Commencement of works, eviction of leasees - Senate Question
stevem
in Captn Bligh, Environmental Impact Statement, Peter Garrett, Political, QWIPL
|
3 Comments
by Steve Burgess
Appendix C5 of the supplementary EIS outlines the ‘geotechnical investigation’ that involves building mining haul roads, blasting and digging more than 20,000 cubic metres of rock from the ridge on the eastern edge of the dam wall. In spite of the fact that this entails the eviction of the landholders in the area and is the start of the clearing, blasting and excavation operations that are required to build the dam wall - QWI insists that this activity does not form part of the dam project. Even though they are digging a hole that would normally require a mining approval from EPA, QWI insist that they are only mining 200 cubic metres of rock - which they can approve themselves because they have been granted the powers of a local planning authority.
Bob Brown asked a question about this in the senate yesterday, to which there was a follow-up question later in the day Here is the Hansard transcript of those parts of the debate. (The proof hansard transcript shows the numbers out by an extra zero - the rock sample that QWI have given themselves permission to take is 200 cubic metres, the size of the hole they want to cut to take that sample is 20,000 cubic metres).
Traveston Crossing Dam
Senator BOB BROWN (2.21 pm)—My question goes, with some notice, to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. It regards the Traveston Dam. I ask: is it true that earthworks are underway at the dam site to remove 200,000 cubic metres of overburden and 20,000 cubic metres of rock preparatory to building the dam, and have eviction notices been given to at least half-a-dozen local farmers effective by the end of this month? I ask the minister: is it not a clear breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law for the project to have got underway, as it obviously has done, before the minister for the environment completed an assessment?
Senator WONG—Senator Brown, I did make some inquiries, given you indicated that you had some concerns about these issues. A similar question was asked at estimates by Senator Macdonald in relation to various activities being asserted. Can I just step back for a moment and remind the Senate what Minister Garrett’s role is in relation to the proposed dam. Mr Garrett is the minister making a determination under the EPBC Act. That assessment and approval process is not a political process; it is a process predicated on a rigorous and comprehensive scientific assessment of this project, as with any other project.
I am advised that the Queensland government has yet to finalise the assessment report for Traveston Crossing Dam and has not yet approved the dam under state legislation. I emphasise again that Minister Garrett’s responsibilities for decision making under the EPBC Act will only commence once that assessment report has been submitted to him, and the timing of that is at the discretion of the Queensland Coordinator-General. In relation to the specific issues raised, Senator Brown, it may be that further information may be available, given the additional detail you have provided us with today. Can I indicate to you that my advice is that the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, which is responsible for the administration of this legislation, has not given any explicit or implied authorisation that would allow the construction of the Traveston Crossing Dam to commence prior to a final decision to approve or not approve under the EPBC Act in terms of the process I have outlined.
I am advised that the department is also not aware of any notification or advice having been given to local residents by any other party that they should expect construction to commence prior to the required approvals having been obtained. It is the case that commencement of construction prior to the conclusion of an assessment process would constitute a breach of section 74AA of the EPBC Act, and such a breach
would be investigated by the department as appropriate.
I am advised that the proponent has notified the department that they will be undertaking a range of investigative geotechnical works necessary to inform design elements of the proposal. The advice I have received is that the department’s view is that these investigations do not constitute the taking of an action that has been referred for assessment under the EPBC Act. That action is the construction and operation of the Traveston Crossing Dam. It is also the case that the proponent has notified the department of their intention to conduct other geotechnical investigations in the vicinity relating to the upgrade of community facilities. Similarly, my advice is that this is not considered to be part of the referred action.
Senator BOB BROWN—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister, as distinct from the department, make the decisions on the socalled preparatory work, which as she indicated is essential to the dam proceeding and therefore should be seen as part of the construction? Secondly, if it is true that people have been given until the end of the month to vacate their land, without the minister’s knowledge, is this a breach of either an arrangement with the Queensland government or the legislation to which she refers? Finally, is it possible for the Queensland government to build a dam and do everything except put the plug in before the minister takes action?
Senator WONG—The answer in relation to the last question is no. I have clearly indicated the advice the government has about the nature of the action which is to be determined under the EPBC Act. The second point I would make is that Senator Brown made an assertion about my answer which I do not regard as an accurate reading of the answer I gave. I made it clear that commencement of construction prior to the conclusion could constitute a breach, but there was a distinction in the advice given to me—
Senator Bob Brown interjecting—
Senator WONG—I appreciate that Senator Brown has strong views about this, but there was a distinction in terms of the advice given to me as between that and investigative geotechnical works necessary to inform design elements of the proposal. If Senator Brown considers that there has been a breach—and I referred to the section that would enable such investigation—he is welcome to provide further details to enable an assessment as to whether such an investigation should occur.
Traveston Crossing Dam
Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (3.31 pm)—I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown today relating to the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, Queensland.
I would like to take note of Senator Wong’s answer because what is occurring in Queensland is analogous to what happened on the Franklin Dam in 1982-83, in that the state authorities are moving to carry out infrastructure even before the full assessment and the process, certainly between the Commonwealth and state, has been settled.
There cannot be two ways about this. The state government cannot be issuing eviction orders to farmers—even those who have negotiated some lease-back arrangement— to enable explosive testing to be done at the dam site and to have the removal of tens of thousands of cubic metres of overburden and rock but at the same time say that they are, in some way or another, assessing the impact of this scheme. At best, it has to be said that it is irresponsible of the state government to be allowing QWI—the water authority in Queensland that is looking at four dam proposals—to be proceeding to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money without the approval for the dam to proceed and without, indeed, the authority of the Commonwealth.
The question here—and it goes straight to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon. Peter Garrett—is: at what stage does the assessment by people in departments end and the minister take action? The minister should be making it clear to the Queensland authorities that the major works involved— certainly where they are so advanced that they are leading to the effective eviction of neighbours from the site—have gone beyond the simple assessment of the region for the purposes of the dam proposal. Indeed, the proposal, when it went the Queensland cabinet, and when it goes to the federal cabinet via the national minister for the environment, should at that stage cease further advancement. The proposal is in. The proposal for the Mary River Dam has been made. And it is quite irresponsible for these major works to be proceeding while further consideration is underway.
This is effectively the pre-emption by the Queensland authorities of decisions to be made by elected representatives in both parliaments—certainly in the national parliament and by the federal minister for the environment, and that means the federal cabinet. It is arrogant, it is expensive, and it is very, very unfair to the hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers, tourism operators, environmentalists and people who are associated with the area to be destroyed by this dam were it to proceed.
What I say to the federal government is: this should not be allowed to be a process of attrition and caving in at the end. The minister needs to make a stand on this matter. The minister should be in contact with Premier Bligh and, if she is not in contact with QWI, put an end to these works at the site. I can tell you that the locals are very, very seriously disturbed. For them, it is a decision as to whether or not this is the start of the dam works. They ought not to be put in that position when they know that the federal minister has not got to first base, effectively, in making a decision on this matter.
There is a lot at stake here. I have moved, and this Senate has agreed, that there is a need for the Queensland authorities to be looking at all the prudent and feasible alternatives. That is what Premier Bligh should be doing, instead of allowing her bureaucrats to run her government and the decision-making process. She ought to be saying, ‘We are using this time to look at the prudent and feasible alternative for Brisbane and the south-east corner of Queensland in terms of using the water that is available much more wisely than it has been up to now. This dam is not necessary. It is an expensive alternative to prudent and feasible action by the Bligh government. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
stevem
Greens seek probe of Traveston dam work
November 13, 2008
Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has asked his department to urgently check whether illegal work is being carried out on a controversial Queensland dam.
Greens leader Bob Brown said Queensland Water Infrastructure (QWI), the company set up to build the Traveston Crossing Dam near Gympie, had started work on a geotechnical survey that included digging 20,000 cubic metres of dirt from the dam site.
Senator Brown said the work mirrored that done on the site for Tasmania’s Franklin Dam 25 years ago, which ended up being a waste of taxpayers’ money when the federal government overturned the dam.
“The Queensland taxpayer is now in the same position,” Senator Brown said.
“Thousands of dollars have already been spent at the Traveston site to construct roads and begin excavation on a dam proposal that is yet to clear state or federal approval processes.”
The Greens have asked Mr Garrett to assess whether the Traveston work breached the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
A spokesman for the Mr Garrett told AAP the minister was aware of the concerns.
“He has asked his department to urgently investigate the nature of the works proposed, to determine whether they can proceed without contravening the EPBC Act,” the spokesman said.
A QWI spokeswoman said geotechnical drilling had been carried out on the site for the past six months.
She said locals had been given notice of the work.
The spokeswoman said the Greens might be confusing the dam works with a private sand and gravel company operating near the dam site.
Traveston dam opponents say it will ruin good farming land and endanger rare wildlife species such as the lungfish.
But the Queensland government says it is a vital part of drought-proofing the state’s south-east.
An environmental assessment is currently being carried out before the dam construction goes ahead.
stevem
Dam surveys have started
14th November 2008
By Kerryn Manifold
Queensland premier Anna Bligh says geotechnical surveys for the Traveston Crossing Dam have started.
Federal Greens leader Bob Brown yesterday said the company set up to build the dam, Queensland Water Infrastructure (QWI), had started work on the surveys which included digging 20,000 cubic metres of dirt from the dam site.
Mr Brown said the work mirrored work done on the site for Tasmania’s Franklin Dam, which did not go ahead.
“Thousands of dollars have already been spent at the Traveston site to construct roads and begin excavation on a dam proposal that is yet to clear state or federal approval processes,” he said.
Ms Bligh today said QWI had started geotechnical surveys but 20,000 cubic metres of dirt was not being removed when responding to a question during parliamentary question time.
She said work included diamond core and percussion drilling, electrical resisitivity and acoustic testing.
“It’s all part of an ongoing program of investigations that begun in 2006,” Ms Bligh said.
“There is nothing unusual about these works.
“Senator Brown’s claims were… wildly inaccurate and misleading.
“No construction work for the Traveston Crossing Dam has commenced.”
Ms Bligh said there may have been some confusion with an existing sand and gravel operation near the dam site.
stevem
Dam bizarre
November 15, 2008
DEBATE over the proposed Traveston Crossing dam left the real world behind yesterday, as bizarre claims by both sides effectively obscured what appear to be clear State Government breaches of at least the intent of the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
As Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett announced an urgent inquiry by his department into whether illegal acts had occurred, Greens leader Bob Brown and Queensland Greens MP Ronan Lee both helped divert attention from real issues which the Garrett inquiry should be looking at. A clearly misinformed Senator Brown asked “if earthworks are underway at the dam site to remove 20,000cu.m of overburden and 20,000cu.m of rock preparatory to building the dam.” They are not. The government’s dam construction company boss, Graeme Newton was able to divert attention from real issues by denying equally misinformed claims by Mr Lee that “there is 20,000cu.m of dirt being dug on the site,” when there is not.
Interviewed on ABC Coast FM yesterday, Mr Newton also denied claims which do not appear to have been made (at least in material his company, Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd, supplied to The Gympie Times), including that blasting had taken place.
He and Premier Anna Bligh then both suggested dam opponents must be getting confused with well known work at a nearby gravel pit.
An angry Save the Mary River Group chairman Kevin Ingersole said Mary Valley residents were well aware of the gravel pit and knew the difference between it and work which clearly is taking place on the dam site.
“We’re not as stupid as Mr Newton thinks,” Mr Ingersole said of Mr Newton’s claims yesterday.
Meanwhile, Mr Newton confirmed that work on the site has been underway since 2006, but said that the “geotechnical activities” involved were for “investigatory purposes and will not leave any permanent structures.”
None of those involved in the debate appeared to address the very real issue that work on the site is clearly work on the dam and that social and economic damage, due to be assessed under the EPBC Act, has already and irretrievably occurred, with confirmed purchases of the vast majority of properties required for the dam.
These activities have occurred without any federal assessment of their impact under the EPBC, a fact which is clear from the fact that the dam’s revised EIS has not yet been submitted to Canberra for assessment.
The EPBC Act provides for civil and criminal penalties up to $550,000 for an individual and $5.5 million for a corporate body.
Criminal penalties, including up to seven years jail, may also apply to executive officers of corporations, such as Mr Newton, if it is found that his organisation has breached the Act.
Meanwhile, Gympie MP David Gibson said it was nonsense for Mr Newton to claim that work, clearly visible on the dam site, was simply “investigatory” when the dam’s finished Environmental Impact Statement had been described by Premier Anna Bligh as one of the most complete ever prepared.
He said QWI’s clear confidence in going ahead with work on the site raised serious questions about political interference.
stevem
After all the denials, arguments, mistruths, etc, a picture truly is worth 1,000 words.
If you didn’t catch the front page, here is a photo of the excavator QWIPL has brought on site for their “geotechnical investigations”.
The 255LCV is not a toy.
It weighs 25 metric tonnes. It has a reach of 10 metres and a dig depth of 6.6 metres. It can lift up to 8.6 metric tonnes in a single scoop (with the standard 2.4 metre wide bucket).
It is, as they say, clearly not there just to $&#*@ spiders
stevem
18-11-08, page 3
Propaganda surge attacks demonstrators in govt’s New diversionary tactics on TC dam
PREMIER Anna Bligh and Traveston Crossing dam proponent, Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd, appear to have been caught seriously misleading the public to discredit dam opponents.
Misleading statements, reported in good faith in Saturday’s edition of The Gympie Times, included a news release from Premier Bligh’s office that wrongly implied falsehood by Maryborough independent MP Chris Foley.
It was followed by a QWI statement that used an out-of-context quotation to discredit Greens leader Bob Brown. This followed a morning radio interview with QWI boss Graeme Newton, in which he ridiculed dam opponents on the basis of distorted versions of their concerns.
Echoing Ms Bligh, Mr Newton wrongly suggested dam opponents were confusing the dam site with a nearby gravel pit.
The surprisingly intense public relations assault coincided with an announced federal investigation of the dam project, to see if work admittedly underway has illegally pre-empted federal approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
It also helped colour the perceptions of more than 100 of Australia’s most influential engineers, who took part in a heavily guarded weekend tour of the dam-affected district (under QWI supervision).
They were visiting as part of this years conference of the Australian National Committee on Large Dams.
The propaganda surge began with a news release from Ms Bligh’s office on Thursday falsely accusing Mr Foley of being untruthful “in Parliament” that day, with Ms Bligh saying: “No construction work …has commenced …I can only assume (Mr Foley) is getting a little confused with an existing sand and gravel operation”, and “There is none of the blasting the Member for Maryborough referred to.
“The Member for Maryborough’s claim is simply not true,” she said.
But a Hansard check of Mr Foley’s only Parliamentary reference to the dam on the day in question shows he did not allege or imply construction work or blasting had commenced. What he actually said was: “As several residents have been told to leave their homes by the end of the month for blasting to begin, why has the Premier allowed this work to begin without federal approval?”
Ms Bligh did not answer his secondary question; “Is it a breach of the federal (EPBC) Act?”
The later QWI release quoted Sen Brown asking if “earthworks are underway at the dam site to remove 20,000cu.m of overburden and 20,000cu.m of rock preparatory to building the dam.”
Taken in context, Sen Brown’s question in the Senate also did not imply removal of the material had begun, but referred to a start on work that would include that removal, after the end of this month.
stevem
Letter to the Editor
The Gympie Times editorial of Tuesday November 18th was spot on. In my view, Anna Bligh’s Media Release on Friday November 14th is a classic example of misrepresenting the facts to score political points.
The Hansard record clearly shows that Chris Foley did not say that work had commenced on the proposed dam. Yet the Premier said “The member for Maryborough’s claim (that work had started) is simply not true”.
Similarly, Foley did not say that blasting (at the site of the proposed wall) had begun. Yet the Premier said “There is none of the blasting that the Member for Maryborough referred to…” And further on “no 20,000 cubic metres of dirt to be dug up” yet Section 2.1.1 of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement discloses “geotechnical drilling and trial blasting on the right abutment” (of the proposed dam wall). Further, Appendix C5 of the Supplementary EIS provides supporting information for an application for extraction of 30,200 tonnes of material from that location. Incidentally, my reading of Appendix C5 is that this extraction can take place prior to a Federal Government decision on whether the project will be allowed to proceed.
The Premier’s Media Release also takes a swing at Bob Brown saying “The Member for Maryborough was quoting questions by Bob Brown in the Federal Senate. Senator Brown’s claims were also wildly inaccurate and misleading”. The reality is however that Bob Brown did not make any claims in the Senate. Instead, he asked a series of questions of Senator Wong to establish the facts about reports that the Queensland Government had commenced preliminary works without approval.
I could go on with other examples but would prefer to take this opportunity to encourage members of the public to ask the Premier, in respect of the proposed dam and associated infrastructure (including the water treatment plant, which for some inexplicable reason is not included in the scope of the project) precisely and exactly what works will be undertaken prior to a Federal Government decision and what is the estimated cost of those works.
Surely Queenslanders are entitled to know how much of their money has and will be spent without the dam proposal having been approved.
Kevin Ingersole
President
Save the Mary River Coordinating Group Inc
Kandanga
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (3)
How could we have mistaken the obvious clearing work on the nearby hillside and ridges around what is, from the QWIPL plans, the spillway lines and abutment sites, the building of new roads at the proposed dam site, the cancellation of all nearby leases (even those residents with lease-back arrangements have been told to leave by the end of November), and the statement (as mentioned above) about the amount of overburden to be removed (20,000 cu.m) to look at underlying rock.
Tut tut!
So, for instance, drilling of some holes to determine the size / shape / construction method of the proposed dam wall was OK - this info was required to help determine the impacts so they could be assessed. Ditto for the water quality investigations.
But bulldozing a house, for example, is not OK. Digging a 20,000 BCM test pit is certainly, emphatically not OK. It does not help inform the assessment, and it is therefore part of the construction phase of the project, not the assessment. As SteveB points out, such a pit would probably constitute a “controlled action” in its own right.
It is simple to demonstrate that these actions do not inform the assessment - because QWI has already submitted their EIS. Unless QWI are specifically requested by the Federal Department to undertake further investigations, anything they do from now on is an advancement of the project itself, not the assessment. Non-physical stuff - like design calculations - is OK, but anything on-ground must be considered 'construction'.
Under the EPBC Act, QWI do not have the authority to say whether or not a particular on-ground physical aspect of the job will or will not impact on the MNES (matters of environmental significance) governed by the Act. It is all part of the overall 'controlled action' which is under assessment, and only the Federal assessment can determine what the impacts are and whether they may be allowed under the Act.
Penny Wong says:
Quote:
"I am advised that the proponent has notified the department that they will be undertaking a range of investigative geotechnical works necessary to inform design elements of the proposal. The advice I have received is that the department’s view is that these investigations do not constitute the taking of an action that has been referred for assessment under the EPBC Act. That action is the construction and operation of the Traveston Crossing Dam."
That might sound OK when you say it quickly, but if you follow the same line of logic, you could build the entire dam wall 'all except the last brick' and call it an 'investigation'.
No, QWI are breaching the EPBC Act, and by doing it so openly they are snubbing their noses at the Federal Minister and Federal Law, IMHO. If the EPBC Act doesn't have the teeth to stop this kind of bullshit, or the Federal Department is too gutless to enforce it, then they may as well pack their bags and go home and stop wasting taxpayer's money pretending.
Appendix C5 of the supplementary EIS outlines the 'geotechnical investigation' that involves building mining haul roads, blasting and digging more than 20,000 cubic metres (30,000 tonnes) of rock from the ridge on the eastern edge of the dam wall.
There is ambiguity in the supplementary EIS that is concerning where in the main report section 2.1.1 the preliminary works are described and proposed to be commenced immediately after state and federal approval. Included there is the geotechnical drilling and trial blasting on the right abutment to determine the suitability of the material for construction purposes.
However in Appendix C5 ERA 20 APPLICATION, there are details for an application of a Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) 20 level 1 (b)Extracting rock or other material (5,000t or more but less than 100,000t per year), show plans to remove 30,000 tonnes of overburden to get to 200 tonnes of rock to test in an open cut pit to assess suitability for using in the dam wall. This is planned for the top of the ridge and in this Appendix C5(marked draft) is subject only to EPA approval as soon as the Coordinator General has completed his report. This could be any time in the near future.
Also in Appendix C5 section 2.1.1 it states “ Under Section 38 of the SDPWOA, the decision stage of IDAS for applications associated with the project (where the CG is not the assessment manager), cannot commence until the CG gives the assessment manager a copy of the Coordinator-General’s report. QWI understands that the EPA is unable to commence the decision period for material change of use applications that are associated with the project (which by giving approval would constitute the commencement of the project), until the CG’s report has been received. It is important to note that the conduct of this activity is for assessment purposes only, and does not constitute the commencement of the Traveston Crossing Dam project.”
What is the approval process for the ERA by the EPA given that it appears that this is being progressed as “geotechnical investigation” and statements like “It is important to note that the conduct of this activity is for assessment purposes only, and does not constitute the commencement of the Traveston Crossing Dam project” are made in Appendix C5?
It also mentions in Appendix C5 section 3 “The overburden material will be stockpiled, and used to reinstate the excavation if the rock is determined to be unsuitable for construction, or the project is not approved by the State or Federal Government” giving clear indication that QWIPL intend to progress this before Federal approvals.
It also mentions in Appendix C5 section 3 “The floor of the pit will be left free draining as the excavation forms a slot into the ridge, and is not a blind hole (see QWI Drawing No. 229937). As stated above, if the site is ultimately not developed as proposed, QWI commit to return and flatten the side slopes, with the floor level raised in the process, to grades that could then be topsoiled and grassed. The site will always be maintained in a safe manner in that it will be fenced (security type 2 m high). The spoil dump will be graded to an average slope of 1:2 (V:H) but with benches and berms. Intermediate slopes will be 1:1.5. The lower slope will be rock covered to protect toe from stream erosion and the remainder top soiled and grass seeded, with the benches used to control surface drainage. If the site has to be rehabilitated to allow fencing removal, then the excavation will be opened out to flatter slopes (about 1:2) and top soiled and seeded.” .. giving again clear indication that QWIPL intend to progress this before federal approvals and leave the excavation open (contradicts above statement of “reinstate” the excavation.).
The reason given in Appendix C5 for the excavation:
“In order to gain a better understanding of the material at the dam site a significant program of geotechnical drilling was conducted during the preparation of the EIS. A total of 76 bore holes were drilled in and around the dam site. The preliminary materials investigations identified that further extraction is required to conduct additional geotechnical testing. This testing is required to confirm that the site contains suitable construction materials for the project, which would reduce the need to source materials away from the dam site.
In this phase, to undertake a reliable assessment of the material off site, including trial concrete and aggregate mixes, it is necessary to extract approximately 200 tonnes of rock. This will be tested off site over various periods, to determine the suitability of the material for use in the RCC dam wall. The results of the testing will help to determine whether substantial quantities of material can be sourced from the site and thus, the extent to which off site material is required. In order to access this rock material, approximately 20,000m3 (30,000 t) of overburden is required to be excavated. Therefore the total amount of material to be extracted will be approximately 30,200 t of material. The overburden material will be stockpiled, and used to reinstate the excavation if the rock is determined to be unsuitable for construction, or the project is not approved by the State or Federal Government”
There is clear indication that QWIPL intends to do this geotechnical extraction before federal approval from what can be gleaned from this "draft" appendix 15 in the "leaked" copy of the supplementary EIS..
Why can't the state government just come out and be honest about what they plan to do before Federal approval and be accountable for all these costs?
Surely this geotechnical testing could be done from the drill samples without the expense and visual eyesore of a hugh excavation on the top of a ridge???