Doubts raised over Traveston dam EIS
5 MAR 2008
Conservationists say the environmental report prepared by the company contracted to build the Traveston Crossing dam in south-east Queensland is not up to scratch and needs to be redone.
The environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed dam in the Mary Valley attracted 17,000 submissions, the most for any EIS in Queensland.
Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council’s Roger Currie says Queensland Water Infrastructure (QWI) will be ordered to complete an extra environmental report before the project is referred to the Federal Government for approval.
“We’ve been given information that the Queensland Government is seriously looking at creating another EIS,” he said.
“That would be based on the fact that the submissions have clearly shown that this EIS doesn’t address the terms of reference and doesn’t show that the matters of national environmental significance can be adequately protected.”
A spokesman for the coordinator-general says no decision has been made on further reporting.
QWI says requests for supplementary studies are not uncommon, so staff are already working on a second report should one be required.
AS the frenzy of activity of writing submissions to the Traveston Dam EIS abates, many have asked, after drawing a modicum of breath, “What next?”
The response to the EIS was enormous. It seems there have been over sixteen thousand responses. What initially seemed like an incredibly daunting document, proved, on closer scrutiny, to have sufficient holes to permit the passage of Pantechnicons two abreast.
Enter our new Prime Minister with an excellent vision for water, posted on his website.
Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth. As the impact of climate change intensifies, Australia faces increasingly acute long-term water shortages both in our cities and regional areas - with lower rainfall, rivers drying up and dam water levels falling. Tackling the water crisis is a major long term priority for the Australian Government.
Tackling the water crisis and securing our future water supply requires all Australians to work together to use water more efficiently, cut water wastage, more effectively capture rain and stormwater, and adapt to the impact of climate change.
The Rudd Government will tackle the water crisis with a national plan to invest in water infrastructure, sustain our farming communities, revitalise our rivers and waterways, secure water supplies in our cities and towns and ensure that we become smarter and more efficient in our water usage.
The Government will invest in greater use of recycled water, desalination and stormwater through a $1 billion urban water infrastructure fund. The government will also assist households to install water and energy efficient products, with rebates for rainwater tanks and solar hot water.
The government will also be working cooperatively with state and local governments, farmers, industry and the community to secure Australia’s long-term water supply.
(from the PM’s website www.pm.gov.au)
This sounds like a government that has learnt lessons from the Murray and is keen to avoid similar catastrophic and costly mistakes, while seeking to ensure reliable sources of water that are less rainfall-dependent and less impacted by climate change.
This could have been written by any of us opposing the folly of this dam. The fact is though, that it was written by the man who heads the team that’ll have the final say on whether the Mary flows or flounders.
We need to be writing to the PM, to his key Ministers and to federal Labor backbenchers to congratulate them on this far-sighted and visionary statement and to contrast it with the actions of the Queensland government that not only insists on building the dam but that has done such a cursory examination of all alternatives.
The state government, and its offshoot QWI, have acted as if there is no impediment to the dam being built; it has thumbed its nose at the possibility that EPBC approval may not be forthcoming, and has embarked on an aggressive process of property acquisition, meetings with contractors etc.
Recent rains have removed some of the urgency of the water ‘crisis’ and allow a breathing space to ensure the wisest water decisions are the ones put into play.
We need a lot of letters to do this. Lots! The bar has been set so high with the number of EIS submissions that many heads turned. Now that they’ve turned we need them to start to think outside the pro-Traveston briefing they would have received from the Beattie, Bligh, Newton triumvirate.
Your original letters are always best. Politicians use the rule of thumb that for every letter (or email) received, at least a hundred people share the same viewpoint. That’s why sixteen thousand submissions turned more than a few heads. Next come form letters which aren’t credited with the same 1 to 100 factor but they’re still worth doing.
Call on the Prime Minister and the federal government to apply its visionary water policy to override Queensland’s ill-advised decision to pursue this dam. How harshly would the new government be judged if it espoused such a noble and enlightened vision for water and waterways yet failed to deliver at its very first test.
For more information, visit the Save the Mary website www.savethemaryriver.com or call at their No Dam Infocentre at Kandanga.
Here are four key addresses.
The Hon Kevin Rudd
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Mr Peter Garrett
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Senator Penny Wong
Minister for Climate Change and Water
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Senator John Faulkner
Suite MG 61
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
More can be found at www.alp.org.au/action/contact.php Go to ‘Contact your Federal MP or Senator’.
Reader Comments