalitres of
water to the river system from irrigators.
NATIONALS Riverina MP
Michael McCormack [now
Deputy Prime Minister of Australia] says he's prepared to cross the floor and
vote against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan if it takes away 2750 gigalitres
from primary production for environmental purposes.
Rural communities and
farming stakeholder groups have demanded a final Basin Plan that balances
economic and social outcomes in equal consideration with environmental concerns….
"I won't be voting
in favour of 2750GL coming out of the (Murray-Darling Basin) system, given the
amount of water that's already been bought out of the system.
"I won't be
abstaining - I'll be voting against it."
The
Guardian, 27
July 2017:
Barnaby Joyce [Nationals MP for New England and then
Deputy Prime Minister] has told a pub in a Victorian irrigation
district that the Four Corners program which raised allegations of water theft
was about taking more water from irrigators and shutting down towns.
The deputy prime
minister, agriculture and water minister told a gathering at a Hotel Australia
in Shepparton that he had given water back to agriculture through the Murray
Darling Basin plan so the “greenies were not running the show”.
“We have taken water,
put it back into agriculture, so we could look after you and make sure we don’t
have the greenies running the show basically sending you out the back door, and
that was a hard ask,” he said in comments reported by the ABC.
“A couple of nights ago on Four Corners, you
know what that’s all about? It’s about them trying to take more water off you,
trying to create a calamity. A calamity for which the solution is to take more
water off you, shut more of your towns down.”
Wentworth
Group of Concerned Scientists,
November 2017:
Winter rainfall and
streamflow in the southern Basin have declined since the mid-1990s and the
Basin has warmed by around a degree since 1910. The Basin is likely to
experience significant changes in water availability due to human-caused
climate change, particularly in the southern Basin where annual rainfall is
projected to change by -11 to +5% by 2030. Any reduction in precipitation is
likely to have significant impacts on water flows in rivers, in some cases
driving a threefold reduction in runoff, with implications for water recovery
under the Basin Plan.
Farm
Online, 27
November 2017:
PRIME Minister [and then Liberal MP for Wentworth] Malcolm
Turnbull says the SA government’s Royal Commission into the Murray Darling
Basin Plan is picking an “expensive fight” with the federal government and
upstream Basin States while examining ground that’s already been “very well
tilled”.
Mr Turnbull - the acting
Agriculture and Water Resources Minister in Barnaby Joyce’s absence - spoke to
media yesterday after SA Premier Jay Weatherill and the state’s Water Minister
Ian Hunter revealed they would forge ahead with the Commission
inquiry into water monitoring and compliance issues in the $13 billion Basin
Plan.
News.com.au, 8 March 2018:
A MAJOR cotton grower is
among five people charged for allegedly stealing water from the Murray-Darling
Basin.
Prominent irrigator
Peter Harris and his wife Jane Harris, who farm cotton in NSW’s north-west have
been accused of taking water when the flow did not permit it and breaching
licence conditions.
WaterNSW on Thursday
said it had begun prosecutions after investigating water management rule
breaches.
Three other members of a
prominent family have also been accused of theft.
WaterNSW alleges Anthony
Barlow, Frederick Barlow and Margaret Barlow were pumping during an embargo and
pumping while metering equipment was not working.
The maximum penalty for
each of the offences is $247,500.
The prosecutions were
announced only moments before the NSW Ombudsman released a damning report
saying the WaterNSW had provided the government with incorrect figures on
enforcement actions.
In a special report, the
NSW Ombudsman said WaterNSW had wrongly claimed to have issued 105 penalty
infringements notices and to have initiated 12 prosecutions between July 2017
and November 2017. In fact, no prosecutions had begun nor penalty notices
issued during the period.
The
Weekly Times,
19 December 2018:
Cohuna irrigator Max
Fehring said a push to recover another 450GL would simply mean having to shut
down some irrigation areas.
“The environment push is
out of control, with no connection to the community impacts,” Mr Fehring said.
“You just can’t keep taking water.”
Finley irrigator Waander
van Beek said draining water from the Riverina had reduced the reliability of
supply from about 85 per cent down to 55 per cent.
Mr van Beek’s wife, Pam,
said the district’s irrigators were also angered to see their South Australian
colleagues gaining 100 per cent of their allocations, while they got nothing in
NSW.
Others were angered by
what they see as a waste of water flowing down the Murray to fill South
Australia’s Lower Lakes.
ABC
News, 29 January 2019:
Recent fish kills in western New South Wales have put
Australia's Murray-Darling Basin Planback in the headlines.
However, it has
been at the forefront of some of Australia's top legal minds for the past 12
months, with the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission putting
it under the microscope.......
What is the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
Management of
Australia's biggest water resource has been contentious since before
federation.
History was made in
2012, when Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South
Australia signed up to the national plan, but it remains controversial.
Some believe it does not
provide enough flows to protect the environment, while communities
dependent on irrigation say it threatens their economic future.
Why did SA decide to
hold a royal commission?
In 2017, an ABC Four
Corners investigation uncovered irrigators in New South Wales were taking billions of litres of water earmarked for the environment.
A subsequent report
found poor levels of enforcement and a lack of transparency surrounding
water management in New South Wales and Queensland.
That sparked outcry in
South Australia, at the very end of the system and often the first place to
feel the impact of low water flows.
Then premier Jay
Weatherill said the report did not go far enough, and needed more detailed
findings about individuals who had committed water theft.
He announced the Labor
government would launch a royal commission.
Key players didn't give
evidence
The SA Government came
out swinging with its royal commission, but it didn't take long for it to
beencumbered.
The Federal Government
launched injunction proceedings in the High Court to prevent any Commonwealth
public servants from giving evidence.
That included Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) staff, who are responsible
for implementing the plan.
The Federal Government
argued it was a longstanding legal precedent that state-based royal
commissions did not have the power to compel federal witnesses.
Evidence of
mismanagement and fraud revealed
While the royal
commission could not hear evidence from current MDBA staff, it did hear
from some former senior employees.
They included David
Bell, who at one stage was responsible for setting an environmentally-sustainable
level of water extraction.
He told the inquiry the
amount of water set aside for the environment became a political decision, rather than a scientific one.
The 2010 'Guide to the
proposed Basin Plan' recommended 6,900 gigalitres of water would need to be
returned to the system for there to be a 'low uncertainty' of achieving
environmental outcomes.
In the final 2012 plan,
2,750 gigalitres were allocated.
It also heard from Dr
Matt Colloff, a now retired CSIRO scientist who was part of a team that
worked on a report into the plan.
He told the commission his report was altered by CSIRO management,
under pressure from MDBA staff.
In his closing
submission to the royal commission, counsel assisting Richard Beasley SC said
that by taking social and economic factors into consideration when setting
environmental flows, the MDBA had erred.
"The Murray-Darling
Basin Authority has misinterpreted the Water Act, not in a minor way, not in an
unimportant way, in a crucial way," he said.
"That's not only
error, or worse than error, it's a massive one with regrettable consequences
for the lawfulness of that part of the Basin Plan."
>
Read the full
article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)