Farmers damn Queensland water help

Cosima Marriner and Phillip Coorey
April 13, 2007

NSW farmers, environmentalists and politicians have criticised a $1.5 billion Federal Government plan to dam northern NSW rivers and pump water into parched south-eastern Queensland.

However, the Prime Minister, John Howard, insisted solving the country’s water crisis was more important than bickering over state borders.

“It’s Australian water, it’s not NSW water. It’s Australian water, and I think Australian water should be available for Australians on terms that are fair and equitable for people in all parts of the country,” he said yesterday.

Two days after tough level 5 water restrictions were introduced in Queensland, the federal Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull, yesterday released a report outlining five options for a cross-border pipeline to shore up town water supplies in south-eastern Queensland and north-eastern NSW.

The report by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation said building a 250,000 megalitre dam on the Clarence River upstream from Duck Creek would be “the best value for money”. The dam and pipeline would divert 15 per cent of the Clarence’s flow and would cost an estimated $1.5 billion to build. It would deliver 100,000 kilolitres a year, more than 80 per cent of which would be pumped into Queensland.

NSW farmers are angry their water could be sent interstate. “Why don’t they build their own dams up in Queensland,” asked Lance Hooton, whose 1600-hectare cattle property straddles Duck Creek. “We’re not going to benefit from it.”

The NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, said the State Government did not support the proposal. “There’s a thriving fishing, prawning and boating industry in northern NSW,” he said. “[Mr Howard] might have to explain to the tens of thousands of jobs and communities up there … where their water is going to come from, if he’s going to divert it.”

The federal Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, refused to state his position on the proposal, insisting he needed to see the details and consult the Queensland Government before deciding whether to support it.

Labor said the engineering corporation report had conceded its financial analysis was based on “sweeping assumptions due to the restricted time frame, the nature of the study and the lack of access to recent financial data”.

A backlash against the proposed pipeline could dim the Coalition’s chances of winning back Richmond from Labor in the federal election and strain its hold on the marginal seat of Page, which is being vacated by the retiring Nationals MP, Ian Causley.

The Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, said he had an open mind about the pipeline, but warned it could be on the never-never, given the NSW Government’s opposition to the plan. The Queensland Government is pressing ahead with the construction of the controversial Traveston Crossing Dam near Gympie, which is due to be completed in 2011.

Even if the states do support the cross-border pipeline, Mr Turnbull admitted it could be more than five years before it was completed. He said the Federal Government would “support” the project’s construction, but said the Queensland Government would have to fund most of the cost, as its constituents would receive the most benefit.

Green groups said damming the Clarence would be enormously destructive to bird life and fish. “The solution to our urban water crisis lies in a widespread roll-out of rainwater tanks, increased recycling and stopping water wastage,” said the head of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Cate Faehrmann.

The Nationals MP for Clarence, Steve Cansdell, said Mr Turnbull “should get in a kayak and go up the Clarence … and see the pristine nature of this and the delicate nature of our water system”.

To: Mr Anthony Albanese MP
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure & Water
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au
Monday 23rd April 2007



Dear Sir,

I have just read your media release “Turnbull’s proposal to dam the Clarence River” dated 12th April 2007.

I share your views regarding the likely economic, environmental and social costs of the proposed Clarence River dam, and also your suspicion of smelly politics behind massive dam and pipe schemes that lack critical details.

As a resident of the Mary Valley in Queensland, I have in fact been facing a similarly flawed dam proposal for just on twelve months – the Traveston Crossing Dam.

As recently demonstrated in the Senate Inquiry, the decision to proceed with the Traveston Crossing Dam was based solely on a desktop study by engineering firm GHD, which contained a total of just over 30 pages of information on the site – 9 of which were maps and 6 of which were blank. The report, which ranked various dam sites based on Unit Capital Cost ($/ML/year) was so inaccurate that the cost for Traveston was under-estimated by more than a factor of five ($4,695 versus $24,385 per ML/year) based on current estimates.

If it proceeds, the dam will have devastating environmental impacts, and be at best a very high-cost high-risk water supply option for the Brisbane region. Indeed, just the power consumption to pump the water to Brisbane will exceed the power requirement for desalination of seawater. Social and economic impacts are already affecting the local Mary Valley communities, before the dam has even gained the necessary State or Federal approvals.

Your media release makes it clear that you are committed to speaking out against massive dam and pipe schemes which are politically motivated and likely to have significant negative economic, environmental and social impacts. Can you please lend your support to the people of the Mary Valley, Queensland, in their opposition to the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal, as it is every bit as flawed as the Clarence River Dam proposal.


Regards,