Showing posts with label dam & divert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dam & divert. Show all posts

Friday 25 March 2022

There is political madness in the air as barely hidden agendas make a mockery of the ongoing trauma in communities hit by NSW Floods February-March 2022

 

Desperate to eliminate all discussion of climate change from the public debate ahead of the federal election campaign, the Morrison Government has given the nod for the CSIRO to be granted est. $10 million dollars via the federal National Recovery and Resilience Agency (NRRA) to study how to manage floodwater within the Wilson and Richmond river catchments with definitely no mention of funding for national, state or regional mitigation measures to tackle for the root cause of extreme flooding events - climate change. 


The Coordinator General of the NRRA, Shane Stone, is reported as stating that flood management study is expected to take up to two years.


According to one National Party member of the Morrison Government, Page MP Kevin Hogan (middle with Steven Krieg on his left), the results of this study are a done deal: "For too long, previous councils have debated the merits of flood mitigation. Today that debate is done. For everyone who is against engineering solutions to flood mitigation, the debate is over."   


Predictably, National Party-supported Lismore Mayor Steven Krieg blindly echoes this pre-empting of the CSIRO's study report while on the same breath assuring the region that is not what he is doing.


This bold pre-emptive statement hides a multitude of misconceptions about the function of a dam, because the primary function of a dam can be water sustainability/storage or flood mitigation.


Water sustainability/storage requires a dam to be constantly around 90 per cent capacity to fully meet its primary function and to justify the many millions spent on its construction and ongoing maintenance.


Flood mitigation requires a dam to always be almost empty and every time its water level rises significantly that water needs to be released back into the river system that feeds it in order to maintain flood mitigation capacity.


Trying to combine both functions in the same dam on a floodplain would require an enormous, over-designed dam built at prohibitive financial and environmental cost. A constant looming presence in the landscape likely to give downstream farmers and homeowners more than a few troubled nights.


And let's face it, there is actual income to be made out of water storage dams not empty dams, so the temptation for a gradual shift in purpose from flood mitigation to water sustainability/storage would be there from the very beginning - with the potential for lethal consequences during mega floods or a multiple flood year in the catchment when there is insufficient capacity remaining to retain all the floodwater reaching such a repurposed dam.


There is already renewed talk of damming and diverting water from NSW coastal rivers inland or across the NSW-Qld border and it appears that nothing would please the Perrottet Government more than finding an excuse for inter-catchment water transfer to satisfy the needs of rapacious councils, property developers and irrigators outside of the Northern Rivers region, as well as the wants of that unhealthy coterie of political donors/dodgy water traders. 


This motley collection of National Party ideologues and mindless political agitators need to stop acting as a wrecking ball and build on local knowledge and expertise in order to genuinely assess all the solutions being offered up Lismore and the Northern Rivers region.



BACKGROUND 

There are thirty-six signatories to this document sponsored by the Climate Council of Australia. 


MARCH 2022 Statement From A... by clarencegirl


https://www.scribd.com/document/566391016/MARCH-2022-Statement-From-Australian-Mayors-And-Councillors-Extreme-weather-is-hurting-Australia-and-our-communities-are-paying-the-price


Council Magazine, 7 March 2022:


The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has called for a targeted $200 million per year disaster mitigation fund, for local governments to address the impacts of climate change and help increase Australia’s resiliency.


ALGA President, Linda Scott, said the Association is seeking the disaster mitigation fund as well as an extra $200 million over four years for a Local Government Climate Response Partnership Fund.


In 2014, the Productivity Commission recommended increased investment in disaster mitigation, but currently less than five per cent of disaster funding in Australia goes towards mitigation and community resilience measures,” Cr Scott said.


We appreciate the support that has quickly been provided by states and the Commonwealth to households and communities impacted by these devastating floods in Queensland and New South Wales.


However, we need greater investment in disaster mitigation and climate change adaptation to reduce the severity and impact of future natural disasters.


The current legislation allows for $200 million per year to be spent from the Federal Government’s $4.8 billion Emergency Management Fund.


However, since 2019 the Government has only committed $150 million in total from this fund.


This month’s Federal Budget is an opportunity for the Commonwealth to provide additional assistance that will help protect our communities from increasing disaster events.


Investing in mitigation makes economic sense, and significantly reduces the costs governments incur during recovery.”


Cr Scott said ALGA is also advocating for a Local Government Climate Response Partnership Fund of $200 million over four years to help councils address the impacts of climate change in their communities.


Across our nation, we are seeing floods and fires that are more severe, and more destructive,” Cr Scott said.


Providing our councils with funding to address the impacts of climate change in our communities will help us increase our resilience to future natural disasters.”


The Guardian, 23 March 2022:


Lismore council has been gripped by in-fighting over whether it should make references to “climate change” following the flood disaster and a decision to pause its work on flood mitigation despite warnings the “optics” of doing so were “not good”.


The disaster-ravaged town is still in the early stages of recovering from an unprecedented 14.4-metre flood, which wiped out thousands of homes and businesses and brought Lismore to its knees.


On Tuesday, in a late-night sitting, Lismore council proposed a message of thanks to volunteers and the community for their efforts in the immediate response and clean-up effort.


It included a line saying the council “acknowledges we are likely to experience further disasters of this nature as climate change continues to escalate”.


The words “climate change” prompted a reaction from four councillors, led by independent councillor Big Rob, who attempted to have the reference removed and replaced with a line saying “we are definitely going to experience further disasters of this nature”.


Rob – who says he does not deny climate change but likes to “stir up lefties” – said he did not think a message of community support was the right place to make “political” statements about climate change.


That motion was about thanking people, not being political about climate change,” he said…….


The effort to delete the reference to climate change failed. But it rankled other councillors, including Greens councillor Adam Guise, who first proposed the climate change reference be added.


They tried to couch it as not politicising it,” Guise said . “But this is the whole thing about climate change, it’s not political, it’s science.”


The dispute came amid further divisions within council over a decision to halt the work of a key committee working to improve flood mitigation measures in Lismore.


That occurred despite councillors acknowledging the “optics” of pausing the flood mitigation committee so soon after a disaster were “not good”.


The council has also sacked members of the Lismore community who were on a community reference group advising council on flood mitigation.


On Tuesday, at 11pm, the council decided to pause the work of the floodplain committee to wait for more information from CSIRO, which has been given $10m to explore flood mitigation measures in the region.


Lismore council decided it should hold off doing any further work on flood mitigation of its own until it understood what CSIRO was doing.


But councillor Vanessa Ekins, who chairs the committee, warned that could take months. She said pausing the committee was “very dangerous ground” and would not look good to Lismore residents.


We have just been through a big flood, we are still experiencing that and for us to send a message out there that we are pausing work that we have been working really hard on for years until we hear what the CSIRO are doing … they might take six months to tell us what they’re doing,” she said.


This could take a really, really long time and meanwhile our community has no guidance from us, we’re not doing anything, we’ve paused the consultation we’re currently engaged in until someone else tells us what they’re doing.”


She said the decision was “absolutely outrageous”.


It’s really important that our flood plain committee continues the work that it’s been doing for the last five years on mitigating the impacts of flooding on the CBD and residences,” she said. “We were in the middle of a consultation process with members of the community about various options.”


Others were furious that community members had been sacked from the committee so soon after the floods.


We had community members on that committee with five years’ experience and expertise in understanding the mitigation options that were before us,” councillor Elly Bird said. “To throw all of that experience away, I don’t support it.”


Tuesday 9 November 2021

NSW National Party - determined as ever to ignore the rights of traditional owners and vulnerable biodiverse landscapes - are investigating dam & diversion options in northern coastal river catchments


Rous County Council - which has bulk water supply responsibilities across the Ballina, Byron, Lismore City and Richmond Valley local government areas - in a 5 to 3 vote put aside the 253ha Dunoon Dam proposal for the next four to five years to enable comprehensive talks to occur with Widjabul Wia-bal traditional owners before going back into the plan.


Instead, it is exploring groundwater and recycling options with the aim of securing water supplies by 2024-2030.


However, there are objections to this course of action within the county council and in the broader community, along with disturbing echoes of colonial racism.


Section of the Channon Gorge, the proposed site of the Dunoon Dam wall
IMAGE: David Lowe












The proposed Dunoon Dam would be the second dam in the Rocky Creek sub-catchment, which if it becomes the preferred option would leave only approx. 4 kms as the crow flies between these two bodies of stored water.


North Coast Voices readers will probably not be surprised to find that NSW Nationals MLA for Clarence, former property developer & mining consultant Chris Gulaptis, the Nationals  MLC for Bathurst small business owner & recent undeclared candidate for Leader of the Nationals Sam Farraway and, Nationals candidate for the Lismore electorate in the last state election Austin Curtain, all support inundating a river valley to build this dam and including this proposal in the long-term regional water strategy.


The Echo, Letters, 3 November 2021:


If councillors in favour of the Dunoon Dam (DuD) are elected in December we will see several things happen.


Water resilience will collapse. The ‘10,000 signatures’, on which the pro-dam candidates base their political stance, demanded that all options be taken off the table, except for a second dam on a small creek: being completely dependent on increasingly erratic rainfall flowing through that small creek would intensify our climate risk.


Water shortages would be incurred soon because demand exceeds supply in three years, but the dam could not possibly be built until at least 2030.


Local jobs, which would have been boosted by diverse water options and long-term conservation measures (eg large-scale refitting), would be axed in favour of a short-term boost to a huge non-local company to build a dam.


Water rates would escalate rapidly to pay for a large one-off project. Government contributions are unlikely, leaving current ratepayers to foot the bill. The poorest people would be paying the most because water is non-discretionary, like food.


The Widjabul Wia-Bal people would be told, yet again, that their opinion does not matter. The burial sites, which have been compared by the Native Title Services Corp to the Juukan Cave in WA, would be lost. The living heritage of our own citizens would be discarded.


The Endangered Ecological Community of Lowland Rainforest, part of the remaining one per cent of the Big Scrub, would be severely reduced. In The Channon Gorge, the rare warm temperate rainforest on sandstone would be almost completely destroyed.


Opposition to the DuD, including direct action, would escalate, causing increased social division and unrest. When a large dubious project lacks social licence, the outcomes for local politicians pushing the project are never good.


There are plenty of alternatives to the DuD but the pro-dam candidates are going for the least efficient, most expensive, slowest, and most reckless option for water in the future.


We can have more water more cheaply and more quickly without needing a dam or groundwater; just by water efficiencies alone. But the pro-dam ideologues are not interested.


We have a problem here with local would-be politicians who want to capitalise on anxiety about water in order to score political points. They are not genuinely interested in water security. This is easily proved by their refusal to discuss anything other than one unrealistic and unsafe option.


There is a terrific opportunity here to pull together to solve our water problems. It may be lost owing to the political ambitions of a few cynical dog-whistlers.


Nan Nicholson, The Channon


ABC News, 4 October 2021:


Australia's national science agency is to investigate how to best manage the NSW far north coast's long-term water supply and river health.


The state's Water Minister, Melinda Pavey, has announced that scientists from the CSIRO will provide independent advice reviewing options proposed in last year's draft Far North Coast Regional Water Strategy.


"It developed from a lot of conversations around the strategy and a view from some community members that we haven't dealt enough with issues in relation to flood mitigation and water quality on north coast rivers, as well as long-term future supply for an area with a strong population and a lot of rainfall," Ms Pavey said.


The review will look at water security and flood risk management, particularly for the flood-prone city of Lismore.


"This will be really important foundational work that could be relevant to other parts of NSW," she said


Keith Williams, chair of regional water supplier Rous County Council, has welcomed the study and believes it will dovetail with council's existing priorities outlined in the Northern Rivers Watershed Initiative.


"About what we can do to decrease downstream flooding and a lot of that involves trying to re-establish wetlands, replanting river banks that exclude stock, and generally slowing water down within the landscape," he said.


"To have the CSIRO helping with that work would be fantastic. I don't see any threat to Rous from further scientific studies; we would welcome it."


Study will include Dunoon Dam option


Ms Pavey confirmed that a new dam at Dunoon would be included in the study.


A majority of Rous County councillors voted earlier this year to shelve the dam option from its future water strategy.


Robert Mustow, who was one of three councillors who advocated for the dam option to remain in the mix, welcomed the CSIRO input….


"This study will now reveal everything and it will be scientific-based and that's how it should have been to start with."


The CSIRO work is expected to be completed within a year.


What Minister Pavey is careful not to mention is that this 'review' is likely to be used to bolster the NSW Perrottet Government's preference to increase the size of the Shannon Creek Dam in the Clarence River catchment area [Draft North Coast Regional Water Strategy, "Long List of Options", March 2021] in order to allow the Coffs Harbour City LGA to increase its water draw from the Nymboida River and this large side dam (these being Coffs Harbour's only source of urban water) AND at the same time allow yet another local government area outside the catchment area to draw water via the Shannon Creek Dam. Thereby placing an unsustainable water draw of the Nymboida sub-catchment for a combined est. resident population of 142,519 persons [ID Community Demographic Resources, 2020].


BACKGROUND


EchoNetDaily, 14 December 2020:


Widjabul Wia-bal traditional owners of the area between Dunoon and the Channon have told Rous County Council not to follow Rio Tinto with the destructive Dunoon Dam.


They have told the General Manager of Rous County Council, Phil Rudd, that they will not accept the building of the proposed dam, which would inundate ancient burial sites and extensive evidence of occupation in the past and in recent times.


John Roberts, a Senior Elder of the Widjabul Wia-bal said, ‘I was one of the stakeholders consulted in 2011 about the impact of the Dunoon Dam on cultural heritage.


In the 2011 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared for Rous, we stakeholders said with one voice that no level of disturbance was acceptable to us. We still say that. Nothing has changed. There is no need for another study. Our opinion has not changed.


Our cultural heritage is a direct connection to our ancestors. We have been here for thousands of years. These sites provide us with a link to our traditions, our land and our living heritage. They allow us to educate our young ones in their history.’....


Echo, 22 July 2021:


Proposed Dunoon Dam, now scrapped. Rous County Council.


Dunoon Dam divides councils


The council itself is almost evenly divided: the traditionally more conservative Richmond Valley Council representatives further south want to consider a dam (and also want to connect Casino up to the Rous County Council water supply) while Byron’s representatives in the north are publicly opposed to the dam and Lismore’s progressives have cited concerns over cultural heritage.


Ballina is less cohesively represented in the Rous County Council, with each of the shire’s two representatives taking opposing sides on the dam idea....


The Daily Telegraph, 4 August 2021, p.11:


Lismore Mayor Vanessa Ekins said lobbying the NSW and federal governments to force the Dunoon Dam back into Rous’s Water Future Strategy was a political manoeuvre by conservative councillors and MPs ahead of upcoming elections.



I think there is a bit of local lobbying going on, people are gearing up for an election and trying to position themselves with a little project,” Ms Ekins (pictured) said.



(The dam) doesn’t relate to the science, technical expertise and decades of thought and work that has gone into coming out with the Future Water Strategy…..


SMEC Australia Pty Ltd, Dunoon Dam Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment*, November 2011:


One endangered ecological community (EEC), Lowland Rainforest which is listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), was recorded during field investigations. In addition, nine flora and 17 fauna species (including one frog, one mammal, one fruit-bat, six microbats and eight birds) listed as threatened in NSW under the TSC Act were also recorded. Of these species, eight flora and one fauna species are also listed nationally under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). An additional seven fauna species listed as migratory or marine under the EPBC Act as well as two Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (RoTAP) and three regionally significant plant species were also recorded.


Note:

* SMEC, a member of the Surbana Jurong Group, is a global engineering, management and development consultancy. SMEC field studies were undertaken in April 2010 - October 2010 and targeted threatened species within the study area.


Tuesday 8 December 2020

"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






Sunday 18 October 2020

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.



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.


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


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:

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:

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:


Friday 8 November 2019

Clarence Catchment Alliance is hosting a petition opposing water diversion from Clarence River catchment & mining in the upper river


The Daily Examiner, 31 October 2019, p. 9:

In 2017 I solo kayaked the Clarence River from its source near Stanthorpe in the Great Dividing Range to where it empties into the sea of my lifelong home at Yamba. A couple of months ago I tried to do it again, and I couldn’t. It won’t surprise you to hear, that there’s just no water in the river.
Around the same time I learned there were 18 exploratory mining licences active in our headwaters and that drilling quietly begun some 18 months ago.
I also learned that there was at least one serious environmental breach of one of these licences, resulting in a stop work order and a $300,000 fine.
I also learned that talks of damming our headwaters had been revived by western municipalities. When I heard these things, I wanted to find out more.
I caught up with my childhood friend and lifelong valley local, ex world championship tour surfer turned high-performance coach and Patagonia ambassador Daniel Ross, and together we set out to learn more about these potential threats to our home.
We went on a journey upriver to the source of the Clarence, all around the proposed mining areas, speaking to indigenous Elders and locals all along the river, to see these issues through their eyes.
We learned of the fish kills associated with mining from the old copper mine at Cangai, how the Eastern Cod (which only exists in two places in the world - the Clarence and Richmond River catchments) was nearly completely wiped out by these practices. We learned how it was nursed back from the brink to enjoying a thriving population today, and we struggled to understand why consideration would be given to returning to these practices on an even broader scale. We perceived first-hand the proximity of these sites, on these incredibly steep ridge lines, angling down to the river and its tributaries, and failed to comprehend how mining could possibly be achieved safely.
The more we learn, the keener we are to understand the future plans for our valley, and the safest and best solutions for its strategic management so its splendours can be enjoyed for generations to come.
We are strongly of the heart that the risks from mining along the Clarence, the lifeblood of our valley, are too impossibly high to take, and that these risks cannot fit the profile of a healthy future.
If you agree, the Clarence Catchment Alliance is hosting a petition that our State MP Chris Gulaptis has said he will table in parliament if 10,000 signatures are garnered. The petition is available to sign in local businesses all across the Valley, or available online to download, print, sign, and return to the address on the petition.
Dan Ross and Hayley Talbot
Image: Clarence Valley Independent

Clarence Independent
, 25 September 2019:
Dan Ross and Hayley Talbot are amid producing a documentary about the Clarence River – towards that end they have already interviewed Toowoomba’s mayor, Paul Antonio, who is also the chair of the Darling Downs South West Queensland Council of Mayors, which has applied to Infrastructure Australia to pipe water from the Clarence River “to Tenterfield Shire Council and Southern Downs, Western Downs and Toowoomba Regional councils”. Mr Ross and Ms Talbot gave a talk about the significance of Clarence River, maintaining its health and “how it affects all of us from the headwaters to the mouth”. “It’s not a ‘green’ thing, it’s commonsense,” Ms Talbot told those gathered at the Valley Watch tent at the Yamba River Market on Sunday, “sharing knowledge and getting the message out there.” 
Clarence Catchment Alliance’s Facebook page at  

Friday 18 October 2019

Morrison Government accidentally tells us more than it intended about its future plans for more dams?


Eighteen pages of 'talking points' compiled by the Prime Minister's Office were accidentally released to Australian journalists on Monday 14 October 2019.

These talking points predictably blame Labor in a look-over-there-not here manner, continue Scott Morrison's personal war on the poor and vulnerable and refuse to look climate change in the eye.

Interestingly for folks in the NSW Northern Rivers region, these points confirm federal government support for abandoning certain federal/state provisions contained in legislation covering water, environment and biodiversity when it comes to building new dams.

The document also lets the cat of the bag when it reveals a wider purpose behind building a Mole River dam in Tenterfield Shire.

Google Earth snapshot of a section of the Mole River, NSW


The current proposal according the PMO is for a 100,000 megalites dam (basically the size of Karangi Dam in Coffs Habour LGA) which Morrison & Co see as assisting not just Tenterfield Shire but also as potentially useful to southern Queensland (See P.4). Morrison expects this dam to be 'shovel ready' two years from now, in 2021.

Water NSW released an Upper Mole River Dam fact sheet at the same time those errant talking points escaped inot the wild. This has the proposed Mole River dam as between 100 and 200 gigalites (ie., between 100,000 to 200,000 megalitres) and costing est. $355 billion. However, Water NSW does not see this proposed dam being 'shovel ready' until 2024 with dam construction completed sometime between 2026 and 2028.

Morrison's 100,000 megalitre dam would be ample to supply the needs of a NSW shire whose total population is yet to reach 7,000 residents, but is perhaps not entirely adequate to cover the needs of local irrigators into a future which is rapidly heating up and drying out.

So why would this such dam be thought capable of supplying water to southern Queensland and where would the potential additional 100,000 come from?

Water NSW data shows that Mole River catchment annual rainfall was less than 600mm in 13 of the last 18 years and, as Professor Quentin Grafton, water economist, ANU and UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance tells us, at 600mm or less annual precipitation a dam will not fill.

Perhaps the Mole River dam is only meant as a water storage staging post as much of the water capacity is intended to travel elsewhere?

Perhaps Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Minister for Water Resources David Littleproud are paving the way for a raid on a headwater tributary, the Maryland River, or on the Upper Clarence River itself - in order to forever pipe bulk water to Littleproud's electorate of Maranoa in southern Queensland?

Two local governments in Littleproud's electorate are lobbying hard for permission to pipe Clarence River water to their areas and, after all the Mole River is approximately 79kms as the crow flies from the headwaters of the Clarence River as well as less than 57kms in a direct line from Stanthorpe in Maranoa.


Wednesday 16 October 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).”

Monday 30 September 2019

Water raiders drop the pretence and go for source of Clarence Valley's drinking water


Having degraded their own rivers and failed to adequately plan their own water security for times of drought, local governments in the Murray-Darling Basin are calling for damming and diversion of water from the Northern NSW Clarence River system.

Thus far the Maryland River and the Aberfoyle River have been identified as desirable options by these wannabee water raiders. 

This is the Clarence River Catchment.
via Blicks River Guardians

The Aberfolye River is shown in the left hand lower curve of the catchment boundary.

The river is approximately 115km in length with an annual average water flow of 19,482 ML.

The Aberfoyle River* empties into the Guy Fawkes River which in turn runs into the Boyd River which is a tributary of the Nymbodia River which itself is the greatest contributor of water to the Clarence River system and the source of at least 95 per cent of Clarence Valley drinking water.

The Nymboida River is also the source for water storage held in the 30,000Ml Shannon Creek side dam which supplies water security for a combined total of 128,198 residents (as well as local businesses and over 5 million tourists annually) in Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour City local government areas.

Ten years ago the Nymboida was supplying water for a population of 95,000 - in forty years time it is conservatively expected to supply 220,000.


This proposal appears to be based on one of fourteen Clarence River diversion schemes 'desktop' investigated in the early 1980s - specifically a proposed dam on the Aberfoyle diverting water to either Happy Valley, Boorolong or Teatree creeks to feed the Gwydir River, or alternatively an Aberfoyle dam to feed the Gara River. 

Drawing more water from the Upper Nymboida sub-catchment will in all probability raise hydrological and environmental stress on the entire Nymboida River and, may result in water levels at the Nymboida Weir falling below the 225Ml/D low flow level pumping cutoff up to est. 80 per cent of the time.

At the time of writing the Nymboida flow was 200Ml/D.

Indeed, given that rainfall decline has been occurring in the Northern Rivers region for around five decades, any further decline in available river water to supply daily use and long-term water storage has the potential to see intractable water scarcity develop in Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour City local government areas, as well as a sharp decline in the health of the Nymboida River.

The rest of eastern Australia needs to realise that the Clarence River system is not filled to the brim with harvestable water. The 500,000,000Ml of water annually discharging into the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Clarence River was a myth from the first time it was calculated.

Even Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour City councils will have to curb their desire for continuous development, as they probably have less than twenty years of water security remaining even if the wall of Shannon Creek Dam were to be raised.

Since the Millennium Drought Clarence Valley households have been on permanent low level water use restrictions as a precautionary measure, but as this current drought** may indicate that severe drought is no longer an anomaly but an everyday fact of life, we may be facing a higher level of permanent water restrictions very soon. 

Note

The Devils Chimney in the Aberfoyle River gorge was declared an Aboriginal Place on 8 August 1980. It is protected under under Section 90 of the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 and can not be damaged, defaced or destroyed without the consent of the NPW Director-General. Unfortunately the NSW Berejiklian Government does allow for damage and destruction of such sites.

** The NSW DPI Clarence Valley Drought Map as of 24 September 2019:

CDI = Combined Drought Indicator. RI = Rainfall Index. SWI = Soil Water Index. PGI = Pasture Growth Index. DDI = Drought Direction Index
Data current to 24/9/2019 (AEST)