Australian Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources seeks to place farm lands and water security in jeopardy

This man is the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party of Australia and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

Photograph found at The AIM Network

Member for New England Barnaby Joyce is also the same man who is irresponsibly calling for the dismantling of the already inadequate protections afforded rural and regional lands and water resources when coal seam gas miners move into a district.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has started dismantling Australia's sweeping ban on coal seam gas drilling, arguing a new scheme to divert a share of government royalties to farmers will overcome furious opposition in the bush.

Mr Joyce on Friday embraced a South Australian government plan to pay farmers 10 per cent of royalties in exchange for allowing gas wells on their land, saying the scheme should be rolled out nationally, with an exclusion of prime agricultural land.

The Agriculture Minister said lifting moratoriums and giving landholders a fair price in exchange for access would equate to "a substantial turnaround in attitude and that is a very good outcome".

"I can't see people who start making hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of dollars a year having a backlash," Mr Joyce told Fairfax Media.

"I think you'll probably find them onside."

Mr Joyce's comments could cause political problems in regional Australia and will be opposed by some MPs in the Coalition party room, where views about the environmental, social and electoral impacts of CSG remain mixed……

National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson said moratoriums were "blunt instruments" but still needed "because of the lack of confidence the community, including the farming community, have in the way governments have regulated the gas industry in the past".

"Until we have absolute confidence these concerns have been addressed, then moratoriums will be part of the response," she said.

But Joyce said excluding prime agricultural land and productive aquifers from exploration would address most concerns….

Ms Simson said the National Farmers Federation welcomed the South Australian plan to "adequately compensate" farmers, but said "it's never been just about the money".

"The two things we can't and won't compromise on is the secure access to water and land," she said.

NSW Resources Minister Don Harwin said the state gas plan "makes clear that landholders and communities will share in the benefits of gas development, and the government has already made legislative changes to deliver on this commitment."

Since July 2016 companies have been able to apply to establish a Community Benefits Fund from which individuals and organisations can apply for grants for community initiatives.

NSW landowners are also entitled to compensation under a land access agreement struck with a company wishing to drill on their land.

"Further compensation may be payable to landowners if there is any loss or damage resulting from exploration or production," Mr Harwin said.

But opponents say this is insufficient as landowners still have no right to refuse access.

NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said of Mr Joyce's statement: "Barnaby hasn't got the message that farmers won't be bribed. Rural community know coal seam gas destroys land values".

This is what typical coal seam gas production wells, supporting infrastructure and access roads looks like on rural land.

ABC Four Corners, 3 April 2013

Are there plans afoot to sell off part or all of the Snowy Mountains Scheme?

Snowy Hydro Ltd states on its website that:

The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority was corporatised on 28 June 2002 under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 to establish Snowy Hydro Limited. The Snowy Hydro Limited Constitution (Constitution) prescribes the responsibilities of the Board and Snowy Hydro’s reporting obligations, subject to the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001. Snowy Hydro’s shareholders are the New South Wales (58 per cent), Victorian (29 per cent) and Commonwealth (13 per cent) governments, with each shareholder having equal voting rights…….

Since corporatisation in 2002, Snowy Hydro has grown beyond the Snowy Scheme and now operates a growing and profitable retail energy, wholesale energy risk management and power generation business. We combine the power of the mighty Snowy Scheme with gas and diesel fired peaking generators to deliver a flexible and reliable mix of energy to our customers every day. We have 15 power stations, generate 4500 Gigawatt hours (GWh) on average per annum and have 5480 Megawatts (MW) of generating capacity across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. We’ve become the fourth largest retailer in the NEM by investing in growing our customer base, modernising our generation infrastructure, building and acquiring more generating capacity where we need it and developing our workforce of more than 1700 employees.

Snowy Hydro controls the headwaters of the Snowy, the Murray and the Murrumbidgee rivers and its water licence allows it to collect, divert, store, and release water by and from the works of the Snowy Scheme for the 75 year term of the licence. This licence is due to expire sometime between June 2076 and June 2077.

On 19 December 2016 the Dept. of Energy and Industry called for expressions of interest in conducting a valuation of the corporation for the three owners – with the contract to commence 1 February 2017.

The tender document states in part:

The contractor is required to provide each shareholder with a “fit for purpose” certified report, detailing the valuation of Snowy Hydro Limited's (SHL's) equity at fair value as at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018. The report will detail the scope, methodology, procedure and outcomes as well as all relevant assumptions, definitions and limiting conditions appropriate to the procurement. The contractor will supply the three shareholders with the preliminary and final versions of the valuation report in both written and electronic format. The report is to include explanations of movements in the valuations from year to year and take into account the interest holdings of the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Governments. The contractor will undertake the valuation as at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 as a Limited Scope Valuation Engagement….. 

On 15 March 2017 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Securing Australia’s Energy Future with Snowy Mountains 2.0 – a plan to boost Snowy Hydro’s power generation by 50 per cent.

This announcement mentioned $2 billion in federal government funding but in effect only commits to a feasibility study of pumped hydro expansion.

Remembering the 2006 push led by the Howard Government to sell off the Snowy Mountain Scheme as well as 2016 media reports of a possible sale, the valuation of Snowy Hydro Ltd raises questions about Turnbull’s out-of-left-field announcement.

Was it a prime ministerial thought bubble thrown in to quieten the heated debate over energy security which is currently taking place or was it a calculated ‘sweetener’ thrown in to make future sale of the corporation to institutional and foreign investors more attractive?

America about to learn how ideology-driven budget & regulatory cuts can play havoc with the natural world and wreck quality of life

Sadly US citizens are about to learn the hard lessons Australians have learnt under the far-right Abbott and Turnbull governments when ideology finally consumed all other considerations.

Mother Jones, 6 March 2017:

President Donald Trump promised during the campaign to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency "in almost every form." That probably isn't going to happen, but if recent reports are correct, the White House is planning massive cuts to the agency, potentially wiping out up to a quarter of its $8.1 billion budget and eliminating as many as 3,000 jobs.

Cleanup projects, scientific research, and the office responsible for enforcing air quality standards are all reportedly on the chopping block. Any funding related to climate change is at risk of being zeroed out. The Oregonian has a list of 42 EPA cuts outlined in a leaked version of Trump's proposed budget. Not all of these cuts will necessarily be enacted by Congress; a few Republicans, including EPA administrator Scott Pruitt himself, have already balked at some of the proposed reductions to state environmental grants.

Just a few of the presidential actions since 20 January 2017:

Presidential Memorandum on January 20, 2017

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Executive Order on January 24, 2017

Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects

Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline

Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017

Presidential Memorandum Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing

Statements of Administration Policy on February 07, 2017

HJR 44 Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of the Interior Relating to Bureau of Land Management Regulations that Establish the Procedures Used to Prepare, Revise, or Amend Land Use Plans Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Managemen

Executive Order on February 28, 2017

Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the "Waters of the United States" Rule

Statements of Administration Policy on February 28, 2017

HR 998 Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act

The Intercept, 6 March 2017:

MUCH OF THE COUNTRY has been watching in horror as Donald Trump has made good on his promises to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency — delaying 30 regulations, severely limiting the information staffers can release, and installing Scott Pruitt as the agency’s administrator to destroy the agency from within. But even those keeping their eyes on the EPA may have missed a quieter attack on environmental protections now being launched in Congress.

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is expected to hold a hearing on a bill to undermine health regulations that is based on a strategy cooked up by tobacco industry strategists more than two decades ago. At what Republicans on the committee have dubbed the “Making EPA Great Again” hearing, lawmakers are likely to discuss the Secret Science Reform Act, a bill that would limit the EPA to using only data that can be replicated or made available for “independent analysis.”

The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first. But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children, which fueled the EPA’s decision to eliminate all agricultural uses of the pesticide, because these events — and thus the studies of them — can’t be repeated. Although it is nominally about transparency, the bill leaves intact protections that allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome.

CCRAP and the Adani Group

Adani Mining Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of India's largest coal trader the Adani Group, intends to dig an enormous hole in the ground costing over $16 billion and the odd billion or two it can extract from gullible federal and state governments in Australia.

This hole known as the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project will comprise six open-cut pits and five underground mines; supported by five mine infrastructure areas, a coal handling and processing plant, a heavy industrial area, water-supply infrastructure, 189-kilometres of rail line (Adani has applied for a $1 billion loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund to build the rail link), as well as off-site infrastructure including a workers' accommodation village and airport.

All of this running roughly parallel with the Great Barrier Reef and the Abbott Point port required to ship all this coal overseas at considerable risk to fresh water security, coral sustainability and marine biodiversity.

http://envlaw.com.au/carmichael-coal-mine-case/

To facilitate its aim of environmental vandalism for corporate profit the Adani Group has registered the following companies which are all currently operating out of an office tower in Eagle Street, Brisbane:

Abbot Point Operations Pty Ltd

Adani Abbot Point Company Pty Ltd

Adani Abbot Point Holding Trust

Adani Abbot Point Terminal Holdings Pty Ltd

Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Coal Terminal Finance Company Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Coal Terminal Holdings Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Coal Terminal Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Company Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Holding Trust

Adani Minerals Pty Ltd

Adani Mining Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Finance Company Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Holdings Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Network Holdings Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Network Holdings Trust

Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Network Trust

Carmichael Rail Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Pty Ltd

Galilee Transmission Holdings Pty Ltd

Galilee Transmission Holdings Trust

Galilee Transmission Pty Ltd

Mundra Port Holding Trust

Mundra Port Holdings Pty Ltd

Mundra Port Pty Ltd

Juice Media put this mocking video together to let the Adani family and the world know what many people in this country think of this mining scheme.

https://youtu.be/n_C8S4Bz91M

Thanks to Simon Chance for this link

Published on Dec 4, 2016

The Australian Government just released this advert about the proposed Carmichael Coal Mine and it's surprisingly honest and informative. 

6 WAYS YOU CAN HELP STOP CCRAP:

1. Tell PM Malcolm Turnbull you don't want your tax dollars to be used to subsidise CCRAP: https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/gr...
2. Join GetUp!'s Fight for the Reef: https://fightforthereef.getup.org.au
3. Donate to the Wangan & Jagalingou defense fund: http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/donate
4. Follow the Wangan & Jagalingou on Facebook to keep up to date with the campaign to stop CCRAP on their lands: https://www.facebook.com/WanganandJag...
5. Find out more about the Wangain & Jagalingou traditional owners: http://wanganjagalingou.com.au
6. Share this video.☛ CREDITS: Written & created by Giordano. Performed by Matylda. Voice by Lucy. Thanks to Adso, Kajute, Miriam, Anthony, Adam, Benna, Damian, Dave and Dbot for helping out! Photos and Footage of Wangan & Jagalingou people used with permission from Wangan & Jagalingou Traditional Owners Family Council. ☛ Please SUPPORT the Juice Media to help us make more videos: https://www.patreon.com/TheJuiceMedia

BACKGROUND

Financial Review, 6 December 2016:

Challenges:

Finance – There is a reason the Galilee Basin has been left undeveloped for the past 50 years. For a start, it's close to 500 kilometres from ports on the coast, meaning whoever is going to build the project has to outlay billions of dollars to get the project built. And the quality of the coal is not as good as others in the closer Bowen and Surat Basin.

India's Adani Group also has to find $10 billion to finance the project. There are also questions raised about whether the project is economically viable after a plunge in the coal price following the end of the coal boom. But even though the price of thermal coal has recovered to above $100 a tonne in recent months, it is less relevant because Adani is using the coal for its own power stations rather than selling to other customers. The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis director Tim Buckley – a vocal critic of the project – says Adani's parent company is struggling with current market capitalisation of equity at $US1.1 billion, against which it has net debts of $US2.4 billion.

Environmentalists – Adani's Carmichael project has become the lightning rod for anti-fossil fuel activists and environmentalists who want to stop the building of any new coal mines in Australia. It also fits into the narrative about Australia's changing energy mix – from one dominated by coal and gas to renewable energy such as wind and solar. Environmentalists claim the extra coal exports will damage the World Heritage-protected Great Barrier Reef, although it has received environmental approval from both state and federal governments. As the Turnbull government releases its 2017 climate review this week, the argument over the Adani mega-mine also ties in with the debate about whether Australia,- which has one of the largest emissions per capita,- should be building another large coal mine that will release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Well-funded and media-savvy environmental groups have also been very effective in targeting banks about lending to the Carmichael mine. Some banks, under pressure to make sure they look like good corporate citizens, have promised not to lend to any future coal mines.

Legal activism – One of the reasons the project has been progressing at a snail's place the past seven years is because environmental and Indigenous groups have used the legal system to their advantage and challenged virtually every aspect of the project. The mining lease, environmental authority, and native title have been challenged by a range of parties, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, little-known group Coast & Country as well as Indigenous group, the Wangan and Jagalingou. They have successfully held up the project, resulting in the former Abbott government threatening to change the laws to make it harder to challenge big mining projects.

Last month, two legal challenges were thrown out of court, leaving three appeals – two before the full bench of the Federal Court over the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act and native title, and there is also a judicial review of Adani's port expansion at Abbot Point which has been brought by local residents in the Whitsundays – before the project can be given the green light.

Scandal  – The Adani Group has been plagued by allegations of corruption surrounding its projects in India. Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani is one of India's richest men, whose personal wealth was valued at $7.1 billion in 2014 by Forbes magazine. There have been allegations of environmental vandalism in relation to the development of the Port of Mundra, which is owned by Adani, as well as claims of tax evasion. Adani's Australian chief executive Jeyakumar Janakaraj has also been dragged into the scandal by failing to disclose his history running a mining company in Africa that pleaded guilty to serious economic harm. So far, none of these allegations have failed to bring down any of Adani's executives, but it adds to the controversy over the project.

UPDATE

ABC News, 21 December 2016:

Giant Indian conglomerate Adani, which plans to build one of the world's largest coal mines in Queensland's Galilee Basin, has set up a complex network of companies and trusts in Australia which are owned in one of the world's major tax havens, the Cayman Islands.

The Adani Group is also attempting to shift ownership of the existing Abbot Point coal port — which it bought for $1.8 billion — to a Singaporean company ultimately owned in the Cayman Islands.

An exhaustive search of company filings and documents across the globe has cast light on this opaque structure of ownership and control.

It has alarmed environmental activists and legal experts, who fear it could make it harder to gain compensation from Adani in the event of an environmental disaster from Adani's planned mine and port expansion on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

"I've been a businessman for most of my life, as well as an environmental activist, and the risks are great," said Geoff Cousins, former Optus CEO and chairman of the George Paterson advertising agency, now a board member of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

"With these kinds of approvals of big mining operations or port operations, you always get a set of conditions that the Government puts on.

"But those conditions aren't worth anything if, when something goes wrong, you try to find the company responsible and either it has no money or if it has money it's in a tax haven and you can't reach it."

It is a view echoed by David Chaikin, a professor of business law at the University of Sydney.

"The advantage of having the money in tax havens is that you are able to conceal the source of money, the use of money, and also to minimise tax," he said…..

Adani has created four companies and two trusts in Australia for the rail project.

The parent company for all these entities is Carmichael Rail and Port Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd, a company registered in Singapore where the corporate tax rate is 15 per cent.

This Singapore parent company is in turn owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a private company controlled by the Adani family and based in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands……

Adani has created four companies and two trusts in Australia for the rail project.

The parent company for all these entities is Carmichael Rail and Port Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd, a company registered in Singapore where the corporate tax rate is 15 per cent.

This Singapore parent company is in turn owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a private company controlled by the Adani family and based in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands.

The vast expansion of the coal port planned by Adani has sparked enormous controversy.

It will involve dredging 1.1 million tonnes of spoil from the ocean near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and poses a potential danger to the environmentally-sensitive reef, which is listed on the World Heritage Register.

Critics say the company structure set up by Adani raises serious concerns about the value of strict environmental approvals placed on the project.

Ownership of the existing Abbot Point Coal Terminal is in limbo.

Adani bought a 99-year lease over the coal port in 2011 for $1.8 billion through a company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (AZPEZ).

That company said it "sold" the port three years ago to a Singaporean-based Adani family company "subject to regulatory and lenders approvals".

But the sale has not been completed, because of objections by the State Bank of India, which lent Adani $US800 million ($1.1 billion) for the port purchase.

In its latest filings with the Australian corporate watchdog, Adani still lists the port as being owned by the Bombay-listed company.

But ASPEZ's 2016 annual report said it had "recorded the divestment" of the port to Abbot Point Port Holdings Pte Ltd, Singapore: an entity which lists as its sole director Vinod Shantilal Adani, the brother of Guatam Adani, head of the Adani Group, and which is ultimately owned by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands.

Transferring ownership of the critical port infrastructure to a Caymans Islands' company "means it will be unregulated, unaccountable," Tim Buckley, director of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analytics told the ABC.

"It will be non-transparent to the Australian Government as to what is going on, who owns it, who are the directors. To me it is a matter of national security."

Companies and trusts created by Adani for the proposed Carmichael mine are ultimately owned by Adani Enterprises, a publicly-listed company in India, but the control flows via a company registered in the tax haven of Mauritius, Adani Global Ltd.

Adani Global Ltd. is based at Suite 501 St James Court, St Denis Street in Port Louis, Mauritius, and since 1998 has operated as a subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited which was incorporated in March 1993 as Adani Exports Ltd with the name change effected in 2007.

In October 2010 Adani's Australian subsidiary, Adani Mining Pty Ltd, made an application for approval of the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project.

On 14 October 2015 the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment granted approval of 'controlled action' subject to conditions following re-consideration of project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

In 2014 Adani and Posco had agreed to build rail line in Australia and the following year Adani signed an MoU with Australia's Woodside Energy for Energy Cooperation.

Adani media release, 25 November 2016:

Adani welcomes court decisions Adani Group today welcomed decisions by the Queensland Supreme Court to dismiss activist lead appeals against the granting of a Mining Lease and an Environmental Authority in relation to the company’s planned $21 billion coal project. The company said the decisions were further positive steps towards starting work in the September Quarter 2017 on the Carmichael Mine in central western Queensland and associated projects – a near-400km rail line and port expansion at Abbott Point. Adani said it would now examine the full decision documents and make no further comment.

Adani letter to the Indian stock exchange, excerpt, 8 December 2016:

Live Mint, 21 December 2016:

Adani Enterprises Ltd is aiming to start production at its $16 billion integrated mining project in Australia by end of 2020, after facing a four-year delay because of stiff resistance from environmental groups. 

In an interview, group chairman Gautam Adani brushed aside concerns about the group’s indebtedness and said it was looking at investment opportunities in sectors such as defence, coal conversions and water. He added that the group continues to explore opportunities in the mining sector as it looks at an integrated “pit-to-plug” strategy encompassing mines, rail and the port sector. 

The Carmichael mines in Galilee, Australia, will produce about 25 million tonnes of coal a year in fiscal 2021. The group has invested close to $4.5 billion in the first phase, Adani said. It is planning to use the coal to fuel its Mundra and Udupi power plants. 

Adani also said he sees the ports business—one of the group’s most successful ventures so far—to meet its target of setting up 200 million tonnes of cargo handling capacity by the end of 2018, two years before schedule. 

Plea from Standing Rock Sioux Tribes falling on deaf ears?

For months now the Dakota and Lakota people and their supporters have been resisting the establishment of an oil pipeline across their ancestral lands in North Dakota.

Thus far the courts have offered no relief and the U.S. Government is showing no desire to require that the pipeline path be altered. 

If you live in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales, Australia, reflect on how lucky you are that that traditional owners, retirees, families, farmers, graziers, business people and the communities in which they live all came together and successfully fought off the threat to water security and the environment that coal seam gas mining represented. 

Those proposed gas field were also supposed to have a long pipeline.

Now look in your wallet and see if there are a few dollars to spare and consider donating at http://standwithstandingrock.net/.

"The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized tribe of American Indians.  81 Federal Register 26826, 26830 (May 4, 2016)." 

#NoDAPL

Excerpt from letter:

"Our Tribe is deeply disappointed in this decision by the United States, but our resolve to protect our water is stronger than ever. The best way to protect people during the winter, and reduce the risk of conflict between water protectors and militarized police, is to deny the easement for the Oahe crossing, and deny it now.

We ask that everyone who can appeal to President Obama and the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the future of our people and rescind all permits, and deny the easement to cross the Missouri River just north of our Reservation and straight through our treaty lands. When the Dakota Access Pipeline chose this route, they did not consider our strong opposition. Our concerns were clearly articulated directly to them in a tribal council meeting held on Sept. 30, 2014, where DAPL and the ND Public Service Commission came to us with this route. We have released the audio recording from that meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XARJFdyyfac

Again, we ask that the United States stop the pipeline and move it outside our ancestral and treaty lands.

It is both unfortunate and disrespectful that this announcement comes the day after this country celebrates Thanksgiving—a historic exchange of goodwill between Native Americans and the first immigrants from Europe. Although the news is saddening, it is not at all surprising given the last 500 years of the mistreatment of our people. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stands united with more than 300 tribal nations and the water protectors who are here peacefully protesting the Dakota access pipeline to bolster indigenous people’s rights. We continue to fight for these rights, which continue to be eroded. Although we have suffered much, we still have hope that the President will act on his commitment to close the chapter of broken promises to our people and especially our children.”

https://www.governor.nd.gov/files/executive-order/Executive%20Order%202016-08.pdf

Plea for assistance sent on behalf of three Sioux tribes to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2 December 2016:

Standing Rock, Cheyenne River & Yankton Sioux Tribes - Request for Precautionary Measures - FINAL Dec 02, 2... by clarencegirl on Scribd

If anyone living in the Northern Rivers region would like to show support for the people at Standing Rock they may send a message to U.S. President Barack Obama on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.

Background

Standing Rock has 2.3 million acres and the fourth largest land base tribe in the United States and the second Indian Nation to be in two states, both North Dakota and South Dakota.....

The people of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Nation are often called Sioux. They are the members of the Dakota and Lakota Nations. “Dakota” and “Lakota” mean “friend” or “allies”. The term “Sioux”, dates back to the seventeenth century when some of the Dakota people were living in the Great Lakes area. The Ojibwa or Annishinaabe called the Lakota and Dakota “Nadouwesou” meaning “adders” or “little snakes”. This term was then shortened and corrupted by French traders, resulted in retention of the last syllable as “Sioux.”

The Dakota and Nakota people of Standing Rock include the Upper Yanktonai (in their language called Ihanktonwana, which translates to “little end villages”) and Yanktonai from the Cut Head Band. The Cut Heads, whose name is literally translated, get their title from the fact that when they withdrew from the Yanktonais, there was a row over secession and a fight. Their leader sustained a scalp wound and the name Cut Head was given. The Yankton and Yanktonais are called the Wiceyala or Middle Sioux. When the Middle Sioux moved onto the prairie, they had contact with the semisedentary riverine tribes such as the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara. Eventually the Yanktonai displaced these tribes and forced them upstream. However, periodically the Yanktonai did engage in trade with these tribes and eventually some bands adopted the earth lodge, bullboats and horticultural techniques of these people, though buffalo remained their primary food sources. The Yanktonai also maintained aspects of their former Woodland lifestyle. Today Yanktonai people of Standing Rock live primarily in communities on the North Dakota portion of the reservation.

The Lakota, as the largest division of the nation, are subdivided into the Oceti Sakowin or Seven Council Fires. The Lakota people of the Standing Rock Reservation included two of these subdivisions, the Hunkpapa, means “campers at the Horn” and Sihasapa or “Blackfeet,” not to be confused with the Algonquian Blackfeet of Montana and Canada, which are an entirely different group. The Hunkpapas get their name from their hereditary right of pitching their tepees at the outer edge of the village as defenders of the camp. The Sihasapa name comes from walking across a burned prairie after an unsuccessful expedition and their feet blackened, thus they were called the Blackfeet. The Lakota Hunkpapas and Sihasapa are the northern plains people and practically divested themselves of all woodland traits of their Dakota ancestors. The culture revolved around the horse and buffalo; the people were nomadic and lived in hide tepees year round. Their Hunkpapas and Sihasapa ranged in the area between the Cheyenne River and Heart Rivers to the south and north and between the Missouri River on the east and Tongue River to the west.

UPDATE

RT Question More, 4 December 2016:

The US Army Corps of Engineers will not grant permission for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross Lake Oahe, the hotspot of massive protests of water protectors, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said in a statement, adding that alternative routes are now being studied.

"The Department of the Army will not approve an easement that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota," said a statement on the US Army website, citing the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy.

U.S. Army statement, 4 December 2016:

The Department of the Army will not approve an easement that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, the Army's Assistant Secretary for Civil Works announced today.
Jo-Ellen Darcy said she based her decision on a need to explore alternate routes for the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing. Her office had announced on November 14, 2016 that it was delaying the decision on the easement to allow for discussions with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose reservation lies 0.5 miles south of the proposed crossing. Tribal officials have expressed repeated concerns over the risk that a pipeline rupture or spill could pose to its water supply and treaty rights.
"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Darcy said. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing." 
Darcy said that the consideration of alternative routes would be best accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement with full public input and analysis.
The Dakota Access Pipeline is an approximately 1,172 mile pipeline that would connect the Bakken and Three Forks oil production areas in North Dakota to an existing crude oil terminal near Pakota, Illinois. The pipeline is 30 inches in diameter and is projected to transport approximately 470,000 barrels of oil per day, with a capacity as high as 570,000 barrels. The current proposed pipeline route would cross Lake Oahe, an Army Corps of Engineers project on the Missouri River.

In today's political climate is there hope that the free-for-all that is NSW water rights will be curbed?

The Daily Examiner, 8 August 2016, p.16:

VOICES FOR THE EARTH

The water division of the NSW Department of Primary Industry (DPI) is currently undertaking a review of rural landowners' harvestable water rights - the percentage of their property's water run-off they are allowed to take.

Currently landowners bordering permanent water courses are entitled to pump sufficient water for domestic use and livestock without a licence. However, should they wish to take additional water for irrigation or any other reason, a licence is required.

Rural landowners are also entitled to harvestable rights (HR) which, in NSW coastal areas, is 10% of run-off from their properties, an amount determined through complex calculations based on average rainfall. They are also allowed, without formal approval, to construct a dam, or dams, big enough to store that entitlement on smaller upper catchment gullies, known as first and second order streams.

With the increase in the development of intensive horticulture in the region, comes the need for guaranteed water supplies, which invariably includes the construction of large dams, which are then used to irrigate the orchards. However, those dams are continually collecting run-off well in excess of the 10% allowance.

However, when questioned about this seeming anomaly, DPI Water explains: "The harvestable rights relate to dam capacity not to actual usage so there is potential to capture and use more water than the actual dam capacity in an irrigation year."

It gets worse. The laws also allow landowners to build, again without the need for approvals, any number of 'off-stream' storages, i.e. dams that do not collect run-off, into which water can be pumped from the HR dam.

Irrigators have jumped at the opportunity presented by the review, and are lobbying for increased allowances and relaxation of current laws to allow HR dams to be built on the larger, often permanent flowing, third order streams.

Clearly a review is long overdue, and there needs to be strict regulation of the distribution of this precious commodity, which must include compliance monitoring that ensures fairness for all users, particularly the environment.

John Edwards

Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

WATER WARS: The tired old scheme Griffith City Council wants the NSW Baird Government to consider in 2016

Griffith City Council Utilities Committee Business Paper, 12 April 2016, starting at Page 18:

Western Diversion To Become A Reality? - A Scheme to Divert Tributaries of the Clarence River to the Murray...

https://www.scribd.com/document/320932604/Western-Diversion-To-Become-A-Reality-A-Scheme-to-Divert-Tributaries-of-the-Clarence-River-to-the-Murray-Darling-Basin

Clarence River Catchment Fresh Water Diversion: facing today's threat while remembering yesterday's response

2007 bumper sticker

Clarence Valley Council, Ordinary Monthly Meeting Business Paper, 9 August 2016:

Policy or Regulation

Council has previously established its policy position on proposals to divert the Clarence River through various Council resolutions. At its meeting of 18 October 2006 Council resolved (Resolution 12.005/06):

That Council oppose the diversion, damming or re-directing of water from the Clarence River. 

Council again resolved at its meeting of 17 April 2007 (Resolution 05.006/07): That the report on the Clarence River diversion proposal be received and noted and that Clarence Valley Council reiterates its policy position of total opposition to any proposal that would result in any diversion of water from Clarence catchments. 

When the issue of diversion was proposed to be debated at the Local Government & Shires Association (LGSA) Conference in 2007, Council resolved at its meeting of 15 May 2007 (Resolution 05.008/07): 

That the following late Motion be placed before the forthcoming Annual Conference of the Shires Association of New South Wales. “That the Associations approach both the State and Federal Governments expressing their total opposition to any proposal for river diversion.”

As outlined in Report 05.009/07 to the Council meeting of 19 June 2007, it was not possible to put the late motion as the LGSA Conference resolved “That the Association pursue with the Federal Minister for Environment and water, measures to address the current and future concerns with water shortages for inland cities, towns and communities posed by the current drought and future droughts, and that the National Water Initiative consider ways and means of so addressing”.

At its meeting of 16 November 2010 Council again confirmed its opposition to Diversion (Resolution 10.017/10):

The Council again register it strong opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

Clarence Valley Council submission to a NSW Upper House inquiry to which Griffith City Council made a submission asking that an old scheme for damming and diverting freshwater from the Boyd, Mann, Nymboida and Timbarra rivers (Clarence River tributaries) be considered:

10 August 2016

Reference:

DWS#1682591 Contact: Greg Mashiah

The Director

General Purpose Standing Committee No 5 

Legislative Council

Parliament House

Macquarie Street

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Sir

Inquiry into Water Augmentation in Rural and Regional New South Wales - Submission

Thank you for the opportunity for Council to make a submission to the above enquiry. Clarence Valley Council is located on the north coast of NSW and contains most of the Clarence River catchment within its area. The Clarence River is the largest coastal river in NSW. Council is a Local Water Utility (LWU) responsible for sewer and water services to urban area and also provides bulk water to the adjoining Coffs Harbour City Council. Clarence Valley Council is also responsible for floodplain management.

Council’s submission responds to three items in the terms of reference which are considered relevant to Council’s operations:

1b) Examine the suitability of existing New South Wales water storages and any future schemes for augmentation of water supply for New South Wales, including the potential for acquifer discharge.

Clarence Valley and its neighbouring Coffs Harbour City Council have jointly developed a Regional Water Supply (RWS) scheme to provide water security to residents until at least the year 2046. The RWS comprise:

· A “non build” element of water efficiency measures, which commenced in 1997 and is implemented through the joint Water Efficiency Strategic Plan (http://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/page.asp?f=RES-UHJ-43-64-30), and

· A “build” element, which comprises a pipeline linking the two Council water supplies which was completed in 2004 and construction of a 30,000ML off-creek storage at Shannon Creek which was completed in 2009. The Shannon Creek Dam storage is designed for future raising to 75,000ML capacity to service demand beyond 2046. The storage is “transparent” to its catchment in that all runoff from the catchment is required to be released to match the pre-storage hydrologic.

The RWS project, which was recognised with multiple industry awards including the prestigious International Water Association’s Asia-Pacific Project Innovation Award in the planning category, demonstrates how regional Local Water Utilities can jointly plan and deliver water infrastructure to meet future needs including provision of suitable water storages.

One significant concern for Council is that, while the RWS storage has been designed to be augmented to 75,000ML to provide capacity for development beyond 2046, future legislative changes may adversely impact this option. It is therefore requested that the Committee consider this issue.

1d) examine the 50 year flood history in New South Wales, particularly in northern coastal New South Wales, including the financial and human cost. Since 1966 the Clarence River has experienced 29 floods which exceeded the “minor” flood level at the Prince Street gauge in Grafton (2.10m), and of those 17 were classified as “major” floods (>5,40m). Four floods in a single year were experienced in both 1974 and 1976, and three floods in a single year were experienced in 1967 and 2013.

The town of Grafton is protected by a flood levee which provides protection up to approximately the 5% Average Exceedance Probability (AEP) event, and the town of Maclean is protected by a levee which provides protection up to approximately the 2% AEP event. Since the Grafton and Maclean levees were constructed in the 1970s they have not been overtopped, although in January 2013 at Grafton the flood height was equal to the top of the levee, requiring evacuation of a small area of the town.

In the March 2001 and May 2009 floods, evacuation of all of Grafton was ordered due to uncertainty about whether the flood levee would be overtopped if the predicted flood heights were reached, and how the flood would behave once the levee was overtopped. As well as the evacuation having a significant financial and social cost for residents, as the levees were not overtopped it also increases future risk of people not evacuating when ordered. In 2011 Council completed a detailed flood levee overtopping study which included extensive 2-D computer modelling. The flood levee overtopping study is considered to have given excellent value for money as in 2013 it enabled evacuation to be confined to the immediate affected area.

A significant human cost of flooding on all residents is post flood clean-up. To reduce the impact on residents Council generally collects flood damaged items which are put on the kerbside by residents, waives its tip fees for disposal of flood damaged items and also offers residents affected by flood mud a rebate on their water bills. Council also assisted with the provision of the Flood Recovery Centre for residents, which provided a “one stop shop” for flood impacted residents.

A significant issue for Council is the increasingly limited and narrow interpretation of Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA), which have left the full cost of much essential infrastructure flood damage repair with Council.

As one example, a flood levee damaged in the 2013 flood incurred repair costs of $710,000 but only $98,625 funding was received for this item. The apparent basis for the reduced funding was that under the NDRRA the works were assessed as “riverbank” works; notwithstanding that detailed geotechnical and engineering reports supported Council’s position that the riverbank formed an integral part of the levee at this location and should therefore have qualified as essential public infrastructure. It is requested that as part of this item of the terms of reference the committee consider the NDRRA arrangements as the current interpretation results in cost shifting of repairs to essential public infrastructure to Council.

There are financial and human costs of flooding beyond Council’s costs. Financial costs are common for industries such as agricultural, transport and tourism. The financial impacts on these industries has been repeatedly mentioned after the three recent major flood experiences in the Clarence Valley in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Agricultural financial impacts are usually associated with the loss of crops, livestock, fences, machinery, etc. Transport impacts are associated with the closure of key transport routes resulting in the very long truck ‘parking’ areas either side of locations such as Grafton. The tourism industry impacts are both short-term (cancellations of bookings) and longer term with potential of a tarnished tourism image. Regarding human costs, a recurring theme in the post flood recovery mental health problems related to flooding. The NSW State Government established Clarence Valley Flood Recovery Committees after the 2009 and 2013 floods which comprised representatives from state government agencies and Council, and the final reports from these Committees should assist the Inquiry with further information on the financial and human cost of flooding.

1e) examine technologies available to mitigate flood damage, including diversion systems, and the scope of infrastructure needed to support water augmentation, by diversion, for rural and regional New South Wales. The diversion of the Clarence to west of the Great Dividing Range has been suggested by some people as a possible way that flood damage could be mitigated, with a supposed benefit of providing water for western areas. Council has considered this issue and its position has consistently been that diversion of the Clarence is opposed, as summarised by Council resolution 10.017/10 at its meeting of 16 November 2010:

The Council again register it strong opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

Council’s position in this matter has not changed, and Council considers that any proposal to divert the Clarence River cannot be justified from an economic, environmental or social perspective.

If you require further information please contact Council’s Manager Water Cycle, Mr Greg Mashiah, telephone 6645-0244 or 0428-112-982.

Yours faithfully

Scott Greensill 

General Manager

The assault on the water security of NSW coastal rivers is not just head on. Murray-Darling Basin councils are also now lobbying to change the federal Water Act so that more weight is given to their social and economic arguments when freshwater augmentation or inter-basin water transfer is considered.

Naranderra Shire Council, Committee Minutes, 21 June 2016:

Item 6.1 - Final Report of the Commonwealth Senate Select Committee into the Murray Darling Basin Plan

The Final Report titled “Refreshing the Plan” was tabled in the Senate on 17th March 2016 and is currently the subject of review through the Minister for Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP and the Departmental Officials, with a response due by mid June 2016.

RESOLVED that RAMROC continue to strongly advocate to the Commonwealth Government the merit and value of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee into the Murray Darling Basin Plan, particularly Recommendation 25 relating to proposed amendments to the Water Act 2007 to provide for a triple bottom line equal balance of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. (Moved Albury and seconded Hay)

Now that local governments in the Murray-Darling Basin are again discussing raiding Clarence Valley fresh water, it is worthwhile remembering 2007......

The Daily Examiner, 23 April 2007:

BY JOHN McGUREN

Clarence River Professional Fishermen's Association

STORM clouds continue to gather over the Clarence River, but sadly they are the type that threaten its ruin rather than rain.

In comments reported in The Daily Examiner on Tuesday, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull made it very clear the Howard Government was now virtually committed to the diversion of water from northern NSW into Queensland.

Alluding to the imminent release of results from his feasibility study into such a concept, Mr Turnbull also said a water diversion from NSW would be far cheaper than one from anywhere in Queensland.

Why is he saying that? Because he already knows the outcome of the study and is simply being too cute by half in playing politics with its release and treating us all like little mushrooms.

No surprise there as he hasn't even bothered to speak to any of the tens of thousands of NSW residents who will be directly affected by his fool hardy scheme.

The National Water Commission (NWC) has confirmed this week a desk top study by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) will show it is technically feasible to divert water from both the Clarence and the Tweed rivers into Queensland.

Commissioned by Mr Turnbull and due to be released in the coming weeks, an early draft of the SMEC report has ruled the Clarence and Tweed rivers in as potential diversion candidates, while rejecting the Richmond River.

The outcomes of the SMEC study are focused on engineering feasibility and costs, including constructing dams and other infrastructure and derived from a review of existing information and previous studies.

As we have feared all along, this study has been commissioned for the express political purpose of giving Mr Turnbull's grand act of environmental vandalism economic credibility.

The report estimates up to 100,000 mega litres ? roughly enough water to fill Sydney Harbour twice ? per year could be harvested from the Clarence at a cost of between $1.60 and $2.05 per kilolitre, giving a total supply cost of around $160million to $200million. Mr Turnbull knows all this already.

In his Droplets newsletter, Mike Young, of the University of Adelaide, suggests on average Murray Darling system high security water allocations ? which can include municipal, industrial and irrigation uses ? cost around $1,500/ML, which is just below the SMEC report lower estimate of supply costs for water diverted from the Clarence.

This would seem to put the whole diversion concept very much in the ballpark from a cost and feasibility standpoint and should shake us all out of any complacency stemming from misguided and outdated misconceptions that it's all just too expensive and too difficult.

Add to that the growing willingness of the states to cede powers to the Australian government and this nightmare starts to look very much more like a frightening reality.

Figures like that also give added credence to the growing concerns of state premiers regarding who will ultimately have their hands on the Australian water cash register as it rings up billions of dollars of water allocations into the future.

Just how high might the selling price of water go and just who exactly stands to pocket the wealth generated off the back of the Clarence River being plundered for profit, like the Murray, the Darling, the Snowy and so many other great river systems before it?

Make no mistake, this proposal is as much about money and profits as it is about any notion of pulling together for the national good.

As a community and as responsible Australians are we really prepared to stand by and see the ecology of the Clarence River and the vital industries and unparalleled quality of life that it underpins sold off to the highest bidder?

I sincerely hope we are made of better stuff than that and can look back in years to come and say with pride that we saw through all the politics and fought hard to save the magnificent Clarence River.

The Daily Examiner, 5 June 2007:

Renee Ford

TWO prominent Clarence Valley leaders made their voices heard yesterday, giving submissions opposing any damming or diversion to the Clarence River at an inquiry into water supplies for south-east Queensland.

Clarence River Professional Fishermen's Association industry representative, John McGuren told the Senate Standing Committee a dam in the upper reaches of the Clarence would adversely affect the fishing industry, which he described as the 'engine room of the Clarence Valley'.

"Numerous studies have clearly shown the positive correlation between water flows and catches of key commercial and recreational species, both estuarine and ocean," he told the inquiry. "These relationships don't just exist in the river themselves."

He explained productivity of Australian fisheries was heavily reliant on the terrestrial nutrients delivered by large rivers such as the Clarence.

"It's a key driver to fisheries productivity generally up and down the East Coast," he said.

By overlaying data Mr McGuren was able to illustrate a strong correlation existed between critical environmental flows and Clarence River school prawn catches.

"It's not the percentage of overall total flows to be removed that is the critical factor here, and it is misleading to describe any flow extraction and its potential impacts in these matters," he said.

Clarence Valley Landcare chair, Brian Dodd told the inquiry via teleconference, the upper reaches of the Clarence River were experiencing drought, much like south-east Queensland and Western NSW.

"Damming just doesn't work.

It's been proven around the world, that if you build large dams on streams, it always causes more problems than what they are worth," Mr Dodd said. During the next two days, the NSW Annual Shires Association conference will debate two motions put forward by Western Divisions supporting the diversion of the Clarence River catchments to western NSW.

Clarence Valley mayor Ian Tiley and general manager Stuart McPherson are attending the conference and hope to gain support to squash both proposals put forward by Cobar and Bourke Shire Councils.