Pathetically low fines for non-compliance with rules enforced by the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) leaves Murray-Darling Basin irrigators in NSW laughing all the way to the bank with those dollars earned from what is essentially water theft

 

https://www.mdba.gov.au/importance-murray-darling-basin/where-basin

The State of New South Wales is currently not in drought. However, its rivers often have highly variable water flows so it was not surprising to find the morning of Tuesday 13 July 2021 revealing that WaterNSW State Overview real time data record showed that 14 of the state's rivers were flowing at less than 20%. While 15 of the state's principal dams registered volume levels at between 31.4% and 95.9% of capacity, with another 3 registering over 100% of recommended capacity.

Some of those rivers and dams fall within Murray Darling Basin boundaries.

Apparently - even in time of relative water plenty - healthy rivers, environmental water flows and intergenerational equity are not part of the business plan for many of the irrigators growing cotton, almonds, rice, fruit, vegetables, grape vines and other food & pasture crops - how else does one explain this?

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 July 2021:

Nearly half of the biggest irrigators in NSW have made no effort to install meters that comply with new water laws more than six months after they became mandatory, an audit has found.

The NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator found that 45 per cent of large pumps that draw from rivers and creeks were not using compliant meters to measure how much water was taken, contrary to new laws designed to prevent water theft.

Only 23 per cent were fully compliant with a further third on their way to compliance based on evidence provided by way of invoices, product orders and emails confirming validation appointments.

NRAR’s chief regulatory officer Grant Barnes said there had been “a positive shift” in compliance rates since its desktop audit in April, which found two-thirds of irrigators were non-compliant, but there was still more work to be done with those water users who had neither installed the meters nor made an effort to do so.

“For us, this is about ensuring those water users who have done the right thing and have complied with the regulations get a fair go, and so these results will be disappointing to those people,” Mr Barnes said. “[Compliance] is also important to those who recognise the importance of a social licence for irrigators.”

Individuals who have shown no effort to comply face fines of up to $750 and irrigation companies face $1500 fines.

“The pumps in question here are gigantic, half-meter diameter straws that have the capacity to suck the lifeblood out of our rivers.”

Independent MP Justin Field

The meters were a central recommendation from the 2017 Murray Darling Basin Compliance Review, which found irrigator compliance in NSW and Queensland was “bedevilled by patchy metering, the challenges of measuring unmetered take and the lack of real-time, accurate water accounts”…...

Read the full article here.

Two days remaining to comment on Clarence Valley Council's "Draft Water Restriction Policy - Version 5"

Clarence Valley Council - On Exhibition

Water Restrictions V5 (draft)

Outlines the triggers that we use to introduce or revoke water restrictions.

Purpose

To introduce or revoke water restrictions on the use of reticulated water in the Clarence Valley as required in accordance with the triggers nominated in the procedures and in compliance with relevant Acts.

This policy applies to all properties using water supplied by Council’s water supply infrastructure. The policy does not apply to the use of water from sources that are not part of Council’s water supply infrastructure such as farm dams, watercourses, bores, and rainwater tanks on properties that have no connection to Council’s water supply.

The Draft Water Restrictions policy is available here.

Council welcomes submissions to this policy. Submit online by 11:00 pm on Friday 25 June 2021 by clicking on the Make a Submission button below.

https://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/metro/make-a-submission.asp

Alternatively, comments can be made in writing to the General Manager, Clarence Valley Council, Locked Bag 23, Grafton, NSW 2460 and clearly marked “Draft Water Restrictions Policy".

For further information about the draft policy, please contact Chris Hellyer, Environmental Officer, Education; Water Efficiency < Christopher.Hellyer@clarence.nsw.gov.au >.

NOTE: A major change in Water Restrictions V5 is that the trigger for imposition of Level 1,2, 3 & 4 water restrictions will no longer be the volume of water remaining in the Shannon Creek Dam, but the combined water volume in Shannon Creek and Karangi dams. This in effect will allow water extraction (without accompanying Level 1 water use restrictions) to continue after Shannon Creek Dam water levels have fallen below the current trigger point of 80% of this dam's water storage capacity.

On 17 June 2021 Shannon Creek Dam was 84% full and Karangi Dam was 99.2% full. This means that Permanent Water Conservation Measures are in place for the Clarence Valley -  the use of sprinklers and unattended hoses is banned permanently between the hours of 9am and 4pm every day when evaporation is at its highest. However, there are no restrictions on handheld hoses or micro-sprays and drippers/sub-surface irrigation.

Given that Coffs Harbour City LGA contributes little to water storage in Karangi Dam (water supplied by Orara & Nymboida Rivers & Shannon Creek Dam) and nothing to storage in the Shannon Creek Dam (water supplied by Nymboida River) and, with no backfeed to Clarence Valley LGA according to Karangi Dam's daily data, it will be the higher water use of Coffs Harbour, with an est. resident population 33 per cent larger than Clarence Valley's population, which will all but guarantee that a return to Level 1 restrictions will likely occur before Spring arrives - even though the entire north-east region of NSW is now drought free and expecting more rain.

However it is not just the size of Coffs Harbor City's population which makes its water extraction levels potentially problematic. It's the fact that the resident population does not live in the Clarence River catchment area which leads to widespread misunderstanding of: (i) the boundaries of the actual catchment area; (ii) the highly variable nature of rivers within the system; the actual volume of freshwater flows; and (iii) the point at which the 394km long Clarence River itself - from its rising near Rivertree to its emptying into the sea at the tidal estuary mouth - starts to become saline and increasingly unfit for human and animal consumption as well as unfit to use for irrigation. That point is approximately at the end of the first 286km of its journey to the ocean. The combined average annual flow from the freshwater tributaries as this flow enters the Clarence River tidal pool appears to be in the vicinity of 3,072,884ML, which is perhaps a better indicator than the annual water exchange that occurs between the ocean and the estuary.

Clarence Valley residents will recognise these basic misunderstandings in this quote on Coffs Harbour City Council's website:

“Regardless of whether the water supplying Coffs Harbour City Council residents comes from the Orara River or the Nymboida River, our water all comes from the same catchment.

The mighty Clarence River catchment is 22,716km2 in size, making it the one of the biggest river systems on the east coast of Australia.

The Clarence River catchment headwaters are found around Dorrigo to the south, near Glen Innes in the west, the NSW/QLD border near Woodenbong in the north and along the Richmond Range to the south of Whiporie out to the coast where the Clarence River empties into the Pacific Ocean at Yamba. It is estimated that the average annual flow of water in the Clarence River at Yamba is 5 billion litres.”

The National Water Reform Draft Report has been released - now is the time for concerned Australians to speak up and loudly

If there is one thing that Australians know well by now, it is that state and federal governments frequently take from major reports only those points and recommendations which fit with their own political world view and/or those that can be easily distorted to meet the expectations of their party's financial backers - thus ensuring that little positive change occurs .

Water is the basis of life, without it communities perish and nations go into decline. That is one of the hard facts facing Australia as the impacts of climate change start to bite.

It is time for people to stand up in defence of this country's river and ground water systems and make sure governments understand that the environmental, economic and cultural vandalism they have supported in the past will no longer be tolerated in the present or the future. 

Australian Government, Productivity Commission:

National Water Reform Draft report 

This draft report was released on 11 February 2021. This draft report assesses the progress of the Australian, State and Territory governments towards achieving the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative (NWI), and provides practical advice on future directions for national water reform. 

You are invited to examine the draft report and to make a written submission or brief comment by Wednesday 24 March 2021. 

 Make a submission or Make a brief comment 

The final report is expected to be handed to the Australian Government by the end of June 2021.

Download the draft report

• National Water Reform 2020 - Draft report (PDF - 2256 Kb)
• National Water Reform 2020 - Draft report (Word - 2897 Kb)

The Conversation, 11 February 2021:

Most Australians know all too well how precious water is. Sydney just experienced a severe drought, while towns across New South Wales and Queensland ran out of drinking water. Under climate change, the situation will become more dire, and more common. 

It wasn’t meant to be this way. In 2004, federal, state and territory governments signed up to the National Water Initiative. It was meant to secure Australia’s water supplies through better governance and plans for sustainable use across industry, environment and the community. 

But a report by the Productivity Commission released today says the policy must be updated. It found the National Water Initiative is not fit for the challenges of climate change, a growing population and our changing perceptions of how we value water. 

The report’s findings matter to all Australians, whether you live in a city or a drought-ravaged town. If governments don’t manage water better, on our behalf, then entire communities may disappear. Agriculture will suffer and nature will continue to degrade. It’s time for a change.

The report acknowledges progress in national water reform, and says Australia’s allocation of water resources has improved. But the commission makes clear there’s still much to be done, including: 

• making water infrastructure projects a critical part of the National Water Initiative 

• explicitly recognising how climate change threatens water-sharing agreement between states, users, towns, agriculture and the environment 

• more meaningful recognition of Indigenous rights to water delivering adequate drinking water quality to all Australians, including those in regional and remote communities, especially during drought 

• all states committing to drought management plans.

Read the full article here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February 2021:

A new national water reform report is inundated with positivity. But a closer look leaves you with a sinking feeling.

A glance at the draft report on national water reform from the Productivity Commission reminds me of the repeated judgment from old Mr Grace, the doddering owner of the department store in Are You Being Served? as he headed for the door: "You've all done very well!"

Its review of the progress of the National Water Initiative signed by the federal and state governments in 2004 - encompassing agreements on the Murray-Darling Basin - is terribly polite and relentlessly upbeat.

Apparently, governments have made "good progress" in having "largely achieved" their reform commitments. All that remains is just the need for a teensy-weensy bit of "policy renewal".

This mild-mannered stuff and congratulatory tone bear no resemblance to my memories of meetings of angry farmers railing against stupid greenies and other city slickers; of their insistence that the immediate needs of irrigators and irrigation towns along the river take priority over the river system's ultimate survival; of state governments' insistence on favouring their own irrigators over those in states further down the river; of federal and state National Party ministers happy to slip farmers a quiet favour, turning a blind eye to blatant infringements of the rules; of federal Labor ministers who, even with no seats to lose in the region, were unwilling to make themselves unpopular by standing up for the rivers' future.

I remember that the Howard government spent billions helping individual farmers make their irrigation systems more resistant to evaporation and seepage when all the benefits went to the farmer and none to the river system.

I remember all the infighting between government water agencies, and the mass fish kills during the recent drought in NSW and Queensland, for which the managers of the system accepted no responsibility.

Fortunately, reporters are adept at ignoring all the happy flannel up the front of government reports and finding the carefully hidden bad bits. And we have the assistance of water experts, including Professor Quentin Grafton, of the Australian National University, whose summary of the report in The Conversation is headed: "Our national water policy is outdated, unfair and not fit for climate challenges."

"If governments don't manage water better ... entire communities may disappear. Agriculture will suffer and nature will continue to degrade," he says.

The report's proposal to make "water infrastructure developments" a much larger part of the National Water Initiative is a critical way to keep governments honest. For years, state and federal governments have used taxpayers' dollars to pay for farming water infrastructure that largely benefits big corporate irrigators, Grafton says.

Last year the Morrison government announced a further $2 billion for its Building 21st Century Water Infrastructure project. Such megaprojects, he says, perpetuate the myth that Australia - the driest inhabited continent on Earth - can be "drought-proofed".

When governments signed the original initiative in 2004, they agreed to ensure investments in infrastructure would be both economically viable and ecologically sustainable. But many projects appear to be neither.

The report notes, for example, that building the Dungowan Dam in NSW means "any infrastructure that improves reliability for one user will affect water availability for others". The "prospect of 'new' water is illusory". Projects that aren't economically viable or ecologically sustainable can "burden taxpayers with ongoing costs, discourage efficient water use" and create long-lived impacts on communities and the environment", the report warns.

Equally disturbing is that billions of dollars for water infrastructure are presently targeted primarily at the agriculture and mining industries, while communities in desperate need of clean drinking water miss out, Grafton says.

Luckily, the report isn't so house trained as to avoid mentioning the gorilla the Morrison government prefers not to notice. There's a lot about the consequences of climate change. It says droughts will likely become more intense and frequent and, in many places, water will become scarce.

In Grafton's summary, the report says planning provisions were inadequate to deal with both the millennium drought and the recent drought in Eastern Australia. The 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan, for instance, took no account of climate change when determining how much water to take from waterways.

The present federal government actually dismantled the National Water Commission in 2015, so we no longer have a resourced, well-informed agency to "mark the homework" and make sure the reforms were being implemented as agreed, Grafton says.

In 2007, the worst year of the millennium drought - and the year John Howard feared he'd lose the election if he didn't match Labor's promise to introduce an emissions trading scheme - Howard remarked that "in a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change".

Professor Grafton says we're still waiting for that change. "If Australia is to be prosperous and liveable into the future, governments must urgently implement water reform."

"Schemes for diverting the Clarence have been put forward at regular intervals for close to 100 years, and all have been rejected as being economically unviable, and environmentally devastating, and socially unacceptable."

 

Clarence Valley Independent, 5 December 2020:

Investigating Potential River Diversions

It’s on again! Another plan to solve all inland Australia’s drought problems, by taking supposedly inexhaustible quantities of water from the Clarence River.

The latest scheme comes via a NSW Government draft Regional Water Supply Strategy which at this stage is only listed as an option, suggesting a: “Comprehensive investigation of potential diversion of flows from the east of the Great Dividing Range”.

We really have to ask, how many comprehensive investigations do we need? Schemes for diverting the Clarence have been put forward at regular intervals for close to 100 years, and all have been rejected as being economically unviable, and environmentally devastating, and socially unacceptable.

The Clarence diversion idea has been supported by a mythical 5 million megalitre average annual flow figure and perpetuated by the propensity for modern day consultants to rely on desk-top reviews.

The reality is, Clarence River flows, measured at the Lilydale gauge, have averaged barely 2 million megalitres since it was installed in 1970. So where did the 5 million figure come from?

The last report to quote that amount was by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in 2007, referencing a NSW Water Resources report from 1981, That report in turn referenced a seminar by the Department of Water Resources, which claimed to have “relied on readily available information…”.

Undoubtedly, that ‘readily available’ information’ came from a June 1975 report promoting “The Jackadgery Multi-purpose Dam Project”, which claimed the Clarence “has a long-term average annual runoff of some 5 million megalitres”, but provided no reference.

My guess is that they simply took the readings from the Lilydale gauge which had been installed 4 years earlier and used that 4-year average. However, 1972 recorded the highest ever flows, over 9.5 million megalitres, thus inflating the 4-year average to 5 million.

It’s hard to believe consultants would not check readily available on-line figures from gauges, but I suppose, if you are proposing to pump 1 million megalitres across the range, 5 million looks a lot better than 2 million!

– John Edwards

From 10 November to 6 December 2020 the Clarence River at Lilydale was less than 1 metre in height and, as readers will probably have guessed, the automatic gauge reading on the summer morning of 6 December was 220.4 megalitres. In fact daily water flow had been below 250 megalitres for the previous 12 days.

As for longer period records derived from rainfall, stream water level and discharge rate - the Lilydale gauge has shown monthly water flow rates from1971 to 2020 which do not support the idea that there is 'surplus to needs' water flowing down the Clarence River and into the estuary.

Clarence River at Lilydale, Clarence Valley NSW
IMAGE: realtimedata.waternsw.com.au

Berejiklian Government paying Perth-based mining exploration corporation to drill in the Clarence Valley

 

https://youtu.be/uMhZULC8FvM

It puzzled me at first as to why there was a sudden rash of mining exploration applications and licences granted in the Clarence River catchment.

IMAGE: supplied

After all, over the last twenty or so years there had always been the odd speculative chancer who, after doing damage to the land inside an exploration license area, had moved on to pastures new or run out of funds to proceed.

However, that was before I realised just how toxic was the mix of a federal Morrison Coalition Government and a state Berejiklian Coalition Government -  when combined with the mindless beserker ambitions of the NSW Nationals and their environmental-vandal-in-chief, the current regional csar, NSW Deputy-Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade and MLC for Monaro, The Hon. (John) Giovanni Domenic Barilaro.

A man intent on overseeing the: logging of every harvestable native tree in Clarence Valley forests and open timbered land until the koala and other unique wildlife has gone from the valley never to return; chocking of our hinterland streams and creeks with mining waste or land slippage so that even our larger rivers become compromised; and, clear felling of as much coastal land as possible for the benefit of rapacious property developers.

We are not alone in facing this explosion of exploitative culture - the entire North Coast and the remainder of regional NSW are also in the firing line, as the Nationals minority partner plays the game of mates and a cowed Liberal majority partner in the Coalition looks the other way because it is afraid of being a minority government.

The Berejiklian Government is subsiding exploration. Currently it has granted Perth-based Corazon Mining Limited (the corporation mentioned in the video), a reimbursement of 50 per cent of per-metre drilling costs, up to a maximum of $200,000 with regard to its cobalt-copper-gold exploration lease near Mt. Gilmore approximately 25km northwest of Grafton, as part of the state's New Frontiers Cooperative Drilling program. 

The Mt. Gilmore area is only one of seven areas on the North Coast within which the Berejiklian Government has indicated that it may be willing to subsidise mineral exploration for 'high tech metals'.

If North Coast Voices readers from elsewhere in the regions think that their area is safe from the threat of mining, look closely at the Dept. of Primary Industries MinView mapping of mineral exploration, assessment, mining applications and licenses as of 22 November 2020:

Coal and petroleum are not included in this state-wide mapping.

CLARENCE RIVER CATCHMENT 2020: a culturally, economically, environmentally & socially harmful number of mining applications are in the process of getting the nod from the NSW Berejiklian Coalition Government

Caring for the Clarence from Nathan Oldfield on Vimeo.

In late September 2020 Clarence Valley Council endorsed a submission to the NSW Berejiklian Government’s Inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in NSW, reiterating its opposition (for the fifth time since establishing its policy in 2006) to any diversion of the Clarence River.

Of particular concern to council and the wider valley community is the yet to be completed Mole River dam in Tenterfield shire which has previously been mooted as a holding dam for the diversion of Clarence River catchment water elsewhere by Clarence water first being sent into the Upper Mole River.

Also in September the Clarence Catchment Alliance held an informal public picnic, meeting and open discussion on the riverbank at Lawrence, to talk about mining developments in the Clarence Valley. Discussions focussed on future copper and cobalt mining in the mountains of the Upper Clarence Valley.

Early October 2020 brought news that the Berejiklian Government had backed Corazon Mining Limited, granting a reimbursement of “50 per cent of per-metre drilling costs, up to a maximum of $200,000”, as part of its New Frontiers Cooperative Drilling scheme. Corazon will drill exploration holes around Mount Gilmore (at Gordonbrook Hill 25km northwest of Grafton), “targeting ‘battery metals’ in Australia”, its ‘RIU Resurgence Conference’ document states. “Early stage exploration [is at] play, major upside potential; high-grade copper and cobalt from drilling and rock chips; large surface anomalies in a new region (20km+ strike),” the document states.

That brings to three the number of companies currently undertaking exploration mining in the Clarence Valley. 

Castillo Copper in Cangai is the most progressed. Corazon is on Mt Gilmore in Coombadjha and The Sons of Bavaria are in Ewingar, according to the CLARENCE CATCHMENT ALLIANCE.

Given that the number of exploration licenses applied for or granted in the Clarence River catchment area have grown rapidly in 2020, the level of concern for the headwaters of so many rivers and creeks in also rising in Clarence Valley communities.

 IMAGE: Clarence Catchment Alliance

Needless to say the NSW Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis, former surveyor, property developer and operations manager with a Qld resources/mining consultancy firm, thinks this map is just fine and dandy - nothing to see hear, move along.

BACKGROUND

Clarence Valley Council submission to Inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in NSW, dated 22 September 2020 at:

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/69147/0046%20Clarence%20Valley%20Council.pdf

Ms. Debrah Novak (Clarence Valley councillor) submission to Inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in NSW, dated 21 September 2020 at:

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/69148/0047%20Ms%20Debrah%20Novak.pdf

Clarence Environment Centre submission to Inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in NSW, dated 12 September 2020 at:

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/69075/0008%20Clarence%20Environment%20Centre.pdf

Is illegal water pumping occuring in the Clarence River catchment?

Then and now images of Washpool Creek....

The DailyExaminer, 7 January 2020

A large water tanker was discovered syphoning water from the Washpool - possibly without formal permission.

Witnesses say the tanker was well hidden.

Washpool Creek like other water courses is experiencing low flows due to the severe drought.

Baryugil Aboriginal Land Council intends to discuss the matter at its next board meeting and will pass on any information it uncovers to the NSW Dept of Primary Industries.

Valley Watch Inc: the idea that water can be diverted from one river system to another is flawed

The Daily Examiner, letter to the editor, 8 November 2019, p.9:

Water diversion lesson seemingly unlearnt

The issue of water availability for agriculture and communities has been a hot topic this year and the diversion of water from the Clarence River to areas west of the range is again to the forefront.

The idea that water can be diverted from one river system to another is flawed. Commentary on the mismanagement of the Murray-Darling has been with us for the last decade. Have we learnt nothing from that?

Originally water licences were attached to the land and passed with the land when land was sold. Subsequently water licences were separated from the land and could be sold on the open market. This entitled those who acquired large water allocations to collect and store large amounts of water.

We have seen the Upper Darling sucked dry, leaving little water for downstream farmers or the wildlife. The ensuing ecological catastrophe is a national disaster.

This brings us back to the Clarence. It makes no sense to tamper with this complex estuary by diverting water from it. One could argue that floodwater is wasted running out to sea, however flood is a natural phenomenon. Floods provide fertile soils, richer harvests, healthier forests and habitats for a variety of fish and wildlife.

Only the large corporate operators will benefit. It won’t be the small landowners or fishers who most need it.

What the Clarence Valley offers is a natural environment that underpins our tourism, fishing and agricultural industries. We urge politicians and local council to look at long-term and sustainable management of this wonderful waterway.

Graeme Granleese,

Valley Watch Inc.

Meet some of Meet Scott Morrsison's "indulgent" environmental "anarchists" as they sing about 200 weeks of continuous protest

Terrifying bunch aren't they? One can just see they have molotov cocktails in their back pockets and are planning violent chaos. 

Scott Morrison is such a fool.  

Sign the petition below if you want to be alerted when the Narrabri Gas Project is referred to the IPC for a public hearing and a decision. And here's the Knitting Nannas in Martin Place today - 200 wks of protests! Sign the petition: https://t.co/F1iJfSj9HO?amp=1

— Lock the Gate (@LockTheGate) November 1, 2019

Clarence River water raiders still meeting opposition to their plans

The Daily Examiner, 12 October 2019:

In a not-so-strange coincidence it was the mayor of Tenterfield who had a starring role in the origins of the Not a Drop campaign in 2006.

In words eerily similar to those being heard today, the then Mayor of Tenterfield, Keith Pickstone, said “We are in a drastic situation so anything has to be looked at, whether it be damming or diverting.”

But while it was Mr Pickstone who was front and centre at the launch of Not a Drop on December 16, 2006, Peter Ellem, The Daily Examiner editor at the time, explained he wasn’t the catalyst.

“It was (Malcolm) Turnbull’s intervention in it, it was the federal intervention.”

At the time Malcolm Turnbull, parliamentary secretary for Water and then Minister for Water and Environment, commissioned a study into the feasibility of the Northern Rivers sharing water with a drought ravaged south-east Queensland.

The resurrection of the Clarence River diversion at a federal level prompted The Daily Examiner to run a campaign Mr Ellem says was “one of the more high-profile” campaigns run during his time there.

Having researched the many diversion schemes which had come before, Mr Ellem said “it just didn’t seem right” that our river system should be “violated” to patch up other river systems.

In his editorial launching the campaign – printed opposite – he outlined clearly why the paper was taking a stand.

This stood in stark contrast to the Examiner’s interventions back before 1969 and Mr Ellem put that down to a change in the way the community understood environmental issues and scrutinised people in public life.

“It was a very different time.

“The environment didn’t rate a mention and the science would not have been developed to a great degree back then.”

Mr Ellem looks back on that time with pride and says you can still see the odd Not a Drop bumper sticker on the back of a ute.

“It tapped into a very strong public sentiment which remains solid. My view is there is only a very small minority of people who entertain the idea (of diversion).”

Groundwater plays a critical role for rivers worldwide and many aquifers are in trouble

National Geographic, 2 October 2019:

There’s more fresh water hidden below Earth’s surface in underground aquifers than any other source besides the ice sheets. That groundwater plays a critical role for rivers worldwide, from the San Pedro to the Ganges, keeping them running even when droughts bring their waters low. 

But in recent decades humans have pumped trillions of gallons out of those underground reservoirs. The result, says research published Wednesday in Nature, is a “slow desiccation” of thousands of river ecosystems worldwide. Already, somewhere between 15 and 21 percent of watersheds that experience groundwater extraction have slipped past a critical ecological threshold, the authors say—and by 2050, that number could skyrocket to somewhere between 40 and 79 percent. 

That means hundreds of rivers and streams around the world would become so water-stressed that their flora and fauna would hit a danger point, says Inge de Graaf, the lead author of the study and a hydrologist at the University of Freiburg. 

“We can really consider this ecological effect like a ticking time bomb,” she says. “If we pump the groundwater now, we don’t see the impacts until like 10 years further or even longer. So what we do right now will impact our environment for many years to come.” 

Groundwater holds up modern life 

The last undammed river in the U.S. Southwest, the San Pedro of southwestern Arizona, used to gush and roil. Birds chirped and splashed on its banks when they stopped by on their migrations. Rare fish swam in its pools. 

But in the 1940s, wells started to pop up in the nearby area, sucking clean, cool water out of the region’s underground aquifers. 

It turned out that a good portion of the water that flowed through the river came not from rain and upstream snowmelt, but from those underground sources. The more water that got pumped out of the aquifers, the less flowed into the river—and the wetlands, cottonwood stands, fauna, and rushing waters of the San Pedro all suffered. 

Groundwater is the hidden scaffold propping up much of modern life. Globally, about 40 percent of the food we grow is watered with liquid extracted from below Earth’s surface. 

But many of the aquifers from which this water is extracted took hundreds, or even tens of thousands of years to fill: The water inside may have percolated through cracks in the earth when giant ice sheets last covered New York City 20 thousand years ago. 

Much of that water is being removed much faster than it can be replenished. That has enormous potential consequences for people who want to drink water grow and crops in areas that don’t get enough rain. But far before those impacts emerge, the effects will—and in fact already have—hit rivers, streams, and the habitats around them. 

“Think of an aquifer like a bathtub full of water and sand,” explains Eloise Kendy, a freshwater scientist at the Nature Conservancy. Then, imagine running your finger lightly through the top of the sand, creating a little trail. That little trail fills up with water that percolates through the sand into the “stream.” 

“If you pump out just a little bit of water out of the bathtub, that stream is going to dry out, even though there’s plenty of water still left in the bathtub,” she says. "But as far as healthy rivers go, you’ve destroyed it. But because rivers don’t scream and shout, we don’t necessarily know that they’re in trouble.” 

Read the full article here.

A reminder of some of the times Clarence Valley communities said 'No' to Murray-Darling Basin water raiders in the last 80 years

Queensland Times (Ipswich Qld), 13 May 1947:

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate, 13 March 1950:

Warwick Daily News (Qld), 11  January 1952:

Images from Trove, retrieved 28 September 2019

The Daily Examiner

26 September 1969:

CANBERRA, Thurs. — A $400 million scheme to divert the surplus waters of the Clarence River into the Darling was submitted to the Commonwealth to-day.

Cost of the scheme, to be met primarily by the Commonwealth, would be spread over 30 years.

A deputation of eight members of the Barwon-Darling Water Association submitted the plan to the Minister for National Development, Mr. David Fairbairn.

Almost on par with the great Snowy Mountain hydro-electric scheme, it envisages:

A multi-million increase in wool production.

A vast outback development in decentralisation.

Attraction of many thousands of farmers to the west.

Substantial increase in storage capacity of the Darling.

Additional houses, schools and industry “out west.”

Overall revitalisation of farming and grazing development.

27 September 1969:

Local Needs Before Diversion Of Water

The diversion of surplus waters of the Clarence River to the west should only be considered after a thorough investigation of the potential for development and the water requirements of our own valley have been ascertained.”

The Mayor of Grafton and chairman of the Clarence River (Flood Mitigation) County Council, Ald. N. G. Weiley, made this comment last night.

Clarence Environment Centre, June 2007:

Let the rivers run to the sea

The notion of diverting water from the Clarence River catchment to other parts of Australia surfaces every few years. It usually gets dismissed as the hare-brained scheme of some mad old engineer or outback dinosaur mayor.

This time it feels different. A combination of factors – badly-planned urban growth in southeast Queensland, the upcoming Federal election and the drought– have led to the Clarence coming under the cold and acquisitive eye of the Federal government and its engineers.

Minister for Environment and Water Resources Malcolm Turnbull commissioned the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to do a ‘short term desk-top review on the identification and definition of issues associated with improving urban water supply security in South East Queensland and North East New South Wales by accessing water from the Northern Rivers of NSW.’ 

Bumper sticker from the successfu 2007 'Not A Drop' campaign against damming and diverting Clarence River catchment water:

The Northern Star, 14 February 2013:

"HOW dare they even mention the words dam or diversion."

That was the reaction of Page MP Janelle Saffin on Thursday to the news the Coalition was considering building dams and a weir on the Clarence and Mann rivers.

Water from the dams and the weir would be piped to the Logan River in Queensland.

A leaked draft Coalition policy discussion paper obtained by News Limited contained proposals to build up to 100 dams across Australia.

The idea to divert water from the Clarence has been kicked around for decades but has always met with fierce opposition.

Ms Saffin said she was "disturbed but not surprised" by the report.

"The federal Liberal and National parties still have their eyes on the Clarence," Ms Saffin told APN Newsdesk.

"They talk a lot about diverting rivers, about damming without any consultation whatsoever with local communities, local councils.

"It's fanciful to think you can talk about damming or diverting the Clarence. You can't."

Ms Saffin predicted the issue of damming or diverting water from the Clarence Valley would become an election issue, just as it was in 2007 when Malcolm Turnbull was water minister.

She referred to The Daily Examiner's successful Not A Drop campaign and said the community sentiment remained six years on.

"It still exists and in fact it would be stronger. With the issues swirling around with CSG and water there's even more of a strong feeling in the community about 'don't touch our water'," she said.

"To even hear a hint the Federal Coalition ... would go near the Clarence is enough to scare people."

Ms Saffin did concede each dam proposal should be treated on its merits, but said it was not an option for the Clarence.

As if sensing the political damage the leaking of the report might do to his chances of wresting Page from Ms Saffin, Nationals candidate Kevin Hogan issued a statement "categorically ruling out" the damming of the Clarence or Mann rivers.......

The Daily Examiner via Press Reader, 19 May 2018: