On Saturday 25 March 2023 are you voting for the Clarence River system and the towns, villages and businesses which depend on its waters? Here are some of the community groups & candidates who think you should

 

Nymboida River, one of the twenty-four tributaries of the Clarence River and the principal source of drinking water for most residents in Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour City local government areas. IMAGE: Arden E, YouTube 2015

The Clarence Valley’s rich biodiverse landscapes have nurtured and supported generations beyond count and down the years communities — as well as the grass roots organisations they support — across the Clarence River Catchment have worked hard to protect that which gives them life and livelihoods.

Because in places such as the Clarence Valley with its variable river systems; the aesthetic, environmental, social, cultural and economic values of its communities are intertwined. Healthy rivers, clear running creeks, intact temperate & subtropical close & open forests along with ancient remnants of the Gondwanaland forests, arable soils found in smaller valleys and the larger floodplain, as well as a long coastal zone providing tourism opportunities, all combine to provide a population of est. 54,180 men, women and children living in the catchment area with a solid local economy which keeps the local government area vibrant and its over 4,000 businesses productive. Businesses whose products and services make up est. 17 per cent of the wider Northern Rivers regional economy. [Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021, idcommunity 2021]

Make no mistake. The Clarence Valley relies on the fact that its air is fresh, free-flowing waters clean, main primary industries sustainable and its landscapes pleasing to the eye of tourists. For without those four things the Clarence Valley regional economy would not be worth anything like the over $2 billion it is consistently valued at despite the ongoing pressures of war in Ukraine and global pandemic [National Institute of Economic and Industry Research 2021].

It is also not just Clarence Valley residents that rely on good stewardship being applied to land and waters within the Clarence catchment area. An est. 78,738 people and 6,174 businesses in Coffs Harbour City local government area rely on the urban water infrastructure within Clarence Valley local government area to supply them with town water.

However, constantly growing population pressure and the commercial interests of often large-scale and/or state-sponsored industries (particularly construction, mining & forestry) has seen Clarence catchment landscapes being altered in ways that are becoming destructive.

Forestry now covers 20 per cent of Clarence River Catchment land and by 2022 there were a total of 18 existing mineral and gold mining leases, along with more than 41 mining exploration leases, in the catchment area. [NSW Government, Industry NSW, 2022] It should be noted that mining leases are on the traditional lands of three First Nations peoples.

Under threat are the streams, creeks and rivers which feed the longest coastal river on the Australian east coast, the Clarence River. Also under threat are the remaining tracts of native forest, as well as the tree cover on the Clarence Catchment’s steep hills which help anchor rock and soil to the hillsides and prevent it sliding down and choking the waterways that weave their way among them.

Since the 1990s there have been a number of government contracted reports concerning the Clarence Basin and its waterways. All have highlighted concerns still held today and largely unaddressed – the risks that mining activity, large scale forestry, soil erosion and water turbidity pose to the environment and waterways of the Clarence Basin.

Right now in March 2023 Clarence electorate residents have the opportunity to make their voices heard when they cast their votes this coming Saturday at the NSW State Election.

On Friday morning 17 March 2023 the Clarence Catchment Alliance (CCA) — a non-partisan, not-for-profit, community volunteer group established in 2018 as a response to increased mining exploration activity — held a press conference close to Whiting Beach, Yamba.

Clarence Catchment Alliance had invited members of the media, sitting MPs, candidates standing at next week’s state election, representatives from other community & business groups, as well as members of the public as observers, to this event.

The purpose of the press conference was to draw attention to the growing alarm about mineral extraction projects within the Clarence River catchment and any expansion of this activity across its 24 sub-catchments.

The event began with a Welcome to Country by Yaegl emerging elder Diane Randall, the press conference taking place on traditional Yaegl lands.

It was followed by an introduction from Shae Fleming one of the CCA organisers and then went onto comments by various speakers from other groups including the Clarence Environment Centre and the Yamba District Chamber of Commerce. Brief presentations were made by candidates standing in the Clarence electorate as well as candidates standing in Coffs Harbour and Lismore electorates. There was a general consensus that the waters of the Clarence River catchment area needed to be protected.

Unfortunately the Nationals candidate for Clarence, Richie Williamson, did not attend. However, given the strong pro-mining, pro-barely regulated land clearing, pro-native timber harvesting and pro-state and private forestry policies and practices of the Nationals as partner in successive NSW Coalition governments, that is hardly surprising.

What was surprising was the rider added by the Labor candidate for Clarence to his general support of protecting the Clarence catchment area. Leon Ankersmit stated that the Labor Party would not allow him to sign the CCA pledge of support as the party was in favour of mining in Northern New South Wales.

The following is a brief summary of concerns articulated by some of those that spoke at the press conference, in no particular order.

JOHN EDWARDS (Clarence Environment Centre): It’s not coal or iron that worries me – it’s heavy metal mining. Ore get trucked from mine sites but processing minerals begins at the mine. The evaporation ponds produce a toxic sludge which permanently contaminates the soil and remediation is merely covering that soil with more soil. Leaving a time bomb behind when the mining company leaves. (Signed the CCA pledge)

SUE HIGGINSON (Greens MLA): The community here worked hard to shut down the Timbarra Gold Mine after it leaked cyanide into the Clarence River. However mining leases are still being granted in river catchments. Local seafood, dairy, sugar cane, livestock, crops, and tourism, and the industries that serve them, need clean water. (Signed the CCA pledge)

SHAE FLEMING (Clarence Coastal Alliance): We already have healthy water based industries here. They need protecting. (Signed the CCA pledge)

JAMES ALLAN (current President, Yamba Chamber of Commerce): Degradation of our waterways leads to degradation of our businesses. I support No Mines in the Clarence catchment. There are few jobs in mining. Re-opening the Drake mine would only create fifty jobs. (Signed the CCA pledge)

BRETT DUROUX (Indigenous Australia Party candidate for Clarence): I grew up in Cangai, raised in the old ways. The bush is a place of beauty and healing for so many people. Miners needs are not as important as our needs. My response to proposals to mine in the Clarence Valley is “NEVER!” (Signed the CCA pledge)

NICKI LEVI (Independent candidate for Clarence): Water is sacred, water is precious, water is life. Our priorities should be to protect the air in the Richmond Valley and water in the Clarence Valley. (Signed the CCA pledge)

DEBRA NOVAK (Independent candidate for Clarence & current Clarence Valley councillor): If elected I pledge to lobby hard for a moratorium on mineral mining just as we successfully did with coal seam gas mining. Nothing is more important than protecting the water. (Signed the CCA pledge)

GREG CLANCY (Greens candidate for Clarence & current Clarence Valley Council Deputy-Mayor): I have been protesting against threats to the rivers for a long time. Mining in this wonderful environment is “not on”. Parts of the Mann River are already dead zones because of previous mining ventures. (Signed the CCA pledge)

LEON ANKERSMIT (Labor candidate for Clarence): I’m proud of the sustainable industries that rely on a healthy river like prawning and fishing. Our land is precious and its such an important job to protect our river. (Refused to sign CCA pledge)

MARK RAYNOR (Legalise Cannabis Party candidate for Clarence): We need to find new industries and new crops not start new mines. (Signed the CCA pledge)

TIM NOTT (Greens candidate for Coffs Harbour): Mining is being done the wrong way - mining near waterways produces industrial level pollution. (Signed the CCA pledge)

ALISON WATERS (Animal Justice Party candidate for NSW Upper House representing Northern NSW): They are our waterways and our catchments. We need to protect them. (Signed the CCA pledge)

VANESSA ROSAYRO (Animal Justice Party candidate for Lismore): Mining just doesn’t affect our lives. It affects marine and plant life and the lives of local animals. (Signed the CCA pledge)

Background

When Clarence Valley Council tries to ignore the elephant in the room and local media with the best of intentions doesn't even see that enormous pachyderm

For reasons best known to itself, Clarence Valley Council administration has not publicly dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s for elected councillors and the Clarence Valley resident population when it comes to root causes of increased water turbidity and poor quality drinking water.

It's all about dirt. The deep soils and topsoils which cover and strengthen the rocks which hold Clarence River Basin mountains, hills and slopes in place; soils which are building blocks for both vegetation & biodiversity growth; soils which allow arable farming on valley floors big and small - including on the identified Clarence River floodplain.

The connection between clear-felled land, disturbed soils caused by mining, state-owned & private forestry, land laid bare by largescale wildfires, sloping land eroded by rain bombs, river banks scoured by record flooding, waterways thick with suspended soil particles and, a decline in water quality, is there for all to see. 

As is the poor stewardship of the NSW Government - which is supposed to ensure healthy waterways - but whose actions in allowing inappropriate levels of native vegetation removal, poorly monitoring mining exploration activity and its own continuous native timber forestry in sensitive catchments & sub-catchments is contributing to turbidity issues in north-east New South Wales.

It appear that absolutely no-one in the Perrottet Coalition Government is looking to address the root cause of water turbidity and erratic urban water quality. 

There appears to be a political blindness in 2023 to the following:

(i) the 2019-20 megafires started a process of exposing soils over wide areas of what had been closed and open forests in the Northern Rivers region;

 (ii) the further clearing of some of those fire grounds for retrievable native timber exacerbated this process; 

(iii) in 2022-23 the sensitivity and environmental risk associated with these forests is recognised as a continuing issue by the NSW Environmental Protection Agency - especially in areas where commercial native timber forestry is still occurring;

(iv) the 2022 extreme flooding increased the rate at which destabilised and/or degraded soils, particularly the exposed dispersive soils which create high levels of turbidity, made their way into streams, creeks, rivers and major waterways; and

(v) riverine landscapes do not have an infinite ability to withstand population pressure coupled with an increase in the frequency of natural or climate-induced disasters. The resilience Clarence River Basin waterways have demonstrated in the past does not guarantee their future capacity to experience recurrent disturbances while retaining essential function, structures and feedbacks.

A filtration plant may be advisable for urban water supplies, but it won't keep Clarence Valley waterways healthy, alive with biodiverse aquatic ecosystems and productive.

Ecotourism, water-based activity tourism and freshwater recreational fishing tourism, as well as the lucrative local wild-caught prawn industry, depend on healthy rivers. Rivers that are not just healthy but that can be seen to be healthy.

Examples of river and creek turbidity in the Clarence River catchment, 2022. IMAGES: The Daily Telegraph (top) Clarence Environment Centre (bottom) 

Clarence Valley Independent, 1 March 2023:

Future filtration for Valley water

Filtration of the Clarence Valley’s drinking water supply is again back on the agenda following this months Level Four severe water restrictions which lasted 11 days.

The Rushforth Road Water Treatment Plant RRWTP masterplan, which aims to replace the existing reservoir without impacting future construction of a filtration plant, is on the agenda at the February 28 Clarence Valley Council CVC meeting.

Prepared for council by consultant Beca H2O, the masterplan includes the replacement of the existing 32 megalitre reservoir, which is included in CVC’s 2022/2023 Operational Plan, and for future construction of filtration.

“It is recommended that Council progress the Masterplan by commencing the planning approval process for a future filtration plant at Rushforth Road Water Treatment Plant,” council papers state.

Council staff recommend councillors note the masterplan and commence the planning approval process for future construction of a filtration plant by calling open tenders to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement.

CVC first adopted a Drinking Water Management System DWMS at its August 19, 2014 meeting and an updated DWMS was adopted at the May 2020 meeting.

Up until the 1990s, drinking water was extracted regardless of turbidity, then in the early 1990s selective extraction was introduced to improve water quality when turbidity was below 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).

Councils 2014 DWMS saw the turbidity level drop to 5 NTU, then the May 2020 DWMS further dropped the turbidity level to 3.5 NTU.

Currently, CVC water supplies are disinfected at Rushforth Road “by chloramination (adding ammonia to chlorine) as this provides the most stable disinfectant in lengthy pipeline systems because chloramines decay at a lower rate than free chlorine,” council papers state.

Tenders have been called for stage one of the masterplan which will see a 1.5 ML Chlorine Contact Tank and a 16ML Treated Water Storage Tank installed at the RRWTP, estimated to cost $14.7 million in October 2021.

“The provision of a Chlorine Contact Tank will allow the primary disinfection at Rushforth Road by free chlorination while, by adding ammonia after the contact tank, continue to provide for a chloramine residual in the lengthy pipeline network,” council papers state.

Stage two of the masterplan is the conceptual design for filtration to be constructed at the RRWTP and is estimated to cost $63.8 million, with an annual operating cost of $2.1 million.

“The Masterplan has confirmed that gravity flow through the plant is feasible, and all elements of the plant have been conceptually located so that the current plant (with the addition of the chlorine contact tank) can continue to operate during construction,” council papers state.

“Due to its construction cost the filtration plant is classified as State Significant Development, and therefore needs planning approval via an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

“It is recommended that Council commence the approval process for a future filtration plant by calling tenders to undertake an EIS.”

The last time council considered filtration at its April 15, 2014 meeting it was estimated the construction and operation of a filtration plant would add $275 annually to the typical residential bill.

“The drinking water risk is not assessed by the State Government as being high enough for funding assistance under the current Safe and Secure Water Program,” council papers state.

“The Rushforth Road water treatment has been allocated a risk score of “4”, while the program funding is currently only sufficient to provide assistance for projects with a risk score of “5”.”

Due to this situation, it is likely that CVC will require loans to fund the water filtration project.

 

Coming to grips with the reality of Clarrie Hall Dam in 2022 - Tweed Shire Council seeking community feedback on its draft water release strategy

 

Tweed Shire Council, media release, 21 July 2022:

Feedback invited on draft Clarrie Hall Dam Water Release Policy

Learn more about how water is released from Clarrie Hall Dam

Clarrie Hall Dam is the Tweed's main water storage facility. Council is seeking community feedback on its draft Water Release Policy, with an information session to be held in Murwillumbah on 10 August.

Tweed Shire Council has drafted a new policy to clarify and formalise Council’s operational practices in relation to water releases from Clarrie Hall Dam.

The Tweed’s main water supply is the Tweed River. Opened in 1983, Clarrie Hall Dam is located on Doon Doon Creek approximately 15 km south-west of Murwillumbah. The dam has a catchment area of 60 km² and holds up to 16,000 megalitres of water. Releases from the dam help keep the Tweed River flowing when water levels are low.

Clarrie Hall Dam was designed for the purposes of water storage for water supply only and it has an uncontrolled spillway. As such, Council cannot regulate or change the flow of water through the spillway, change the Full Supply Level (FSL) of the spillway, or maintain a surcharge above the spillway level.

Council’s Manager Water and Waste Water Operations Brie Jowett said the draft policy aims to explain Council’s operational practices when it comes to water releases from Clarrie Hall Dam.

“Due to its design and purpose, Clarrie Hall Dam cannot be operated to release water ahead of rainfall events to provide any form of storage capacity for flood mitigation purposes,” Mrs Jowett said.

“We know there is some misinformation within the community about water releases for flood mitigation and during floods at Clarrie Hall Dam and we want to clear that up.

“We’ve put the draft policy on exhibition as we want to hear from all Tweed residents – especially those in flood–prone, downstream communities including Uki, Murwillumbah, Condong, Tumbulgum and Chinderah – to make sure they have all the information they need to understand how Council’s water release operations work.

“It’s important our community understands that it’s not possible to use the dam for flood mitigation. There is no capability to regulate or change the flow of water through the dam’s spillway, nor change the full supply level of the spillway.

“We are encouraging everyone to learn more about the dam’s design and how it is operated by reading the policy and let us know how to improve the policy to make it clearer.”

During a flood event, Council continuously monitors the safety of Clarrie Hall Dam and provides information to relevant authorities as per Council’s Dam Safety Emergency Plan.

You can review the draft and share your feedback by completing the online survey or attend the community information session on Wednesday 10 August at Murwillumbah Services Club from 4.30 pm. Registration is essential. For more details and to register visit yoursaytweed.com.au.

Submissions close on 16 August 2022.

The spillway at Clarrie Hall Dam does not allow for flood mitigation as there is no capability to regulate or change the flow of water through the dam's spillway.

It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) and successive NSW Liberal-Nationals governments have allowed it to become a trojan horse for unsustainable development and financial rorting

It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) which was established under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. 

 Under this scheme, applications for development or clearing approvals must set out how impacts on biodiversity will be avoided and minimised. The remaining residual impacts can be offset by the purchase and/or retirement of biodiversity credits or payment to the Biodiversity Conservation Fund. 

 Landholders can enter into Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements to create offset sites on their land to generate biodiversity credits. These credits are then available to the market for purchase by developers, landholders or the Biodiversity Conservation Trust to offset the impacts of development or clearing. 

However it was a scheme loathed by the mining industry from the start as an impediment on its commercial interests and by the industry's supporters, such as National Party political robber baron and then Deputy Prime Minister John Barilaro. It was also a scheme heartily disliked by local government areas fighting to retain biodiversity, maintain healthy water sources and protect remaining forest.

Clarence Valley Independent, 15 December 2021:

A report tabled at the August 24 Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting warns that the NSW Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) has had the opposite effect to its intention: instead of protecting the valley’s natural environment, it has “ensured a net loss to biodiversity, often of our most threatened flora and fauna”.... 

Staff advised councillors of four key issues: “a net loss of biodiversity across the LGA, a lack of stewardship sites in the Clarence (currently, there are only two stewardship sites in the Clarence), a lack of transparency in the BOS, and inconsistencies in offset prices. 

 “There is little confidence in this legislation for biodiversity conservation as offsets can be facilitated outside of the CVC local government area,” staff wrote. 

 “…credit suppliers are located all over the state, hence, if a developer can source credits, they are unlikely to be sourced within the Clarence, creating a ‘net loss’ of biodiversity.” 

On the lack of transparency, staff wrote: “Many plant community types on the floodplain, which comprises a large percentage of land being developed in the Clarence, are threatened ecological communities (TEC), which are to be offset for the same TEC, forcing developers to pay into the fund as the sole way to offset credits, as there are no locally available credits. 

“There is no way to determine if this money deposited in the trust is then used to facilitate recovery or protection of TECs in the Clarence – creating biodiversity loss.”....

Clarence Valley Council was not alone in expressing Northern NSW concerns as the Inquiry's submissions list confirmed. 

The NSW Parliament Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Environment and Planning's Inquiry into the Integrity of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme will not report until 1 March 2022, so the jury is still out on the Perrottet Coalition Government's response to its yet to be completed investigation.

However, one issue is being addressed.......

Environment reporter Lisa Fox (left)writing in The Guardian, 10 December 2021:

Officials working on conservation matters in the New South Wales environment department have been barred from holding financial interests in the state’s biodiversity offset scheme.

This follows an investigation of the department’s management of potential conflicts of interest.

Senior officials told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday that staff who work on the offset scheme or in the department’s biodiversity, conservation and science sections had been told they could not work in those roles and hold personal interests in properties and companies that were involved in the financial trade of offset credits.

It follows two external investigations that were commissioned by the department after Guardian Australia uncovered a series of failures in offset programs.

Offsets exist to allow developers to compensate for environmental damage in one area by delivering an equivalent environmental benefit in another.

But there have been problems with the system, including in one case a 20-year delay in delivering environmental protection and so-called “double-dipping” by developers in areas of urban sprawl.

Guardian Australia also revealed the state and federal governments bought tens of millions of dollars in offset credits from properties linked to consultants whose company advised the government on development in western Sydney.

The reporting triggered a string of reviews, including one by the legal firm Maddocks and one by the consultancy Centium examining how the environment department had managed potential conflicts of interest associated with staff holding financial interests in offset sites….

Dean Knudsen, the deputy secretary for biodiversity, conservation and science, told Friday’s hearing of the offset inquiry there had been fewer than five officials with such financial interests.

After the reviews, the department has introduced a new conflict of interest protocol that deems some investments “high risk” and presenting an “unacceptable risk to the integrity” of the scheme.

Knudsen said as a result, staff in certain sections could no longer participate in the scheme and those with historic interests had 12 months to divest.

“For departmental staff we’ve effectively said you’re not supposed to be participating in the scheme,” he said.

“If you have historically, we’ve told them what you have to do to effectively distance them from that.”

The Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, who is chairing the inquiry, said the changes were welcome.

“This should have happened at the start of the scheme to help prevent the types of windfall gains by a few individuals with detailed knowledge of the offset industry,” she said.

“However, we also need to see a tightening of conflicts of interest [rules] within the industry itself, including within ecological consultancies.”

Officials were also asked about delays in securing permanent protection of offset sites to compensate for habitat destruction caused by coalmines in NSW.

Responses to questions on notice in the parliament from the independent MLC Justin Field state that of the 41 coalmines approved in New South Wales in the past decade, one did not require offsets, 14 had not yet triggered the requirement to deliver their offsets, nine had land set aside but permanent protections were not yet in place, and 17 had “substantially finalised” their offsets.

….but certain aspects – such as finalisation of some of the legal arrangements protecting the site – were outstanding.

Officials agreed the process for securing offsets for mines had not been “as timely as [they] should be”.

Field said it was not good enough that “not one single coalmine approved in the last decade has secured their required offsets through finalised in-perpetuity arrangements”.

“The government needs to improve the transparency around what the hold-up is, put a deadline on finalising these arrangements and hold these mine operators to that deadline,” he said. 

Read the full article here.