Showing posts with label water wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water wars. Show all posts

Sunday 4 December 2016

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)." 

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.
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:




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


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.

Monday 21 November 2016

As 2016 draws to a close it is apparent that global greenhouse gas emissions are still rising - albeit a little slower than before


The Global Carbon Project was established in 2001 “to assist the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”.

It released its Global Carbon Budget 2016 this month.

Here are some of the Power Point graphs in this budget report:

NOTE: All the data is shown in billion tonnes CO2 (GtCO2 ) 1 Gigatonne (Gt) = 1 billion tonnes = 1×1015g = 1 Petagram (Pg) 1 kg carbon (C) = 3.664 kg carbon dioxide (CO2 ) 1 GtC = 3.664 billion tonnes CO2 = 3.664 GtCO2 (Figures in units of GtC and GtCO2 are available from http://globalcarbonbudget.org/carbonbudget)

Source: CDIAC; Le Quéré et al 2016; Global Carbon Budget 2016

In July 2015 The Climate Institute produced a fact sheet indicating that Australia was responsible for 1.4 per cent of all global greenhouse gas emissions, 26 tCO2 annually per person (per capita) and 640 tCO2 per unit of GDP.

Despite knowing these facts and despite having the effects of climate change literally in our face in Australia this last decade, the Turnbull Government is once again giving into short-term industry interests at the expense of the natural environment, soil quality and long-term water security - not just risking future domestic food shortages due to the degradation of a major food bowl but rather in a worst-case scenario risking widespread starvation as more and more land becomes hostile to reliable food production due to lack of sufficient environmental water flows keeping vital river systems alive.



The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 November 2016:

The federal government is consigning the Murray River to a "certain slow death" and killing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan by reneging on a promise to increase environmental water flows, South Australian Environment Minister Ian Hunter has said.
Before what was described as a heated meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in Adelaide on Friday morning, Mr Hunter called on the Prime Minister to sack his deputy, Barnaby Joyce.
"We saw what happened in the millenium drought. It's beyond shameful that upstream politicians would even consider consigning the South Australians to the same fate in the future," said Mr Hunter.  
Without extra water, the mouth of the Murray would dry up, he said……

Wednesday 9 November 2016

"This is sacred land": noting Lakota resistance at Standing Rock, Dakota, U.S.A.


A reminder that standing up for community and against powerful mining interests is never easy no matter where in the world you live.

Inquisitr, 29 October 2016:

Amnesty International and the United Nations have announced that they are sending officials to investigate allegations of human rights violations at the site of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota.
Amnesty International announced Friday that they were sending a delegation of human rights observers to monitor the response of law enforcement against DAPL protesters after concerns mounted about increasingly violent actions towards the peaceful protesters.

Telesur, 29 October 2016:

Owners of the North Dakota Access Pipeline have been warned that they risk legal liability over several instances of human rights abuses against peaceful Native American and environmental activists opposing the US$3.8 billion pipeline, as militarized law enforcement have increasingly used violence and repression at protest camps.
The joint letter released Friday by five environmental and legal advocacy organizations said that the joint owners of the pipeline “have a corporate duty under international law and the laws of the United States to respect human rights and to avoid complicity in further human rights abuses.”
The advocacy groups said that in recent weeks the situation in the Standing Rock camp “has deteriorated further,” making reference to recent violent crackdowns by law enforcement and security personnel on peaceful protestors.

Twitter, 31 October 2016:
  

Facebook post:


Speechless. I was shot by militarized police WHILE interviewing a peaceful man at Standing Rock live on camera. I woke up this morning with the thought that I may have that very footage – and broke down in reliving the 40-second horror before my own eyes. Warning: it's very very difficult to watch and sent me into quivers and tears, even without the compounding historic trauma that Native Americans face.

I do not wish to divert focus away from the bravery of the Water Protectors, from the power of nonviolent direct action, from the people fighting for their lives and for our futures – but I want you to witness the indiscriminate use of excessive force firsthand. Many have said that militarized police firing a rubber bullet at a female reporter was a fabrication, provoked by violence, or otherwise merited, including a Morton County, North Dakota press release. That is a lie; we have proof and eyewitnesses (cc Josh Fox, Matt McGorry, Jordan Chariton, Josue Rivas, Evan Simon, Josh Fox, Wes Mekasi Horinek, Kendrick Sampson, Doug Pineda, Doug Good Feather and countless more).

I was standing innocently onshore, not making any aggressive gestures, never exchanging a single word with the police who fired at my lower back from their boat. Peaceful souls were seeking to cross the river to hold a prayer circle on Army Corps public land, but halted by over one hundred hostile military police armed with and deploying tear gas, pepper spray, batons, and rubber bullets, as well as assault weapons and the threat of jail, only one week after 141 individuals were brutally arrested. I was shot at pointblank range, dozens were maced and pepper sprayed in the face, hundreds faced freezing waters. There were no arrests or deaths and I will be okay physically, but the safety and wellbeing of many peoples and lands remain in danger, for present and future generations.

Thank you for your prayers, for your action in calling upon our President, government and Department of Justice to halt this atrocity immediately, for showing up and donating to support this fight for human rights, for the environment, for peace. Please continue to pray for the strength and protection of all peoples, for the physical pain, for the emotional trauma, for the desecrated land. #StandWithStandingRock #NoDAPL


Friday 12 August 2016

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

People Power on the Liverpool Plains: Caroona mine to go - will Shenhua Watermark be next?


Congratulations to the people of the Liverpool Plains. You deserve this victory.

ABC News, 11 August 2016:

The NSW Government will buy back BHP's licence for the Caroona coal mine on the Liverpool Plains, ending a decade-long fight by farmers to shut down the project.
inflation, meaning the total price tag is around $220 million.
The exploration licence was issued in 2006 for underground coal mining covering approximately 344 square kilometres in the Liverpool Plains — an area of prime agricultural land.
The State Government said after careful consideration it determined the mine posed too great a risk to the future of the food bowl and its underground water sources.
The Deputy Premier and Nationals leader Troy Grant said the decision was in the best interests of the local community….

Yahoo News, 7 July 2016:

The Mining Gateway Panel has flagged six deficiencies in BHP Billiton's Caroona Coal Mining Project.
NSW Farmers and local landholders have slammed the gateway's lack of authority to shut the project down.

Hopefully the Baird Government will resist federal government pressure and go on to address the issue of Shenhua Watermark open cut coal mine and associated coal seam gas project.

Tuesday 9 August 2016

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.

Wednesday 3 August 2016

Moree Rail to Yamba Mega Port Scheme: "They probably want to fill the carriages up with water and take them back"


In 2012 Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson probably thought he was sarcastically joking when he remarked about Australian Infrastructure Development Pty Ltd’s scheme to build a Yamba mega port at the end of an inland freight rail line: "They probably want to fill the carriages up with water and take them back".

We now know from presentations done by this company that it is actually spruiking the option of a water pipeline beside the proposed rail line from the port to Moree [Project 1: Port Yamba Regeneration, Slide 11 at http://www.slideshare.net/DesEuen1/part-2-of-3-v1].

We also know that this option is being taken seriously in some quarters.

The July 2016 ordinary monthly meeting minutes of Namoi Councils Joint Organisation (representing eight Murray-Darling Basin local government areas) show that this body is considering both the inland rail to port plan to industrialize the Clarence River estuary and a plan to build at least three to four dams on Clarence River tributaries, pipe the water over the Great Dividing Range into a purpose built hydro-electric scheme before discharging it into the inland river system for the use of irrigators and mining operations in the basin.

Map of Endersbee version of dam & divert proposal, cecaust.com.au

Although the scheme favoured by current Murray-Darling Basin lobbyists differs from the incredibly ambitious scenario Australia Infrastructure Developments appears to have briefly considered if this Facebook post by one of its named shareholders, Richard Wells, is any indication:

As the Namoi councils organisation appears to be favoured by the Baird Government and enjoys a close working relationship with the Dept. of Premier and Cabinet, Clarence Valley communities cannot afford to laugh off the lobbying being done in support of either of these two schemes.

Especially with regard to the Yamba port scheme as there are two planning documents, one state and one federal, which show that Liberal-Nationals governments may yet be inclined to entertain this appalling proposal:

Future strategic planning by Sydney Ports will include the regional ports of Eden and Yamba. [NSW Freight And Ports Strategy, 2013]

The national ports strategy suggests a focus on major ports; however smaller ports face similar challenges. Minor and regional ports play a vital role in the national economy and are encouraged to opt-in and participate. To the extent relevant, the plans should fit in with the Council of Australian Governments’ directions for city planning and the national land freight strategy which is being developed. [Australian Government, Infrastructure Australia – National Ports Strategy, 2011]

As for the Clarence River catchment dam and diversion scheme, it is well to remember that the last time the federal government entertained that idea both state and federal governments were Coalition - just as they are today.

The only real difference is that Malcolm Turnbull has gone from being Australian water minister in 2007 to Australian prime minister in 2016.

It’s time for concerned voters to make their views known to Premier Mike Baird and demand that the valley’s social, cultural and economic interests are not sacrificed to further the greed of private corporations, foreign investors and inland councils.

Monday 25 July 2016

Clarence Valley pouring cold water on wanabee dam builders



"Water in the Clarence catchment area river systems does not belong to Australia as you assert and, only nominally belongs to New South Wales.
It more truly belongs to the land through which it flows and, is held in trust by local communities for future generations." [A Clarence Valley Protest, It'sWar, June 2007]

ABC North Coast Radio, 22 July 2016:

A council in the south of New South Wales is lobbying to have water piped inland from the Clarence River.

The Griffith City Council has submitted a 30-year-old proposal to divert water from the Clarence River into the Murray Darling Basin via a tunnel through the Great Dividing Range.

The submission has been made to an NSW Upper House inquiry into dams, flooding and water management.

Councillor Dino Zappacosta said it could be done without any adverse effects to the Clarence Valley.

"Our preliminary studies have shown that the amount of water which we'd be looking at diverting would be around about 25 per cent of the water that currently flows into the seaboard," he said.

"That would not affect any activities currently going on along the Clarence at the moment.

"A few engineers have looked at the scheme and by using only gravitational methods through tunnels, the cost would be reduced," Cr Zappacosta said.

"At the same time we would be able to use that flow of water for hydro-generation as well, so it has an extra benefit.

"If we're going to look at Australia developing, particularly west of the ranges where there is so much fertile area all over the place, and if we're going to be the food bowl of the world we must be looking at ways to have more water in our region."

Proposal 'unlikely' to get support: Clarence Valley Mayor

Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science at the University of New South Wales, Professor Richard Kingsford, is not a fan of the idea.

"The water that comes down rivers and goes out to sea is not wasted water," he said.

"We're learning that our estuaries, our fisheries, are so dependent on not just the water that comes down but the nutrients and the sediment."

The Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson said the idea was floated every five or six years.

He said it would cost billions of dollars and was unlikely to get much support at a state or federal level.

"I've previously raised this with the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, when this was part of his ministerial responsibility," Cr Williamson said.

"He told me absolutely that any proposal was not certainly on the Federal Government's radar.

"My understanding is it's also not on the State Government's radar in any way shape or form."


Save his breath to cool his porridge

Ed,

What is it with many of the local councils and councillors in the Murray-Darling Basin?

They seem to be firmly of the belief that the Clarence Valley catchment is an est. 22,700 sq. km supermarket whose shelves can be browsed at will.

Where they can pile their trollies high with items which will enhance their own regional economies and, when they get to the checkout pay for the natural resources they take not with dollars but with degradation, destruction and death.

Approximately once every twenty years these councils lobby state and federal governments to industrialise the Port of Yamba so they can export minerals, ore, grain, cattle etc., through the Clarence River estuary and, at least twice a decade they want to dam and divert water from the Clarence River catchment so that they can grow their own regions at the expense of Clarence Valley communities.

Each and every time these local government raiders appear on the horizon the people of the Clarence Valley point out the limitations and risks of these grand plans for an ancient floodplain and river system that began its life at least 23 million years ago and, which due in part to happy historical accident and good management remains a relatively health system to this day.

They politely point out the fact that like north-west NSW they too suffer from the same droughts and rely on this particular river system to see us through them. They tell them the limits of safe water sharing have been reached because the catchment already supplies drinking water to the growing Coffs Harbour region further south.

They remind them that river system flows in the catchment are highly variable and natural freshwater flows are vital to keep a highly productive main river (which is saline for almost half its length) healthy and biodiverse in order to sustain our own agricultural, commercial fishing and tourism industries into the future.

Locals also point to the environmental studies done down the years by various governments which are not in favour of altering the rate or volume of river flows, that the native title holders are very protective of these waters and, when these councils won’t listen they stop being polite and put their foot down.

If Cr. Zappacosta of Griffith (The Area News, 11 June 2016) doesn’t remember the last time that happened I’m sure Bourke Shire Council will, because that was the time that it proposed a Clarence River water diversion plan which relied on the estimated $1.5 billion dollar cost being “financed by the private sector against sales of water licences and long-term operation and management rights” and was actively seeking to identify sources of diversion funding [A Clarence Valley Protest, 23 August 2007].

That was the time the Clarence Valley declared “Not A Drop”, successfully lobbied a NSW Coalition government, gave evidence before a Senate inquiry and saw off a federal government in late 2007.

Cr. Zappacosta would be wise to save his breath to cool his porridge because he can talk to each and every politician in Canberra and Macquarie Street but it will get him nowhere if the people of the Clarence don’t agree with his current plan to divert 1,000 gigalitres of fresh water annually – and I strongly suspect that they won’t.

Judith M. Melville, Yamba