Claim of fudged rainfall figures
stevem
in "Don't you worry about that", Environmental Impact Statement, Freedom of Information, QWIPL
|
4 Comments
02.11.2007
THE Queensland Government was yesterday accused of continuing to fudge the rainfall figures in the proposed Traveston Crossing dam catchment.
Nationals Deputy Leader and Shadow Infrastructure Minister Fiona Simpson raised the issue in state Parliament yesterday morning.
She said the Government had been caught out using rainfall figures from an area that is not even in the Mary River catchment to try and justify their decision to build the controversial Traveston Crossing Dam.
Ms Simpson said the Queensland Labor Government had adopted a “blinkered approach” to the Traveston Crossing Dam and were resorting to gross exaggerations and misleading statements to support their proposal.
“The Traveston Crossing Dam will be an economic, environmental and social disaster but this State Labor Government is hell bent on building it no matter what,” she said.
“Labor is so desperate to justify their decision to build this dam that they have even included Crohamhurst, an area on the Stanley River in the Wivenhoe catchment, in a rainfall analysis in the Traveston Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
“Crohamhurst is a record holder in Queensland for high rainfall so it is little wonder they wanted to claim it was part of the Mary River catchment, but the reality is rainfall in this area wont flow into the Traveston Crossing Dam.”
Ms Simpson said the former Premier Peter Beattie had been caught out fudging the figures on rainfall in the Traveston Crossing Dam catchment in June this year and it seemed the Labor Government still hadnt learnt their lesson.
“The State Labor Government is being loose with the truth on rainfall figures, so you have to ask what else has been grossly exaggerated in the Traveston Crossing Dam EIS,” she said.
stevem
From Hansard:
| Quote: |
| Traveston Dam Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Premier. Crohamhurst is a record holder in Queensland for high rainfall. I refer to page 6-2 of the Traveston Dam environmental impact statement where it lists Crohamhurst as part of the Mary River catchment. As this is blatantly incorrect, what else has been grossly exaggerated in the EIS to mislead the Queensland people? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. Her opposition to the need of the people in south-east Queensland to drink water is well known and well established. In addition, her comprehensive opposition to science is well known. I just outlined all of the problems we as a government had when trying to eliminate tree clearing so that we could look after our environment. Who stood against us at every turn? The National Party. The federal Liberal government and the state Liberal Party are rendered impotent at every turn on the environment by their relationship with the Queensland National Party. It is the Queensland National Party—the member for Maroochydore—and senators Boswell and Joyce who now want to stand in the way. They seek to stand in the way of the needs of the people of the south-east corner of Queensland, the fastest growing part of Australia, that needs water. We are going to make sure that we provide the water that people in the south-east corner need. When we go to the next election I will be doing everything in my power to make sure that people know that the parties that stood against water—the parties that opposed the dams, that opposed the pipelines, that opposed every single piece of water infrastructure—were the Queensland Liberal Party |
(ed: Did anybody notice any attempt whatsoever by the Premier to actually answer the question?
Later, the Deputy Premier was happy to demonstrate that his ignorance on the matter rivals his leader’s… )
| Quote: |
Traveston Dam Mr O’BRIEN: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier. I refer to comments about the catchment for the Mary River. Can the Deputy Premier provide further information to the House about the catchment for the Mary River? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member for Maroochydore raised some issues about page 6-2 of the EIS of Sinclair Knight Merz—one of the world’s finest companies. I table that page, because she did not table it when she referred to it. Tabled paper: Copy of page 6-2 from the Environmental Impact Statement by Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd map relating to the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. Has the honourable member read the executive summary? Do not just grin at me. Has she read it? Miss Simpson: Yes. Mr LUCAS: She has read it. Well, that is excellent because we are going to have a discussion about it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Premier, before you go on, you are answering a question, not asking another member a question. Mr LUCAS: It was rhetorical, Mr Speaker. One of the things it is important to look at when doing an EIS for a dam—and the member for Maryborough was talking about this yesterday—is what will happen not only in the dam itself but also in the entire river system. Of course, the Mary River catchment system is not the same thing as the dam at Traveston. It occupies part of the catchment system. Let us look at the graph. It talks about the whole Mary catchment system. It says ‘Crohamhurst (representative of upper catchment)’—not the dam— ‘Maryborough (representative of lower catchment)’. On that same basis, is the member concluding that we are suggesting the dam is in Maryborough? It also says ‘Gympie (representative of proposed Traveston Crossing Dam)’. When you use historical records you must use the ones that represent the areas most relevant to the particular catchment. If members had actually looked at this—and the member for Maroochydore says that she has— they would know that the hydrologically efficient catchment in the Mary River receives up to 55 per cent more rain on average per year. We only needed to look at the front page of the Courier-Mail one Saturday a few weeks ago to see the water flowing at Traveston Crossing. That dam would have been full. We know the other dams would have had five per cent in them now. The member for Gympie is totally fixated on scoring points on this. We know from the EIS that flooding levels in Gympie will be significantly reduced as a result of this dam. Does the member want to consign people to that? That benefit is not provided by having a dam in another location. The 1999 flood event in Gympie is one of the largest on record. The reported effects of the flood include inundation of some 60 houses and 130 businesses. This measure would have reduced the 1999 flood event by 30 per cent, saving all 60 houses and 80 of the 130 businesses. It would extend the time of the flooding event by 17 hours but, according to the modelling on 1999, no houses would be affected. We also know that the major impact on sedimentation and the quality of that river has nothing to do with the dam because the dam is not there at the moment. It has to do with the land use there. The honourable member and others have spoken about the dairy industry— Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Question time is now completed.
(Ed: Lucas, after consulting a map, still got it wrong. Crohamhurst is not representative of the upper catchment of the Mary River system, or any other part of it. It is representative of the upper Stanley catchment, feeding the Somerset Dam. As well as some geography lessons, the Deputy Premier could do with a dictionary too. After asking Fiona Simpson a question out of turn, and taunting her to answer it, he then told the Speaker it was only “rhetorical”.)
|
stevem
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (4)
http://encarta.msn.com/media_701508618_761565171_-1_1/A_Summary_of_World_Weather_Records.html
Quote:
Mr LUCAS: The Traveston Crossing Dam would be 50 kilometres from the coast whereas Wivenhoe is more than 200 kilometres from the coast.
A quick look at a map shows that Wivenhoe is less than 50km from the coast (about 44km at the wall) and the furthest point is only about 60km from the coast.
Crohamhurst holds the record for Queensland’s highest recorded 24 hour rainfall-35.714 inches, just short of a metre, recorded by legendary weatherman Inigo Jones on 2nd February 1893). Rain falling at Crohamhurst though would flow via the Stanley River to Somerset Dam, not northwards into the mooted Traveston Dam at all.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
In State Parliament this week Infrastructure Minister Paul Lucas didn’t seem too embarrassed by the geographical blunder but he did go on to dig the hole deeper.
“Traveston Crossing Dam,” he informed the Parliament,” would be 50 kilometres from the coast whereas Wivenhoe is more than 200 kilometres from the coast.”
Geography is plainly not Mr Lucas' forte.
My high school atlas has them at around 40 and 50 km respectively.
Even Dalby is only 175 km in from the coast!
Reading his tirades when questioned on Traveston made me better understand why he won't extend the time period for the EIS. If we, and experts, have too long to scrutinise it, it's assertions and assumptions will totally unravel.
Like walking on quicksand, you have to keep moving fast.
Is there no way to keep the bastards honest?