Because it is beautiful.......(14)

Arts Northern River Image | Digby Moran, Bundjalung Boondies, 2012, acrylic on canvas, 250 x 180 cm

The message is being sent that the Clarence Valley does not want the Clarence River estuary industrialised and says "No" to a mega port

Letter by local resident and reply by Member of Parliament.

From: Judith Melville [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2016 12:53 AM
To: ElectorateOffice Clarence
Subject: Unsolicited Proposal by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd or Y.P.R. Australia Pty Ltd or Y.P.R Hong Kong or Deakin Capital Pty Ltd for privatization & development of Port of Yamba, NSW

CHRIS GULAPTIS

Member for Clarence

Parliamentary Secretary for the NSW North Coast

NSW Parliament House

Macquarie Street

Sydney NSW 2000

clarence@parliament.nsw.gov.au

16 August 2016

Dear Mr. Gulaptis,

Re: Future Strategic Planning & the Unsolicited Proposal by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd or Y.P.R. Australia Pty Ltd or Y.P.R Hong Kong or Deakin Capital Pty Ltd for privatization & development of Port of Yamba, NSW

The NSW Government-owned Port of Yamba currently comprises “Goodwood Island wharf, a large shed that can accommodate vessels up to 120 metres in length, a small tug wharf and pontoon” which operate on a 24 hour basis [Port Authority of New South Wales Annual Report 2014/15].

The NSW Government has stated in its policy document titled “NSW Freight And Ports Strategy” (2013) that; “Future strategic planning by Sydney Ports will include the regional ports of Eden and Yamba”.

I ask you as the Member for Clarence and Parliamentary Secretary for the NSW North Coast to enquire on my behalf of both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight as to:

a) when this future strategic planning in relation to the Port of Yama is likely to be undertaken; and

b) whether the planning is likely to proceed as far as an intention for extension and technological upgrade of port infrastructure.

I further ask that you make known to Premier Baird and Minister Gay the fact that a number of residents and ratepayers in the Clarence Valley and, particularly those living on the banks of the Clarence River estuary, have publicly expressed concern about the NSW Government’s intentions towards the port [See No Yamba Mega Port at https://www.facebook.com/noyambamegaport/].

Many like myself are opposed to any strategic plan which involves the industrialisation of the Clarence estuary.

Especially if government leaves the door open to privatisation of the port or development along the lines set out in Australian Infrastructure Developments’ expanded proposal for a 36 sq. km infrastructure build covering an est. 27.2 per cent of the entire estuary area in additional to the approx. 20 km channel dredge to a depth of 18 metres [A.I.D. Australia Pty Ltd, Project 1 Port of Yamba at http://www.slideshare.net/DesEuen1/part-2-of-3-v1, September 2015].

Both houses of parliament will be sitting from 23 to 25 August and again from 13 to 15 and 21 to 22 September, which will hopefully allow you ample opportunity to approach the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight.

In anticipation and appreciation of your assistance with this matter.

Yours sincerely,

JUDITH M. MELVILLE

[address redacted]

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: ElectorateOffice Clarence [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2016 1:50 PM
To: 'Judith Melville'
Subject: RE: Unsolicited Proposal by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd or Y.P.R. Australia Pty Ltd or Y.P.R Hong Kong or Deakin Capital Pty Ltd for privatization & development of Port of Yamba, NSW

Good afternoon Judith, and thanks for your e-mail about future strategic planning for the Port of Yamba.

I’m happy to raise your questions in this regard with both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, along with your opposition, and that of many others in the Clarence Valley, to a proposal by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd for a ‘mega port’.

For your interest, I have publicly stated that I believe this project is ‘pie in the sky’ and certainly doesn’t tick any of the social or environmental boxes.

I will contact you again when I hear back from the Premier and Minister.

Regards – Chris

                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter by Greens candidate in the Clarence Valley local government election and reply from office of the NSW Premier.

To: premier@nsw.gov.au

Subject: Yamba Mega Port

Submitted on Tuesday, August 16, 2016 17:24

Submitted by anonymous user: [14.203.252.72]

Submitted values are:

Title: Dr

First Name: Greg

Last Name: Clancy

Organisation: Ecologist

Phone: [redacted]

Email: [redacted]

Street address: [redacted]

Suburb: Coutts Crossing

State: New South Wales

Postcode: 2460

Subject: Yamba Mega Port

Type of enquiry: Message

Message:

The company AID Australia proposes to build a mega port at Yamba, North Coast New South Wales. If this proposal was to be given approval it would have major impacts on the environment, economy and social aspects of the area. Any economic advantage of the port would be outweighed by the losses in the fishing and tourist industries. The estuary provides habitat for over 20 species of migratory shorebird that breed in the northern hemisphere. Australia is party to three international agreements to protect these species, a number of which are now listed as threatened. There are also locally nesting shorebirds that are listed as critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable breeding in the estuary. More details of the proposal and the potential impact can be found on the attached leaflet. This is concerning a large number of Clarence valley residents and visitors to the area who have agreed to fight the proposal tooth and nail. I ask that your government refuse this proposal if, and when, it is formally submitted and ask to be kept abreast of any developments with respect to the proponents submitting an application for development. Yours Faithfully Dr Greg Clancy

I would like a response: Yes, I would like a response

I would like to receive regular updates from the NSW Government: No

End of message

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reference: CMU16-19224

18 August 2016

Dr Greg Clancy

[redacted]

Dear Dr Clancy

On behalf of the Premier I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding the proposed Yamba Mega Port.

The Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight has portfolio responsibility for this issue and I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence for the Minister’s information and consideration.

If you have any further enquiries about this matter please contact the Hon Duncan Gay MLC directly on (02) 8574 5500.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Premier.

Yours sincerely

M. Monahan

Director, Briefings and Correspondence Unit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are two sides to the NSW greyhound racing ban - but only one is focused on stopping the widespread cruelty

The Greyhound Special Commission of Inquiry Factsheet, June 2016:

Of the 97,783 greyhounds bred in the last 12 years, between 48,891 and 68,448 dogs were killed because they were deemed uncompetitive as racing dogs – this equates to a “wastage” rate of 50 to 70 per cent.

Even by reducing the number of races to the minimum required for the industry to remain viable (593), at that wastage rate there would still be 2,000 to 4,000 dogs killed prior to reaching racing age each year.

Evidence of live baiting extends as far back as 2009 and with around 10 to 20 per cent of trainers engaged in the practice, the Commission concluded that there is endemic support for the practice and that GRNSW knew about the practice and did nothing about it.

Greyhound racing is only commercially run in eight countries. The largest of those is the United States where it has been in decline over a number of years with Arizona becoming the 40th state to ban the sport in June this year.

Deaths and injuries went unreported to GRNSW even following a Four Corners report in February 2015 exposing live baiting practices, and the establishment of the Special Commission of Inquiry in May 2016…..

the Commission finds that GRNSW engaged in the conduct knowingly and with the intention of sanitising the information that became available to the public concerning injuries suffered by greyhounds. The motive for the policy was the hope that, by doing so, substantial criticism of the greyhound racing industry in NSW could be avoided.”

“Given these views, and the highly entrenched nature of live baiting as a traditional training method, there is a very real risk that, once the harsh spotlight of this Commission is removed from the industry, the practice of live baiting will thrive once more. It is imperative that regulators take all available steps to try to ensure that this does not occur. That said, as history suggests, there is reason for pessimism on this front.”

The Northern Star lays out the economic reality of the ban on 16 August 2016:

A report prepared by Richmond Valley Council staff for tonight's council meeting includes a case study of a local pet supply shop which is expected to close if the proposed the NSW government's ban on greyhound racing goes ahead in July 2017.

The report recommends that Richmond Valley Council notes that the closure of the NSW Greyhound Racing Industry will lead to a loss of $10.5 million direct investment, 49 jobs and $2.4 million in salaries and wages to the Richmond Valley economy…..

According to the council report, if the greyhound industry ban proceeds Richmond Valley Council will be left with a redundant race track, lose annual revenue and is likely to have to take over maintenance of the facility.

If the industry closes council will also be required to re-home or euthanise the significant number of greyhounds that the current greyhound owners will be left with and in many cases unable to afford to feed leaving them with no alternative other to surrender them to council's animal shelter.

The race track was upgraded from a grass track to an all-weather loam track to improve safety at the start of 2015 at a cost of $850,000 which was funded by the Casino Greyhound Club.

The club pay council $6,500 per annum for the use of the facility.

On the same day a Clarence Valley resident Celeste Warren laid out the case to end this cruel sport:

W.M. Dougherty's letter (DEX 11 Aug, 2016) stated he sighted the paper advertisement from the state government supporting its ban on greyhound racing and was concerned it was 'all about dogs - no mention of humans.....no mention of ...jobs...millions of dollars...way of life...enjoyment....' and  'I got the idea that humans were more important than dogs'.  He was concerned the Baird government considered dogs more important than people.

I'd like to point out, in his letter, there was no mention of:  live baiting, destruction of hundreds of healthy non raceable dogs, each year, short life spans of racing dogs, a certain acceptance of cruelty in the sport as always having been done and not a major issue to be dealt with. 

Cruelty in the sport has been well known and a certain level of acceptance of it is held by those in greyhound racing and the general public.

Greyhound racing has had decades to eradicate cruel practice's and stop and prosecute those who partake in them.  They state they need 'more time'? to put a stop to the living 'wastage' - dogs - and the cruelty within the industry. When did they actually start to stop the 'acceptable' number of cruelty cases within the industry?  How much time do they need to effectively police themselves? 

The Baird government decided that enough time had passed for the greyhound industry to improve itself and seriously deal with its cruelty issues but it just wasn't as important as jobs, millions of dollars, way of life, enjoyment....  Not enough effort was given for the changes.  Not enough of those who love their dogs appeared to want to lobby for change to help other dogs and other animals used in grey hound racing, such as those who are live bait.

I know of some who worked in the industry in Queensland and I saw some of those dogs and saw the result of how they were 'taught' to race.

Will any government also expect other animal sports to 'pull their heads in' or lose them with a banning of their sports?  Probably not.  Why?  Because animal welfare is never, I repeat, never, as important as humans...their money, jobs, enjoyment and rights.  The greyhound industry in NSW is not as great a money spinner as other animal racing is.  Greyhound racing is an easier animal welfare issue for the state government to score points on.  It relieves some animal cruelty issues without too great a dent in the state coffers.  Still, those who care for animal welfare and rights as ''one eyed' as 'we' are, will take what little tidbit we can get in gaining a little more help for our furry friends.

So, Mr. Dougherty, rest easy as animals will never be as important as you and yours.  Enjoy the Queensland races.

Laughing at One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts

Former mining engineer and former Galileo Movement project officer, Senator Malcolm Roberts, is as politically bizarre as it is possible to find in the Australian Senate.

Below is an understandable response to CSIROh! Climate ofDeception? ... Or First Step to Freedom?:

Malcolm Ieuan Roberts three-page CV can be found here.

Australian child sexual abuse royal commission choosing its words carefully

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, media release, 15 August 2016:

Statement on immigration detention centres

15 August, 2016

The Royal Commission does not ordinarily comment upon operational matters. However, because of the level of public discussion in relation to immigration detention centres the Commission indicates the following.

The Royal Commission has an ongoing investigation in relation to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s response to allegations of child sexual abuse in detention centres. Whether or not a public hearing is warranted has not been determined.

The Royal Commission is conscious that a Child Protection Panel was established by the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in May 2015. The Panel’s terms of reference indicate that ‘a final report will be provided to the Secretary by mid-2016 covering both better practice and a comprehensive sample of reviews.’ The Royal Commission anticipates that the report will deal with the Department’s response to, among other matters, allegations of child abuse in detention centres. The Royal Commission will have regard to that report in the course of its investigation into immigration detention issues.

Human Rights Law Centre advice to Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual...

https://www.scribd.com/document/321201052/Human-Rights-Law-Centre-advice-to-Australian-Royal-Commission-into-Institutional-Responses-to-Child-Sexual-Abuse

If you have flu symptoms stay away from aged care facilities, pregnant women and friends with very young children this winter

NSW Health, media release, 16 August 2016:

Protect vulnerable people as flu cases rise: NSW Health

​NSW Health is urging people with flu symptoms to stay away from aged care facilities and vulnerable groups following a spike in influenza presentations to emergency departments and 22 new influenza outbreaks in residential aged care facilities in the last week.   

NSW Health's latest Influenza Report shows that more than 1950 confirmed influenza cases were reported from across the state last week.

Most cases are caused by the influenza A(H3N2) strain of the virus, which is covered by the 2016 seasonal influenza vaccine. Small children and older people tend to be more susceptible to severe influenza infection when influenza A(H3N2) is the predominant strain.

NSW Health's Director Communicable Diseases, Dr Vicky Sheppeard, said when flu was introduced to aged care facilities it was difficult to control as flu vaccination was not as effective in the elderly.

"Nevertheless, as older people are particularly susceptible to contracting the flu it's important they have the vaccination every year to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death," Dr Sheppeard said.

"So far this year we've had 79 outbreaks in residential aged care facilities, affecting around 942 staff and residents, with 45 associated deaths reported in elderly residents with significant underlying illness. It's important that friends and family who may have the flu stay away from these facilities while they are unwell to help prevent the spread of the virus."

Dr Sheppeard said all pregnant women were also strongly advised to have the influenza vaccination to reduce the health risks to themselves and their babies.

"Pregnant women who get influenza are at greater risk of developing serious complications, such as pneumonia, which may result in their hospitalisation," Dr Sheppeard said.

"Children born to vaccinated mothers also have a reduced risk of contracting influenza in the first six months of life."

Dr Sheppeard said while influenza presentations at emergency departments continue to increase each week, the NSW Health system was well prepared to manage the cases.

"The NSW Ministry of Health, Local Health Districts and NSW Ambulance work together to manage surges in demand and improve the transfer of care times for patients during peak periods at hospital emergency departments," Dr Sheppeard said.

"During peak times we encourage people to seek advice from their GPs and Healthdirect, a 24 hour helpline that provides immediate health advice on line from registered nurses."

Symptoms that indicate you have flu include: fever and chills; cough, sore throat and runny or stuffy nose; muscle aches and joint pains; headaches and fatigue; nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea.

The following precautions can be taken to minimise the risk of developing influenza:
• Get vaccinated every year – preferably before winter starts
• Wash your hands regularly, cover coughs and sneezes, and encourage others to do so as well
• Ask sick people to stay away until they are well
• If you are vulnerable to severe influenza see your doctor as soon as flu symptoms start as early treatment of flu can help prevent complications.

For more information see the NSW Health factsheet:
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/influenza_factsheet.aspx.

For over 200 years in Australia we've been destroying the land that feeds us and we refuse to stop

"There's No Task Too Big · 24 Hour Service · Reliable Land Clearing · 25 Years Experience

Services: Crane Work, Land Clearing, Stump Grinding, Tree Surgeons, Tree Chippers, Tree Cutting,….."

[Online advertisement for an Australian business, 13 August 2016]

We have sand hills in Australia which were caused by overgrazing sheep and desert boundaries are slowly encroaching in semi-arid zones.

Two million hectares of land and 20,000 farms are affected by dryland salinity because of over clearing for cropping.

In 2000, some 1,600 km of rail, 19,900 km of roads, and 68 towns were at risk of damage due to salinity [Australian Bureau of Statistics, Measures of Australia's Progress, 2010].

Inappropriate land and water management resulted in exposure or drainage of acid sulfate soils on coastal floodplains and wetlands resulting in periodic outbreaks of fish disease and/or large fish kills.

Sections of the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef are being smothered by topsoil washing into the ocean from agricultural land.

These are just a few of the mistakes we have made in the last 220 years, yet knowing of the problems caused we still do this with very little thought of inevitable consequences………

WWF Australia, media release, 12 August 2016:

An analysis by WWF-Australia reveals that an estimated 40.7 million trees were destroyed in Queensland in 2014-15.

"That's more than one tree bulldozed every second," said WWF-Australia conservation scientist Dr Martin Taylor.

Crucially, 16.1 million of the destroyed trees were in Great Barrier Reef catchments increasing the amount of sludge flowing out to reef waters and harming coral and sea grass.

"Tree clearing is out of control. If we want to save the Reef and stop the decline of koalas we cannot continue to destroy trees at such an alarming rate," he said.

Dr Taylor said the official Queensland Government figures for clearing in 2014-15 contained a disturbing statistic: 71% of the clearing was mature forests that had never been cleared or bushland and forests over 28 years old.

Methodology for the estimate of the number of trees destroyed

Dr Martin Taylor examined the SLATS map and removed any area that was not forest or woodland before the 2014-15 clearing.

Dr Taylor also removed any area of trees destroyed by natural processes such as cyclones (which is categorised by SLATS)

Then Dr Taylor applied the peer-reviewed eco-regional tree density model of Crowther et al and calculated the number of trees cleared.

What 296,000 hectares looks like

On 3 May 2016 the NSW Government released a draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill and draft Local Land Services (Amendment) Bill.  These bills will repeal and replace the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Nature Conservation Trust Act, parts of the National Parks & Wildlife Act; parts of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the Native Vegetation Act.

NSW Shadow Environment Minister Penny Sharpe, 4 August 2016:

A report on vegetation clearing quietly released by the Baird Government has highlighted a disturbing trend of increasing illegal land clearing in NSW.

The data provides a report card on the status, regulation, protection and extent of native vegetation in NSW, and clearly shows the rate of land clearing is increasing even as Mike Baird readies his destructive reforms to weaken land clearing laws.

The report shows clearing skyrocketed from 40,500 ha in 2011/12 to 105,900 ha in 2012/13 (the most recent data available).

Illegal clearing that is defined as "unexplained" agricultural woody clearing is has increased, jumping by 52% in the last two years alone:

Year	"Unexplained" agricultural woody clearing (hectares)
2010/11	3,695
2011/12	4,269
2012/13	5,615

In 2012/13 there was 9,100 ha of clearing on private land, and a massive 60% of that clearing is unexplained.

Clearing is also increasing across the board, including clearing on farms, infrastructure, mining, forestry, and the impact of fire on vegetation.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 2016:

The state's farmers have lopped paddock trees at an accelerating rate in the past 18 months even before a new land-clearing law eases controls further, government data shows.

The new figures, which reveal the rate of clearing of paddock trees has more than doubled since November 2014, come as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists wrote to all MPs to call for a reversal of "retrograde changes" planned in the new Biodiversity Conservation act.

NSW farmers used a new self-assessment code to remove 21,716 paddock trees – or more than 50 a day – over the past year and a half.

The rate, at an average of about 50 per day, was 140 per cent more than the average over the previous seven years, data from the Office of Environment and Heritage showed. Paddock trees, judged to be single or small patches of trees, make up 40 per cent of remaining woodland cover, OEH says.

Satellite monitoring by OEH would probably have detected even more clearing but the public has been left in the dark because the O'Farrell-Baird governments had failed to release a native vegetation report since 2013, Mehreen Faruqi, the Greens environment spokeswoman, said.

The Greens had also sought information on the number of applications OEH received and what if any compliance of the self-assessment codes they conducted, Dr Faruqi said.

"If almost 22,000 trees can be removed under the existing law, then it will be a disaster when new laws that further facilitate land clearing are brought in," she said, adding the latest tree-felling numbers were "the tip of the iceberg".

A spokeswoman for Niall Blair, Minister for Primary Industries, did not address the scale of tree clearing on farms, but said "the proposed Biodiversity Conservation package aims to reverse the decline of biodiversity in NSW because the current system isn't working".

‎"The NSW Government is currently seeking feedback on the draft reforms and stakeholders including environmental groups and farmers are encouraged to put forward a submission before June 28," she said.

Labor's environment spokeswoman, Penny Sharpe, said the figures "ring alarm bells on how far the current biodiversity laws have already been watered down".

"If these laws proceed in their current form, there will be a return to land clearing on a scale unseen for decades in NSW with catastrophic impacts on native animals, soil, water and greenhouse gas emissions," Ms Sharpe said.

Director and Member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists Peter Crosier writing in The Guardian, 6 July 2016:

Laws to stop the broadscale clearing of large areas of native trees and plants in New South Wales have reduced land and water degradation, helped Australia meets its commitments to cut greenhouse emissions and slowed the rate of species extinction. The Baird government now plans to wind back all of these benefits.

At the 2015 election, the Baird government promised that a review of these laws would "enhance the state's biodiversity for the benefit of current and future generations." It was on this basis that the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists supported this review, because we saw an opportunity to modernise the current legislation leading to enhanced biodiversity outcomes, increased financial support for farmers to restore degraded land, while also promoting economic development across NSW.

However, the Wentworth Group has serious concerns about many of the changes announced recently. We believe that these changes, if not addressed, will breach the government's election promise.

Over-clearing of the landscape has resulted in NSW having some of the most degraded land in Australia, with only 10% of native vegetation across the state remaining in close to natural condition. The Native Vegetation Act was introduced in 2003 to address this problem.

This act has been remarkably successful in reducing the level of land clearing from as much as 100,000 hectares per year in the 1980s (the equivalent of half of Sydney's urban area) to less than 12,000 hectares per year now.

This legislation was supported by the NSW Farmers Association as well as environment groups such as WWF, because it brought an end to broadscale land clearing in a way that also promoted sustainable farming. As an example, since the Native Vegetation Act was introduced, approval has been given to manage over 7m hectares of native vegetation on farms across NSW (over 40 times the size of Sydney's urban area), including the eradication of weeds and management of invasive native scrub. This system was designed by farmers and scientists working together. It shows just how effective laws can be in securing the long-term protection of NSW's natural assets while also improving the viability of farming enterprises.

While some of the government's announced changes to these current laws are most welcome, we believe that other elements will substantially weaken existing protections. These retrograde changes risk overwhelming the positive changes, returning NSW to an era of unsustainable land clearing, resulting in more degraded land, more damage to river systems, increased carbon emissions, and the loss of habitat critical to the survival of threatened species.

This would not only be a clear breach of the government's election promise, it will also damage the reputations of those farmers who want to be good stewards, the vast majority of whom are unaffected by the current laws.

One of the positive elements of the announced reforms is a $240m five-year private land conservation fund. This money should be used to help farmers manage native vegetation of high conservation value that should not be cleared, and to offset the cumulative smaller losses that result from route agricultural practices, such as clearing along fence lines. It should not be used to subsidise the broadscale clearing that will result from weakening of the land clearing controls. That is simply a taxpayer subsidy to farmers to degrade land.

The increased greenhouse emissions that will result from these changes means that taxpayers will be hit twice, because it will make our national commitments to reduce Australia's emissions more difficult, resulting in higher costs to taxpayers and other sectors of the economy.

The vast majority of farmers in NSW are, or want to be, good stewards of the land – where healthy landscapes go hand-in-hand with a productive economy. A remarkable 93% of Australian farmers say they practice landcare on their farms.

There are many ways we can support our farmers to manage their land sustainably, by providing them with financial incentives to restore native vegetation on degraded land. This will improve the value of their farms, help reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions, slow the rate of species extinction, enhance rural productivity and create more prosperous rural communities.

We ask the Baird government to amend the draft legislation so that it truly does achieve their objectives of cutting red tape, facilitating ecologically sustainable development, and in doing so honour the promise to enhance the state's biodiversity for the benefit of current and future generations.

Written on behalf of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Law Council of Australia calls for independent oversight of immigration detention in wake of Nauru leaks

In today's political climate is there hope that the free-for-all that is NSW water rights will be curbed?

The Daily Examiner, 8 August 2016, p.16:

VOICES FOR THE EARTH

The water division of the NSW Department of Primary Industry (DPI) is currently undertaking a review of rural landowners' harvestable water rights - the percentage of their property's water run-off they are allowed to take.

Currently landowners bordering permanent water courses are entitled to pump sufficient water for domestic use and livestock without a licence. However, should they wish to take additional water for irrigation or any other reason, a licence is required.

Rural landowners are also entitled to harvestable rights (HR) which, in NSW coastal areas, is 10% of run-off from their properties, an amount determined through complex calculations based on average rainfall. They are also allowed, without formal approval, to construct a dam, or dams, big enough to store that entitlement on smaller upper catchment gullies, known as first and second order streams.

With the increase in the development of intensive horticulture in the region, comes the need for guaranteed water supplies, which invariably includes the construction of large dams, which are then used to irrigate the orchards. However, those dams are continually collecting run-off well in excess of the 10% allowance.

However, when questioned about this seeming anomaly, DPI Water explains: "The harvestable rights relate to dam capacity not to actual usage so there is potential to capture and use more water than the actual dam capacity in an irrigation year."

It gets worse. The laws also allow landowners to build, again without the need for approvals, any number of 'off-stream' storages, i.e. dams that do not collect run-off, into which water can be pumped from the HR dam.

Irrigators have jumped at the opportunity presented by the review, and are lobbying for increased allowances and relaxation of current laws to allow HR dams to be built on the larger, often permanent flowing, third order streams.

Clearly a review is long overdue, and there needs to be strict regulation of the distribution of this precious commodity, which must include compliance monitoring that ensures fairness for all users, particularly the environment.

John Edwards

Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition