Policy
or Regulation
Council
has previously established its policy position on proposals to divert the
Clarence River through various Council resolutions. At its meeting of 18
October 2006 Council resolved (Resolution 12.005/06):
That Council oppose the diversion,
damming or re-directing of water from the Clarence River.
Council again
resolved at its meeting of 17 April 2007 (Resolution 05.006/07): That the
report on the Clarence River diversion proposal be received and noted and that
Clarence Valley Council reiterates its policy position of total opposition to
any proposal that would result in any diversion of water from Clarence
catchments.
When the issue of diversion was proposed to be debated at the Local
Government & Shires Association (LGSA) Conference in 2007, Council resolved
at its meeting of 15 May 2007 (Resolution 05.008/07):
That the following late
Motion be placed before the forthcoming Annual Conference of the Shires
Association of New South Wales. “That the Associations approach both the State and
Federal Governments expressing their total opposition to any proposal for river
diversion.”
As
outlined in Report 05.009/07 to the Council meeting of 19 June 2007, it was not
possible to put the late motion as the LGSA Conference resolved “That the Association pursue with the
Federal Minister for Environment and water, measures to address the current and
future concerns with water shortages for inland cities, towns and communities
posed by the current drought and future droughts, and that the National Water
Initiative consider ways and means of so addressing”.
At
its meeting of 16 November 2010 Council again confirmed its opposition to
Diversion (Resolution 10.017/10):
The Council again register it strong
opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.
Clarence Valley Council submission to a NSW Upper House inquiry to which Griffith City Council made a submission asking that an old scheme for damming and diverting freshwater from the Boyd, Mann, Nymboida and Timbarra rivers (Clarence River tributaries) be considered:
10
August 2016
Reference:
DWS#1682591
Contact: Greg Mashiah
The
Director
General
Purpose Standing Committee No 5
Legislative Council
Parliament
House
Macquarie
Street
SYDNEY
NSW 2000
Dear
Sir
Inquiry
into Water Augmentation in Rural and Regional New South Wales - Submission
Thank
you for the opportunity for Council to make a submission to the above enquiry.
Clarence Valley Council is located on the north coast of NSW and contains most
of the Clarence River catchment within its area. The Clarence River is the
largest coastal river in NSW. Council is a Local Water Utility (LWU)
responsible for sewer and water services to urban area and also provides bulk
water to the adjoining Coffs Harbour City Council. Clarence Valley Council is
also responsible for floodplain management.
Council’s
submission responds to three items in the terms of reference which are
considered relevant to Council’s operations:
1b)
Examine the suitability of existing New South Wales water storages and any
future schemes for augmentation of water supply for New South Wales, including
the potential for acquifer discharge.
Clarence
Valley and its neighbouring Coffs Harbour City Council have jointly developed a
Regional Water Supply (RWS) scheme to provide water security to residents until
at least the year 2046. The RWS comprise:
· A “build” element,
which comprises a pipeline linking the two Council water supplies which was
completed in 2004 and construction of a 30,000ML off-creek storage at Shannon
Creek which was completed in 2009. The Shannon Creek Dam storage is designed
for future raising to 75,000ML capacity to service demand beyond 2046. The
storage is “transparent” to its catchment in that all runoff from the catchment
is required to be released to match the pre-storage hydrologic.
The
RWS project, which was recognised with multiple industry awards including the
prestigious International Water Association’s Asia-Pacific Project Innovation
Award in the planning category, demonstrates how regional Local Water Utilities
can jointly plan and deliver water infrastructure to meet future needs
including provision of suitable water storages.
One
significant concern for Council is that, while the RWS storage has been
designed to be augmented to 75,000ML to provide capacity for development beyond
2046, future legislative changes may adversely impact this option. It is
therefore requested that the Committee consider this issue.
1d)
examine the 50 year flood history in New South Wales, particularly in northern
coastal New South Wales, including the financial and human cost.
Since 1966 the Clarence River has experienced 29 floods which exceeded the
“minor” flood level at the Prince Street gauge in Grafton (2.10m), and of those
17 were classified as “major” floods (>5,40m). Four floods in a single year
were experienced in both 1974 and 1976, and three floods in a single year were
experienced in 1967 and 2013.
The
town of Grafton is protected by a flood levee which provides protection up to
approximately the 5% Average Exceedance Probability (AEP) event, and the town
of Maclean is protected by a levee which provides protection up to
approximately the 2% AEP event. Since the Grafton and Maclean levees were
constructed in the 1970s they have not been overtopped, although in January
2013 at Grafton the flood height was equal to the top of the levee, requiring
evacuation of a small area of the town.
In
the March 2001 and May 2009 floods, evacuation of all of Grafton was ordered
due to uncertainty about whether the flood levee would be overtopped if the
predicted flood heights were reached, and how the flood would behave once the
levee was overtopped. As well as the evacuation having a significant financial
and social cost for residents, as the levees were not overtopped it also
increases future risk of people not evacuating when ordered. In 2011 Council
completed a detailed flood levee overtopping study which included extensive 2-D
computer modelling. The flood levee overtopping study is considered to have
given excellent value for money as in 2013 it enabled evacuation to be confined
to the immediate affected area.
A
significant human cost of flooding on all residents is post flood clean-up. To
reduce the impact on residents Council generally collects flood damaged items
which are put on the kerbside by residents, waives its tip fees for disposal of
flood damaged items and also offers residents affected by flood mud a rebate on
their water bills. Council also assisted with the provision of the Flood
Recovery Centre for residents, which provided a “one stop shop” for flood
impacted residents.
A
significant issue for Council is the increasingly limited and narrow
interpretation of Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA),
which have left the full cost of much essential infrastructure flood damage
repair with Council.
As
one example, a flood levee damaged in the 2013 flood incurred repair costs of
$710,000 but only $98,625 funding was received for this item. The apparent
basis for the reduced funding was that under the NDRRA the works were assessed
as “riverbank” works; notwithstanding that detailed geotechnical and
engineering reports supported Council’s position that the riverbank formed an
integral part of the levee at this location and should therefore have qualified
as essential public infrastructure. It is requested that as part of this item
of the terms of reference the committee consider the NDRRA arrangements as the
current interpretation results in cost shifting of repairs to essential public
infrastructure to Council.
There
are financial and human costs of flooding beyond Council’s costs. Financial
costs are common for industries such as agricultural, transport and tourism.
The financial impacts on these industries has been repeatedly mentioned after
the three recent major flood experiences in the Clarence Valley in 2009, 2011
and 2013. Agricultural financial impacts are usually associated with the loss
of crops, livestock, fences, machinery, etc. Transport impacts are associated
with the closure of key transport routes resulting in the very long truck
‘parking’ areas either side of locations such as Grafton. The tourism industry
impacts are both short-term (cancellations of bookings) and longer term with
potential of a tarnished tourism image. Regarding human costs, a recurring
theme in the post flood recovery mental health problems related to flooding.
The NSW State Government established Clarence Valley Flood Recovery Committees
after the 2009 and 2013 floods which comprised representatives from state
government agencies and Council, and the final reports from these Committees
should assist the Inquiry with further information on the financial and human
cost of flooding.
1e)
examine technologies available to mitigate flood damage, including diversion
systems, and the scope of infrastructure needed to support water augmentation,
by diversion, for rural and regional New South Wales.
The diversion of the Clarence to west of the Great Dividing Range has been
suggested by some people as a possible way that flood damage could be mitigated,
with a supposed benefit of providing water for western areas. Council has
considered this issue and its position has consistently been that diversion of
the Clarence is opposed, as summarised by Council resolution 10.017/10 at its
meeting of 16 November 2010:
The Council again register it strong
opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.
Council’s
position in this matter has not changed, and Council considers that any
proposal to divert the Clarence River cannot be justified from an economic,
environmental or social perspective.
If
you require further information please contact Council’s Manager Water Cycle,
Mr Greg Mashiah, telephone 6645-0244 or 0428-112-982.
Yours
faithfully
Scott
Greensill
General Manager
The assault on the water security of NSW coastal rivers is not just head on. Murray-Darling Basin councils are also now lobbying to change the federal Water Act so that more weight is given to their social and economic arguments when freshwater augmentation or inter-basin water transfer is considered.
Item 6.1 - Final
Report of the Commonwealth Senate Select Committee into the Murray Darling
Basin Plan
The Final Report titled
“Refreshing the Plan” was tabled in the Senate on 17th March 2016 and is
currently the subject of review through the Minister for Minister for
Agriculture and Water Resources the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP and the Departmental
Officials, with a response due by mid June 2016.
RESOLVED that RAMROC
continue to strongly advocate to the Commonwealth Government the merit and
value of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Senate Select
Committee into the Murray Darling Basin Plan, particularly Recommendation 25
relating to proposed amendments to the Water Act 2007 to provide for a triple
bottom line equal balance of environmental, social, and economic outcomes.
(Moved Albury and seconded Hay)
Now that local governments in the Murray-Darling Basin are again discussing raiding Clarence Valley fresh water, it is worthwhile remembering 2007......
BY
JOHN McGUREN
Clarence
River Professional Fishermen's Association
STORM
clouds continue to gather over the Clarence River, but sadly they are the type
that threaten its ruin rather than rain.
In
comments reported in The Daily Examiner on Tuesday, federal Environment
Minister Malcolm Turnbull made it very clear the Howard Government was now
virtually committed to the diversion of water from northern NSW into
Queensland.
Alluding
to the imminent release of results from his feasibility study into such a
concept, Mr Turnbull also said a water diversion from NSW would be far cheaper
than one from anywhere in Queensland.
Why
is he saying that? Because he already knows the outcome of the study and is
simply being too cute by half in playing politics with its release and treating
us all like little mushrooms.
No
surprise there as he hasn't even bothered to speak to any of the tens of
thousands of NSW residents who will be directly affected by his fool hardy
scheme.
The
National Water Commission (NWC) has confirmed this week a desk top study by the
Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) will show it is technically
feasible to divert water from both the Clarence and the Tweed rivers into
Queensland.
Commissioned
by Mr Turnbull and due to be released in the coming weeks, an early draft of
the SMEC report has ruled the Clarence and Tweed rivers in as potential
diversion candidates, while rejecting the Richmond River.
The
outcomes of the SMEC study are focused on engineering feasibility and costs,
including constructing dams and other infrastructure and derived from a review
of existing information and previous studies.
As
we have feared all along, this study has been commissioned for the express
political purpose of giving Mr Turnbull's grand act of environmental vandalism
economic credibility.
The
report estimates up to 100,000 mega litres ? roughly enough water to fill
Sydney Harbour twice ? per year could be harvested from the Clarence at a cost
of between $1.60 and $2.05 per kilolitre, giving a total supply cost of around
$160million to $200million. Mr Turnbull knows all this already.
In
his Droplets newsletter, Mike Young, of the University of Adelaide, suggests on
average Murray Darling system high security water allocations ? which can
include municipal, industrial and irrigation uses ? cost around $1,500/ML,
which is just below the SMEC report lower estimate of supply costs for water
diverted from the Clarence.
This
would seem to put the whole diversion concept very much in the ballpark from a
cost and feasibility standpoint and should shake us all out of any complacency
stemming from misguided and outdated misconceptions that it's all just too
expensive and too difficult.
Add
to that the growing willingness of the states to cede powers to the Australian
government and this nightmare starts to look very much more like a frightening
reality.
Figures
like that also give added credence to the growing concerns of state premiers
regarding who will ultimately have their hands on the Australian water cash
register as it rings up billions of dollars of water allocations into the
future.
Just
how high might the selling price of water go and just who exactly stands to
pocket the wealth generated off the back of the Clarence River being plundered
for profit, like the Murray, the Darling, the Snowy and so many other great
river systems before it?
Make
no mistake, this proposal is as much about money and profits as it is about any
notion of pulling together for the national good.
As
a community and as responsible Australians are we really prepared to stand by
and see the ecology of the Clarence River and the vital industries and
unparalleled quality of life that it underpins sold off to the highest bidder?
I
sincerely hope we are made of better stuff than that and can look back in years
to come and say with pride that we saw through
all the politics and fought hard to save the magnificent Clarence River.
