The following letter, purtaining to the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative, was sent by a Mary Valley local to a number of senior Queensland and Federal politicians in July 2006. It has now been submitted to the Traveston Swamp News as an open letter.

——————————————————————————————

6 July 2006

For your information -

Re: the Proposed Mary River Dam

I would like to make you aware of the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative that was signed by the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory on 25 June 2004. Information on this Agreement and the actual Agreement can be found at http://www.pmc.gov.au/nwi/index.cfmand at http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/index.htm

I believe that Premier Peter Beattie and Queensland’s Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water Henry Palaszczuk have not followed “proper process” during the planning phases of the proposed Mary River Dam and are in contravention of this agreement even though the Agreement, as signed by Premier Beattie, states that:

Roles and Responsibilities

Section 20 The States and Territories are responsible for implementing this Agreement within their respective jurisdictions.

1. The Agreement states that:

Investment in new or refurbished infrastructure

Section 69 The Parties agree to ensure that proposals for investment in new or refurbished water infrastructure continue to be assessed as economically viable and ecologically sustainable prior to the investment occurring.

As yet there hasn’t been economic nor ecological assessments completed on the proposed Traveston Dam. This has been quoted by Premier Beattie at various interviews in the media, including at the Gympie Meeting of 5 July 2006. There has already been investment occurring, also as noted by Premier Beattie on many occasions.

Quoted in reports tabled at the Gympie meeting of 5 July and posted to property holders within the proposed footprint of the dam on that day is:

“The Government’s decision to build Traveston Dam in the Mary River catchment follows preliminary investigations of the dam site.

The Government has already announced that once the decision to proceed with the dam was made it would complete on-going studies into:

• Aquatic animal impacts
• Native vegetation impacts
• Cultural heritage impacts
• Economic evaluation
• Reliability and performance
• Riverine conservation values assessment.

This is normal process in the construction of projects of this type. Some of these studies are likely to be ongoing over the next two or three years and will support detailed impact assessments.”

Also noted in those reports is:

“To date, valuations have been completed for more than 50 of these properties. Thirty offers to purchase have been made to landowners and 13 of these offers have been accepted with two properties purchased.”

It is more than obvious by the Premier’s own words that:

Investment by the Queensland Government has

occurred before the proposal has been assessed.

2. Additionally the Agreement states that:

Indigenous Access

Section 52 The Parties will provide for indigenous access to water resources, in accordance with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation, through planning processes that ensure:

i) inclusion of indigenous representation in water planning wherever possible; and

ii) water plans will incorporate indigenous social, spiritual and customary objectives and strategies for achieving these objectives wherever they can be developed.

The importance of the vulnerable lungfish to the traditional indigenous people of the area has not been considered. As quoted by Gubbi Gubbi elder, Eve Fesl, “It’s a totemic fish, but I think it may have [existed] from a long way back - when we were children it was always regarded as a very special fish.”

If this dam is allowed to go ahead and drive the lungfish to extinction, as predicted by the internationally acclaimed Scientist Dr Jean Joss, than:

The Traveston Dam water plan has not considered

indigenous social, spiritual and customary implications.

3. The Agreement also states that:

Community Partnerships and Adjustment

Section 93 Parties agree that the outcome is to engage water users and other stakeholders in achieving the objectives of this Agreement by:

i) improving certainty and building confidence in reform processes;

ii) transparency in decision making; and

iii) ensuring sound information is available to all sectors at key decision points.

The planning process to date has been conducted in a devious and unclear way in that very little information has been provided to the public (or the affected land-holders). The affected land-holders were presented with the option to sell their properties to the government before any research was conducted into the feasibility (geographically, economically and socially) of the project. Premier Beattie has personally indicated on many occasions and at various press conferences that the ‘dam will go ahead irrespective of the problems’. This was reiterated at the Gympie Meeting on the 5 July 2006 and noted in information provided to attendees of that meeting –

“The Queensland Government will build the Traveston Dam …”

The information provided to land-holders was originally a ‘rough draft’ map that was meant to show the possible affected properties. It is clear that the map is very much ‘a draft’ as there are numerous inconsistencies and also many other properties negatively affected that were not indicated on the map as affected. We have been told that this map has an error rate of + or – 5 metres in height. This is not acceptable.

On 5 July, Premier Beattie provided residences with another map – similar to the original but no less inaccurate. The Project Manager, Mr Scott Smith, admitted to land-holders on the night of the 5 July at a Community Consultation Meeting that the “TRUE” and “ACCURATE” map is yet to be produced and could not be expected for around another 6 weeks.

Additionally, the map distributed to residences on 5 July has had all buffer zones of 200 metres removed. How could such a critical factor that impacts on many land-holders have been overlooked? Also, the issue of properties that become ‘islands’, properties not within the dam footprint but without road access to their properties, has not been addressed either at Community Consultative meetings, nor by Premier Beattie. Therefore, all residences in the general area of the proposed dam are unsure of the impact of the dam on themselves and many residences are already making business and life decisions after seeing the inaccurate and incorrect maps.

It is clearly obvious that:

The planning process for the proposed Traveston Dam has substantially increased uncertainty and, therefore, decreased confidence of the affected residences and of the public of Queensland in the water reform process.

THE ACTIONS OF THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

· can in no way be seen as ‘transparent’;

· has not provided sound information to the public sector, primarily the affected residences, at key decision points;

· and most importantly, has not improved certainty and built confidence in the water reform process in the eyes of the affected residences and in the eyes of the public of Queensland.

The Premier Peter Beattie and Queensland’s Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water Henry Palaszczuk have not followed “proper process” during the planning phases of the proposed Mary River Dam and are in contravention of this agreement.

I request that they be held accountable for violating the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative.