A reminder of why there has been no successful water raids on the Clarence River or its tributaries during the protracted water wars of the 21st Century

Northern New South Wales

Proposals similar to the Bradfield Scheme have also been suggested for the coastal rivers of New South Wales. A review of 22 coastal catchments found that only nine had western boundaries on the Great Dividing Range. Even though diverting some of these nine rivers was technically possible, the cost was too high to justify construction.

Later, proposals were raised for inland water diversion from the Clarence River. However, none of these proposals for the Clarence River were supported by cost– benefit analyses or environmental and social impact assessments. The Clarence River basin is unique in that it lies in a transition zone between temperate and tropical flora.

This makes it a region with high biodiversity values. A 1999 Healthy Rivers Commission report argued that any proposal to divert significant quantities of water out of this river basin would pose significant risk to the health of riverine ecosystems, and the activities and values those systems support.

In 2003, an analysis of 23 options to divert water inland from the Clarence River was undertaken by Hunter Water Australia. The study estimated that the final delivery cost to irrigators for diverted water would range from $163 to $2807 per ML (approximately 10 to 200 times greater than the existing irrigation costs).

Similarly, a desktop analysis of 40 options to capture and divert water from the Northern Rivers of NSW (including the Clarence River) to north east NSW and south east Queensland was undertaken by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Australia in 2007. The study estimated that the best value option was to deliver up to 100 000 ML of water per year from the Clarence River, at a delivery cost to users of $1730 per ML. The study also found that a more detailed environmental analysis would be required before any of the options could be progressed.

[Australian Government Dept. of the Environment, “Water for the Future - Moving water long distances: Grand schemes or pipe dreams?”, 2011]

The water raiders have turned their eyes once more to the Clarence River system

Bumper sticker from the successful 2007 community campaign

The Abbott-Turnbull Government’s ‘100 dams’ plan lives on into 2016.

He said….

The Area News, 11 July 2016:

A Griffith group’s push to send an extra 1000 gigalitres of water down the Darling River is gaining momentum with Bourke Shire Council jumping on board.

The Clarence River Diversion, originally mooted in the early 1980’s by engineer David Coffey and buried by the Hawke government, was resurrected by Griffith councillor Dino Zappacosta and the Build More Dams committee. Cr Zappacosta said he was pleased Bourke council was supporting their campaign for state and federal governments to carry out a feasibility study.

“Bourke Shire Council is fully supportive of the plan,” he said.

“They actually said many years ago they tried to get water from there.”

The scheme, if it went ahead, would see a number of dams built high in the Clarence River catchment, west of Grafton. From there, collected rainwater would run through the Great Dividing Range in an 80-kilometre tunnel and flow into the Dumaresq River before eventually finding its way into the Darling River.

She said….

Email sent to North Coast Voices by Debrah Novak of Yamba, 13 July 2016:

I AM WANTING to point out to Griffith councillor Dino Zappacosta, the Build More Dams committee and Bourke Shire Council if you think you can bulldoze your way into the Clarence Valley and take 1000 gigalitres of water for the Murray-Darling River system you have definitely got a big fight on your hands.

The plan you are resurrecting is over 30 years old however the fact you have had no community consultation with the people of the Clarence and the fact you think you have a right to access our water is downright gob smacking, plain rude and who the hell do you think you are?

Our Clarence River is one of the last remaining wild rivers in NSW and hell will freeze over before our community will let you have one single drop. 

If you divert the Clarence River westward you will not only destroy our regions three greatest economic drivers, fishing, tourism and agriculture you will severely impact the replenishing of the Tweed, Gold Coast and Frazer Coast beaches. You take us on you take them on too.

Earlier this year I invited world acclaimed Australian geologist Dr John Jackson up to the Clarence River Gorge to explain to me how if the Clarence River were dammed or diverted, how it would impact on the lower reaches of our region.

He said " wetlands and fish habitat needed for the very foundation of our entire professional and recreational fishing industry would be destroyed. 

It has taken millions of years for the Clarence River to course its way through the mountains and valleys and then wind its way down to Yamba and then out into the Pacific Ocean. Currents then take all this sand north and in the process has created Fraser and Moreton Bay Islands and the beaches of the Tweed and Gold Coast".

Yes the Clarence River floods almost biannually and thank God it does because during that process it scours out all the chemicals that have built up over time from local industrial and agricultural businesses.

And finally do you think the five Aboriginal Nations for which the Clarence River is their life blood would allow you to divert their water west, sorry but you are dreaming.

The Murray Darling Basin is broken because of greed, a sense of entitlement and the inability for your community to take responsibility for compromising Mother Nature.

We value what we have here in the Clarence River and Valley and I guarantee the 53,000 of us who call this place home would stand shoulder to shoulder to protect her.

A little bit of history....

Excerpt from a North Coast Voices post, 19 October 2010:

Commonwealth Hansard:

Page Electorate: Clarence River 
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10.57 am)—I have a message on behalf of my community in Page that I want to give to the parliament and everybody who is going to be involved in the Murray-Darling Basin plan and debate. The message from my community, which is home to the Clarence River—and a lot of people seem to be talking about wanting to get their hands on it and are looking at it for diversion—is this: not a drop. Right across my electorate thousands of cars have that on their bumper stickers: not a drop. In effect it is saying hands off the Clarence River.
The idea that the Clarence River can be diverted is one of those issues that have been around for quite some time.
Everybody has raised this issue at different times. In particular, there was some engineering plan that it could be done. My message to the two Tonys is: not one drop will be taken out of the Clarence River. I have also been told, and I do not want to verbal the honourable member for Kennedy, that on the member’s website he talks about those not in favour of looking at some sort of diversion as being political pygmies. While I am not going to comment about my size and whether that is correct, I would say to the honourable member that the people in the Clarence Valley and in Page are certainly not political pygmies. The catchment area of the Clarence River falls within 100 kilometres of the New South Wales coastal strip. Our industries are fishing—we have a huge commercial fishing industry—and agriculture, and the economy is heavily underpinned by that commercial fishing. There is also forestry and tourism. It is all worth a lot to us. This debate is one of those debates that come up every now and then. Engineering wise, we can do anything—we can do marvels—but in terms of the environment and also the viability of the Clarence it would be a disaster. They can look all they like but—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has expired.

A Clarence Valley Protest, 25 November 2007:

Clarence River now safe from water raiders 

The Howard Government was soundly defeated at the Australian federal election last night, with outgoing Prime Minister John Howard tipped to be ousted by Labor in the seat he has held since first entering parliament.
The Nationals look like going into Opposition, along with their coalition partner the Liberal Party, with a reduced number of regional and rural seats.
The NSW Northern Rivers now has two of its three elected federal representatives drawn from the Australian Labor Party which gave a firm commitment earlier this year not to dam and divert waters from the Clarence River catchment area.

To see how the local political battle played out go to North Coast Voices:
northcoastvoices.blogspot.com

Mining exploration company Anchor Resources active again on Dorrigo Plateau

Image from Blicks River Guardians

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc:

Calling for Cancellation of ALL Mineral Exploration Licences on the Dorrigo Plateau

A Dorrigo landholder has for the past 6 years fought to stop antimony exploration activities on their property. The exploration company, Anchor Resources Ltd, breached the Mining Act 1992 in 2011 and was subsequently fined. Since that time there has been constant pressure from the exploration company for a new land access agreement regardless of the landholder not wishing to have exploration activities on the property. This matter has been held up in a prolonged arbitration process despite the exploration licence expiring on the 3rd March 2016.

More recently Anchor Resources Ltd, which also holds two other substantial exploration licences on the Dorrigo Plateau has been identified by Delisted Australia as a ‘Worthless Share Company 2015/2016’ (http://www.delisted.com.au/capital-gains-tax/capital-losses-2015-2016). 

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. questions how a landholder can be subject to such prolonged stress by a government process that supports an exploration company that is considered worthless financially? Where is the natural justice and procedural fairness for landholders? The financial capability of Anchor Resources Ltd clearly does not comply with the requirements of financial solvency as part of the exploration licence approval process, and yet the NSW Government has done nothing. Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. request that the NSW Government immediately cancel all exploration licences held by Anchor Resources Ltd. We also question the integrity of the current process given that no government action has yet occurred to cancel these exploration licences and that a landholder has been subject to unnecessary and prolonged stress. Our recent invitation to Melinda Pavey, MP for Oxley to visit the site and discuss the issues, was declined.

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. reiterate that any form of mining on the Dorrigo Plateau is an inappropriate land use given the significant biodiversity, agricultural, World Heritage and water catchment values of which the Plateau is nationally and internationally renowned. The current land use policies, planning and environmental laws do not adequately or fairly protect the Plateau’s natural assets from inappropriate land uses, such as mining.

___________________________________________________________

Arbitration decision released 29th March 2016

Breaking news..........Anchor Resources Ltd granted a 3 year Landholder Access Agreement as a result of Arbitration. It is understood at this early stage that the access agreement is to initially undertake remediation at Wild Cattle Creek from prior exploration activities and then to continue with their exploration activities planned since 2011. More details to be provided soon......................

As Australia begins to move further into drought the Bureau of Meteorology confirms an El Niño and the Abbott Government dismantles Water Commission and cuts water funding

Australian Bureau of Meteorology confirms tropical Pacific now at El Niño levels

Media Release, 12 May 2015

The Bureau of Meteorology’s latest update on the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) today confirms El Niño thresholds have been reached in the tropical Pacific for the first time since March 2010.

Assistant Director for Climate Information Services, Mr Neil Plummer, said El Niño is often associated with below average rainfall across eastern Australia in the second half of the year, and warmer than average daytime temperatures over the southern half of the country.

“The onset of El Niño in Australia in 2015 is a little earlier than usual. Typically El Niño events commence between June and November,” Mr Plummer said.

“Prolonged El Niño-like conditions have meant that some areas are more vulnerable to the impact of warmer temperatures and drier conditions.

“The failed northern wet season in 2012–13, compounded by poor wet seasons in 2013-14 and 2014-15, have contributed to drought in parts of inland Queensland and northern New South Wales,” he said.

Mr Plummer noted that while the El Niño is forecast to strengthen during winter, the strength of an
El Niño does not necessarily correspond with its impact on Australian rainfall. Australia experienced widespread drought during a weak El Niño in 2006–07, while stronger events such as the El Niño event in 1997–98 had only a modest impact on Australian rainfall.

“Recent significant rainfall and flooding along the east coast of Australia, associated with two almost back-to-back East Coast Lows, did not penetrate far into inland regions and therefore have done little to alleviate conditions in drought affected areas,” Mr Plummer said.

While El Niño increases the risk of drought, it does not guarantee it; of the 26 El Niño events since 1900, 17 have resulted in widespread drought.

Despite El Niño increasing the likelihood of drier conditions later this year, the Bureau’s May to July Climate Outlook (see link below) indicates much of Australia is likely to be wetter than average.

This is being driven by warmer than average Indian Ocean sea surface temperatures, which are dominating this outlook.

Further information:

* The Bureau’s ENSO Wrap-Up is published at bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

* A video entitled Understanding ENSO can be viewed on YouTube

* May to July Climate Outlook bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks

* An El Niño explainer article is published in The Conversation

In the same month that the Bureau confirmed the existence of a Pacific El Niño and 80 per cent of Queensland was officially drought declared - with northern New South Wales inland of the Great Dividing Range and an area stretching from southeastern South Australia and western Victoria also experiencing drought - the Abbott Government began to dismantle the National Water Commission, abolished the River Murray Water Committee and cut funding to the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Programme by $22.7 million over the next two financial years.

Gas and petroleum exploration and production licences cover 80% of the entire Australian Great Artesian Basin

The Australian 7 November 2014:

IT is one of the world's largest underground water reservoirs, covering an area bigger than Iran. But a new report has found that the Great Artesian Basin's pumping power comes from an area smaller than Tasmania.

A scientific review has raised questions about the basin's cap­acity to withstand water extraction necessary for coal-seam gas mining.

The concern is not the impact on the basin's volume, but the pressure that keeps bores flowing from Cape York to Coober Pedy.

The report, to be presented at today's meeting of the NSW Great Artesian Basin Advisory Group, has found the reservoir's "recharge" area is about a third as big as previously thought, covering less than 10 per cent of the 1.7 million sq km basin. The area where the basin is topped up by more than 5mm a year — the minimum needed to keep the basin pressurised — is about a quarter of this.

The report says just 0.2 per cent of the basin provides recharge waters in excess of 30mm a year. Most of this is in north-western NSW's Pilliga region, where energy giant Santos is conducting exploratory drilling for a controversial CSG project. "The significance of the recharge zones is not so much as an immediate water supply, but that they provide the pressure head required to drive the water to the surface," says the report, by soil scientist Robert Banks.

Excerpts from GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN RECHARGE SYSTEMS AND EXTENT OF PETROLEUM AND GAS LEASES, SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd, October 2014:

The Great Artesian Basin (GAB) of Australia extends over 22% of the Australian continent where it is the only reliable groundwater or surface water source. The GAB contains 65 000 km3 (or 115 658 Sydney Harbours) of groundwater which is released under pressure to the surface through natural springs and artesian bores across its extent (QDNRM 2012).

Much of the groundwater held in the GAB is very old, having taken thousands to many hundreds of thousands of years to reach its current position in the basin from the recharge beds which are predominantly around the margins of the basin. Modern recharge is not thought to add significantly to the volume stored in the basin however it provides the crucial pressure head to keep the artesian waters flowing to the surface across this massive expanse of land. In most areas, the bulk of the GAB has a recharge value of less than 0.1 mm/yr…..

The following description of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) is given in Ransley and Smerdon (2012).

The GAB contains an extensive and complex groundwater system. It encompasses several geological basins that were deposited at different times in Earth's history, from 200 to 65 million years ago in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. These geological basins sit on top of deeper, older geological basins and in turn, have newer surface drainage divisions situated on top of them (e.g. the Lake Eyre and Murray-Darling river basins). In this context – as a groundwater basin – the GAB is a vast groundwater entity underlying one-fifth of Australia.

Discharge from the GAB aquifers occurs naturally in the form of concentrated outflow from artesian springs, vertical diffuse leakage from the Lower Cretaceous-Jurassic aquifers towards the Cretaceous aquifers and upwards to the regional watertable and as artificial discharge by means of free or controlled artesian flow and pumped abstraction from water bores drilled into the aquifers.

For the GAB, like many other semi-arid to arid zone aquifers around the world, the current rate of recharge is significantly less than discharge. Groundwater currently stored in the Cadna-owie – Hooray Aquifer and equivalents is a legacy from higher recharge rates that occurred during much wetter periods in the early Holocene and Pleistocene age (essentially the last 2.6 million years).

The significance of the recharge zones to the GAB is not so much as an immediate water supply to central parts of the basin and natural discharge areas, but that they provide the pressure head required to drive the water to the surface. Removal of this pressure through water abstraction associated particularly with Coal Seam Gas (where local drawdown of in excess of 1000 m can be experienced around gas fields) risks removing the driving force of many of the free flowing artesian bores and springs in the GAB…..

Concern regarding CSG extraction is raised in Ransley and Smerdon (2012) in the following quote. "CSG production in the Surat Basin targets the Jurassic Walloon Coal Measures. The main CSG producing fields are located in the northern Surat Basin in a broad arc extending from Dalby to Roma. For gas to be harvested, the coal seams need to be depressurised by pumping groundwater from tens of thousands of wells intersecting the Walloon Coal Measures. Drawdowns of several hundred metres will be generated by the depressurisation and significant volumes of groundwater are to be pumped from the Walloon Coal Measures –averaging about 75 to 98 GL/year over the next 60 years (RPS Australia East Pty Ltd, 2011). This process will induce drawdown in overlying and underlying GAB aquifers, the amount of which will depend on the leakiness of the system."…..

In NSW the recharge areas of higher than 5 mm/yr are almost entirely contained within the east Pilliga area……

The above results show that:

 Recharge along the Jurassic to Cretaceous margins of the GAB is crucial to providing hydraulic head which drives the whole system.

 Significant recharge to the bulk of the GAB is much more limited in area than

previously thought.

 Although approximately 30% of the GAB is mapped as recharge, only 9 – 10% of the GAB is effective recharge which maintains the pressure head on the bulk of the GAB (excluding the Carpentaria basin).

 Only 2.3% of the GAB has effective recharge of greater than 5 mm/yr.

 Only 0.2% of the GAB has effective recharge of 30 – 79 mm/yr.

 In NSW, the main occurrence of recharge >30 mm is in the east Pilliga between

Coonabarabran and Narrabri.

 Draw down of many hundreds of metres is reported in Ransley and Smerdon (2012) for the northern Surat basin coal seam gas fields where coal seams are being

dewatered to release gas.

 Draw down of in excess of 1000 m is proposed in the Pilliga in the south eastern Surat Basin (ICSG Forum, 2014).

 Both of the Pilliga and the northern Surat gas fields or license areas occur in the very limited high recharge (>30 mm) areas of the GAB.

 Excessive draw down of pressure heads in the recharge zone of the GAB associated with gas extraction, has the potential to reduced pressure heads on artesian waters across much of the GAB, and potentially stopping the free flow of waters to the surface at springs and bores.

 Gas and petroleum exploration and production licenses cover 80% of the entire GAB.

 Gas and petroleum exploration and production licenses cover 79% of the critical

higher recharge areas of the GAB……

Consideration should be given to a basin wide approach to the management of the GAB with respect to minerals and natural resources, particularly with respect to potentially wide ranging activities such as gas and petroleum production where groundwater from below the GAB is drawn down and produced as an excess or waste byproduct of such development. In particular, serious thought needs to be given to the management of the few high recharge zones within the GAB and how these might interact with future water supplies…...

The East Pilliga area between Narrabri and Coonabarabran in NSW has Soil and Land Capability Classification (SLC) of between 4 and 6, meaning that there are no contiguous areas of Biophysical Agricultural Land (BSAL) in the area. BSAL is defined as Classes 1 to 3. This means that currently no special consideration which includes landscape function is given with regard to CSG and Mining applications in the high recharge zone areas of theGAB within the East Pilliga……

Quote of the Week

Before the last election, Hogan made a specific commitment not to support Federal environment powers being handed back to the states and threatened to “cross the floor” on CSG. However, last week in federal parliament that commitment lay in tatters, and Kevin Hogan voted for the bill which has gutted the water trigger on CSG mining.  He had his one big chance to cross the floor, and he blew it. [Michael McNamara, spokesperson with Gasfield Free Northern Rivers, in Echo NetDaily, 19 June 2014]

Abbott Government dismantles legislated "water trigger" protecting Australian communities from the rapacious demands of the mining industry and Nats MP Kevin Hogan fails to cross the floor as promised

First the Abbott Government dismantles the legislated “water trigger” protecting Australian communities from the rapacious demands of the mining industry and, then straight after this was voted through the Lower House it throws in an ineffectual last minute amendment of its amendments.

Federal Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan on the subject of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 as reported in The Northern Star 17 June 2014:

PAGE MP Kevin Hogan says he has strengthened laws protecting groundwater from coal seam gas drilling with two amendments added to Federal legislation last night.

The legislation makes changes to the former Labor Government's "water trigger" bill, which required all gas drilling operations in Australia to prove they would not harm the water table before being approved by the Federal Environment Minister.

The new legislation transfers authority for the "water trigger" bill from the Federal Government to the state.

By peeling back the need for both tiers of approval, the coalition government hopes to "simplify" the approvals process for business by getting rid of duplication and creating faster decisions.

Mr Hogan said his two amendments would strengthen the national environmental law and help protect Australia's water resources.

The first amendment would mean all state governments and territories would have to seek independent scientific advice when assessing projects for the water trigger.

The advice would come from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (IESC).

The second amendment would give the Federal Government power to request advice from the independent committee, including to what extent a state or territory had considered the scientific advice.

The Federal Environmental Minister would be able to overrule the approval if not satisfied with the process…..

The Abbott Government further amendments (to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014) introduced by Mr. Hogan can be found in the Hansard record for 16 June 2014 at Pages 103-105.

The Federal Labor Member for Richmond Justine Elliot responding to Kevin Hogan on the floor of the House of Representatives on 16 June 2014 – Hansard Pages 105-106 :

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (20:20): I too support the amendments moved by the member for Page, but can I point out to him it is too little too late. There is no point putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, and that is what you are proposing to do today. The fact is that you and your party are huge supporters of coal seam gas mining on the North Coast of New South Wales, and this does nothing to allay the fears of people in your community and in my community and the extent of concerns about unconventional gas mining. In fact, just last weekend at the National Party conference, which I am sure the member for Page was at, he would have heard the Leader of the Nationals and the Deputy Premier slag off at people that were protesting at Bentley. That is what you and your party think of people who oppose coal seam gas mining. The fact is that you are a member of a party that proactively pushes coal seam gas mining right across the North coast of New South Wales. There are changes being made to water down the water trigger. What we put in place when we were in government was a very important initiative to protect water resources throughout the country. The actions we took

in extending the water trigger were very important to people in my electorate and indeed to people in your electorate, member for Page. What you voted for tonight took that away. You took away the provisions in terms of looking at water and coal seam gas mining. This bandaid does not repair that at all. In fact, it does nothing—it

makes it worse. Tonight you have voted to hand all of those environmental powers to state governments or—God forbid—some councils. You made reference to Bentley. We all know that Bentley is in Richmond Valley shire. We know that the National Party mayor of Richmond Valley Council is full-on keen for coal seam gas mining. What you voted for tonight means either your pro-CSG National Party state government or your pro-CSG Richmond Valley Council is going to give a big tick to coal seam gas mining at Bentley. So keep in mind what you voted for, and disregard the bandaid amendments that you have put forward. If you want to talk about Bentley, we know that the decision on an exploration licence is going to be made by 25 June. That is pretty close in terms of the decision making and the impacts there. We saw thousands of people at

Bentley come out to protest the exploration licence there and we are going to see thousands again. So I think that you need to be true to your constituents who are very worried about the exploration licence at Bentley and what that means.

These amendments are not actually going to secure anything. You have taken away so much by voting for this bill tonight. By voting to actually delegate approval responsibilities to the states and the councils as well, you have taken away the capacity for national oversight across a whole range of very important issues. Your attempt to put a bandaid response in this legislation is not going to have any effect at all in stopping harmful coal seam gas mining or in having any oversight of it. We have to look at all of those particular factors within the context of this bill. You cannot vote for something and then pretend that the couple of minor, little amendments that you have moved mean that somehow it is not that bad. Well, it is that bad. It is that bad because you have effectively voted to hand over approval powers to a state government who, quite frankly, we know are environmental vandals. The New South Wales state government are environmental vandals; everyone knows that. It is a real concern in terms of their actions, from allowing shooting in national parks right across to their pro coal seam gas mining agenda. Their vandalism is very widespread. It includes some of their rezoning and not protecting koala habitats. There are

a huge array of issues on which the state government has failed the people of New South Wales. I think that in our area and in others they will be held to account come the state election next March. The member for Page has tonight voted to say, 'Yes, you're environmental vandals but we'll give this power to you or we'll give it to the councils.' Now, most councils just do not have the resources to be able to deal with issues such as this. They just do not have the staff, the scientists, the bureaucrats and the encompassing framework that the federal government has to look at all of these particular ramifications effectively. So it is irresponsible to hand it to them as well. Potentially, as I said, we could see some councils making decisions in relation to coal

seam gas mining or even uranium mining. For goodness sake, how irresponsible is that? The member for Page can stand here tonight and move as many amendments as he likes. The fact is that what he voted for is absolutely destructive. Your constituents—and I know what they want because they are my constituents too—want you to stop unconventional gas mining and any unconventional mining on the North Coast, but you and your party continue to pursue it. We saw your leader at the conference on the weekend denigrate and ridicule those of us who stood against it. The fact is the National Party are pro coal seam gas mining and you confirmed it by voting for this bill tonight.

Federal Greens MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt responding in the House of Representatives on the same day – Hansard Pages 106-107:

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:30): This is a piece of choreographed theatre of which Andrew Lloyd Webber would be proud. This is astounding. The government has come in and said the existing national protections that apply at the federal level against things like coal seam gas mining are about to be taken away once and for all. Instead, under the legislation, we are going to allow state or even local governments to approve projects that would normally be assessed against federal standards. Then, in a rearguard action—because the government knows that the community is breathing down its neck about coal seam gas—it comes in and says: 'I'll tell you

what we'll do. We won't keep those high levels of protections—we're still going to remove them all, but we'll just add in one little one that takes you about a third of the way to where we were before. 'When you consider this amendment together with the legislation that we are about to pass, what it will mean is this: yes, a state minister has to obtain advice, but it is now going to be the case that that very same state minister gets to determine whether those conditions have been met. It might even be a local government that gets to determine it, and that might even be the case where the state government is the one conducting the proposal—the proponent. In other words, under this amendment and the legislation, when you read the two together, a state

government can come along and say: 'We are the proponent for this coal seam gas project, and we are going to determine whether it meets federal standards, and the only obligation on us now is to go and seek some advice. Well, we sought it and we're going to approve it, and there's nothing you can do.' If you are really concerned about protecting the community against the adverse impacts of coal seam gas, then

you would keep the existing legislation and the water trigger that is embodied in it. These amendments, as choreographed as they are, make a bad piece of legislation slightly better, and so they will be supported. But anyone who really cared about protecting the water table and protecting the community from the impact of coal

seam gas would be voting against this piece of legislation in the first place. I think everyone knows that these amendments would not be here, were it not for the wide cross-section of Australians from all walks of life who are coming out and saying, 'Hang on, this government we voted for is not representing us when it comes to protecting our farmland and is not representing us when it comes to protecting us against the adverse impact of coal seam gas.' This is a choreographed attempt to hold at bay some of that support, but I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker,

the communities right across this country, who are campaigning to protect their land and their water against the impacts of coal seam gas and unconventional gas, know that this is not good enough and they know that the only reason that this is happening is they are out there day after day fighting to protect their land and their water. The

Greens will continue to stand with them and continue to condemn this coalition government for voting to strip away federal protections, including the water trigger, and hand over to state and local governments the power to determine whether coal seam gas and unconventional gas mining can go ahead.

Lock The Gate media release:

 

Nationals gut water trigger: Hogan abandons promise to cross the floor

Posted by Georgina Woods  on June 19, 2014

The Federal National Party has walked away from its commitments to protect the national water trigger on Coal Seam Gas (CSG) mining, and voted last week to allow it to be handed back to the states.

The Federal National member for Page, Kevin Hogan, had promised to cross the floor on the CSG issue if necessary, but instead last week turned his back on iron-clad commitments made to his electorate.

"Last week in Parliament, the National Party voted to allow the Federal water trigger to be handed back to the states, rendering it completely meaningless" said Phil Laird, National Co-ordinator for Lock the Gate Alliance.

"This trigger was introduced because of the severe risks to water supplies posed by CSG and the abject failures of the states to properly assess or protect important, nationally significant water sources.

“Self interested state governments can’t be trusted to properly regulate nationally important water resources that cross state boundaries such as the Murray Darling Basin or the Great Artesian Basin.

"Voting this trigger down is a huge betrayal of farming communities and our environment.  LNP figures who vowed publicly that the water trigger would not be touched if they were elected, should now hang their heads in shame" he said.

"Despite iron-clad guarantees to his electorate, last week Kevin Hogan voted to allow the Federal water trigger to be handed back to the states" said Michael McNamara, spokesperson with Gasfield Free Northern Rivers.

"Before the last election, Hogan made a specific commitment not to support Federal environment powers being handed back to the states and threatened to 'cross the floor' on CSG. 

"However, last week in Federal Parliament that commitment lay in tatters, and Kevin Hogan voted for the Bill which has gutted the water trigger on CSG mining.  He had his one big chance to 'cross the floor', and he blew it.

"Kevin Hogan staked his candidacy for the seat of Page on the CSG issue, and the people of the electorate deserve to know they have been abandoned. If this new Bill passes the Senate, Federal decisions on CSG water impacts will effectively be history" he said.

Background

Commitments on the Water Trigger before the 2013 Federal Election.

In a candidates survey before the election last year, Kevin Hogan was asked:

"If elected to office, will you pledge to promote the following policies within your party and in public, and to vote to implement them via new or amended Federal laws:

1.    Retention of current Federal environment powers, ruling out devolving them to the states and opposing any fast-tracking of coal or gas developments?"

His answer:  'Yes'.  Full response from Kevin Hogan available on request.

During a tour with Kevin Hogan of the Page electorate in the lead-up to the Federal election last year, Joe Hockey stated that "Our policy is to continue the CSG policies that are in place, it's no different......Would we water down the water trigger amendment, I don't think so".

Northern Star, August 30 2013

Video footage of Kevin Hogan assuring 700 Lismore residents earlier this year that he had gained a guarantee from the National Party not to reverse the water trigger is available on request.

The Bill Passed Last Week

The Bill which passed the lower house of Federal Parliament last week is titled the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. 

As a result of Schedule 3, Part 1 of the Bill, state governments will take back sole decision-making power relating to water impacts for CSG and coal where a 'bilateral agreement' is in place.  Draft bilateral agreements have already been developed for NSW and Queensland.  The water trigger will still exist on paper, but it will be rendered completely meaningless.

Looking back at a time when the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association sometimes told the unvarnished truth

A time when the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) was honest with the people of New South Wales:

3 August 2011

Coal seam damage to water inevitable

Ben Cubby

THE coal seam gas industry has conceded that extraction will inevitably contaminate aquifers.

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association told a fiery public meeting in Sydney that good management could minimise the risks of water contamination, but never eliminate them.

"Drilling will, to varying degrees, impact on adjoining aquifers," said the spokesman, Ross Dunn. "The extent of impact and whether the impact can be managed is the question."

The admissions came before the start of the first public hearing in NSW, held in Narrabri, of a Senate inquiry into the effects of coal seam gas mining.

The hearing was told that many farmers in northern and western NSW were angry about proposals to extract coal seam gas from their land, and some planned to join a mass campaign to lock their gates in the face of resources companies...

"The intent of saying that is to make it clear that we have never shied away from the fact that there will be impacts on aquifers," Mr Dunn said.

"I'm wanting to ensure that we are not seen as saying there won't be any impacts during the process. It is a matter of monitoring and managing those impacts."...

Of course, immediately after the publication of this article APPEA denied the published quotes of its spokesperson.

However, on 7 March 2014 The Sydney Morning Herald published an article which supported APPEA's original statements:

A coal seam gas project operated by energy company Santos in north-western NSW has contaminated a nearby aquifer, with uranium at levels 20 times higher than safe drinking water guidelines, an official investigation has found.

It is the first confirmation of aquifer contamination associated with coal seam gas activity in Australia - a blow to an industry pushing state and federal governments for permission to expand.

Santos was fined $1500 by the NSW Environment Protection Authority, which posted a media release on its website on February 18, without identifying the nature of the contamination.

Two days later, Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner signed a memorandum of understanding with Santos to speed up the project, in the Pilliga forest near Narrabri, guaranteeing a decision on its future by January 23 next year.

The EPA says it launched an investigation after routine testing in March last year by Santos of groundwater around the project - which remains in the test well stage - detected ''elevated levels of total dissolved solids and slightly elevated levels of other elements''.

The investigation concluded there was no evidence contractors engaged by the previous owner of the project, Eastern Star Gas, followed strict rules when building a pond to hold waste water and brine produced when gas is extracted. The investigation concluded the pond liner was of ''poor quality, which resulted in the integrity of the liner being questionable''.

On Friday, EPA chief environmental regulator Mark Gifford confirmed the contamination was caused by water leaking from the pond and that lead, aluminium, arsenic, barium, boron, nickel and uranium had been detected in an aquifer at levels ''elevated when compared to livestock, irrigation and health guidelines''.

Mr Gifford said the metals are ''not additives'' and occur naturally in the surrounding soil and water.

''However, the leaking pond has mobilised the elements and moved them into the aquifer, increasing their concentrations,'' he said...

Read more at : http://www.smh.com.au/environment/santos-coal-seam-gas-project-contaminates-aquifer-20140307-34csb.html

Note: My red bolding