Garrett ‘unlikely’ to pause Traveston process

By Kallee Buchanan


Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says he is unlikely to slow the approval process for the proposed Traveston Crossing dam in south-east Queensland.

Queensland’s coordinator-general has sent the final report on the dam to Mr Garrett for environmental approval and he must make a decision within 30 days unless he stops the clock.

Mr Garrett says he will consider taking submissions on the report but does not believe he will need to pause the process.

“We’ll look very closely at the final report of the coordinator-general,” he said.

“I don’t anticipate that there will be a need to stop the clock, there’s a lot of material that has to be looked at - it hasn’t come to me yet.

“But I will make sure that we provide a really thorough and robust assessment of all that material, including the coordinator-general’s report, before we make a final decision.

“If there’s a need for future material or if there’s a need to have additional opportunity for submissions, then we’ll provide that, but I want to assess all the material in front of us at this point in time.

“Only when we have an absolute and comprehensive understanding of all the relevant issues to do with Traveston will we make a decision.”

Thursday October 8th, 2009

Premier gambles billions on SEQ’s water security

Today, in what amounts to an admission that Traveston Crossing dam is not essential for SEQs water security, Anna Bligh told reporters that without a successful fishway for lungfish, Traveston Crossing dam would not go ahead.

“The Paradise Court case has clearly shown that fishways that allow lungfish passage are the stuff of dreams. How many more years of research will be done before they admit they are flogging a dead horse?” said secretary of the Save the Mary River Coordinating Group, David Kreutz.

“The Queensland Government has no fishway concept designs, no prototypes, no trials, nothing! They will fail, just as they did at Paradise”

“The $24 million fishway built for Paradise Dam has been a complete failure, with only 3 juvenile lungfish using the fishway in 3 years of operation,” said Roger Currie from Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council, the organization taking legal action regarding lungfish passage at Paradise Dam.

“Paradise fishway had been touted as the blueprint for Traveston but now all mention of this failed technology has been conveniently removed from documents as if Paradise is a bad dream,” continued Mr Currie.

“While the Premier dreams of lungfish ladders, the bills keep mounting on this unviable Traveston proposal. Time keeps slipping by and South East Queensland’s water security is put at risk by cost-blowouts and the inexcusable delay in pursuing alternatives,” said Mr Kreutz.

“It is all time and money that should be used install reliable and non rainfall dependent alternatives rather than an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient dam that would be empty in a drought.”

“Both the Premier and Minister Hinchcliffe have been trying to convince South East Queensland that Traveston was essential for water security. Now the Premier is saying we have to wait and see if we can get the fishway to work! “You can’t have it both ways,” said Darryl Stewart, president of the Greater Mary Association.

“Are they asking for 10 years, like the Solicitor General has just asked for on the Paradise Dam? Does this admission by the Premier mean that she has finally digested the fact that, despite all the spin, Traveston will not provide water security?”, asked Mr Stewart.

“The fact is Traveston has never stacked up economically as a secure water supply. SEQs water security can and should be ensured by other means which don’t require years of research into dead-end ideas and waste billions of taxpayers’ dollars,” asked Mr Kreutz.

“Don’t risk SEQ’s water security Premier. Call off Traveston before another cent is wasted,” concluded Mr Kreutz.

Borumba ‘never stood a chance’

Bill Hoffman

10th October 2009

  

IN 2007, premier Anna Bligh rejected a request to measure stage one of the Traveston Crossing Dam against a proposal to build a new dam wall at Borumba, because she said the south-east Queensland water grid needed stage two at Traveston as well to be viable.

Coordinator general Colin Jensen ruled this week that stage one of the dam could go ahead, subject to 1200 conditions, but said those conditions would be compromised if the government proceeded with stage two.

Angry proponents of the plan to raise a new Borumba Dam wall, 300 metres downstream of the existing dam wall, say it was never given reasonable consideration.

Mary Valley farmer Ron McMah said yesterday that raising the Borumba Dam wall would deliver a 25km-long dam of an average 90-metre depth, compared with Traveston’s five metres.

Borumba would have a two million megalitre capacity and could develop into one of the country’s leading tourist attractions, Mr McMah said.

The proposal would increase Borumba’s existing capacity so that it could become a storage dam connected to the water grid, with water pumped the short distance from Wivenhoe Dam when it overflowed.

Mr McMah, whose property will not be affected if the Traveston dam goes ahead, said the Queensland government already owned all the land inside the footprint of an expanded Borumba Dam and there would be no requirement to divert existing infrastructure.

In 1999, three times the volume of Sydney Harbour had passed over the existing Borumba spillway in just five days.

On January 31, 2007, then deputy premier Anna Bligh wrote to Mr McMah after his proposal attracted broad attention at a meeting in Gympie about the Traveston dam.

“The state government, as part of its SEQ Regional Water Supply Strategy, requires a system that is capable of 70,000 megalitre per annum yield at stage one and a yield of 150,000 megalitres per annum at stage two,” Ms Bligh wrote.

“The proposed Traveston Crossing Dam delivers this.

“If your proposal, as you state, is to replace Traveston, the alternative needs to be measured against the same required yield.”

Now the government has been effectively told by the coordinator general that stage two would negate the benefit of conditions he required to be met before stage one could be built.

Borumba Dam a better option: Opposition

TONY MOORE
October 14, 2009


There are new calls by the State Opposition for the Queensland Government to boost the existing Borumba Dam on the Mary River rather than push ahead with the controversial Traveston Dam.

Shadow Infrastructure Minister David Gibson last night backed a fresh call by Mary River farmer Ron McMah to look again at building a bigger dam at Borumba, upstream from Traveston Crossing.

Mr Gibson said if the Borumba option had been given the go-ahead in 2006 “it would be built now and delivering water right now for South-East Queensland”.
South-East Queensland dam locations.

Queensland Co-ordinator General Colin Jensen’s recommendation that stage two of the Traveston Dam not proceed has fuelled the argument that the Borumba option is again viable.

Mr McMah says his Borumba proposal was never fully tested in 2006 and 2007 and, as a result of Mr Jensen’s recommendation last week, should now be judged as a genuine alternative to stage one of Traveston.

A bigger Borumba Dam would be up to 80 to 90 metres deep, while Traveston is to be about five metres deep on average, and the environmental and social impact would be much lower. The land is also already owned by the State Government.

Mr McMah wrote to the Traveston Crossing Dam Senate Inquiry in March 2007 and suggested a new dam wall be built 300 metres in front of the existing dam.

Water stored in the bigger Borumba Dam would be gravity-fed - and not pumped - to the Stanley River where it would be stored in Somerset and ultimately, Wivenhoe Dam.

Raising Borumba, according to Mr McMah, has several physical advantages over Traveston Crossing:

- an existing dam is already in place, now storing 46,000 megalitres, but which engineers say can be expanded comparatively easily to two million megalitres, though costs are unknown;

- it would be 80 to 90 metres deep, while Traveston would be on average around five metres deep;

- evaporation in a deep, cold water dam would be low compared to the shallow Traveston Crossing;

- the social impact would be comparatively low;

- the environmental impact would be lower;

- the land is already owned by the State Government; and

- the land is fairly mountainous and has limited farming value.

Mr David Gibson said Borumba was never properly studied as an option to Traveston Crossing.

“All they have done is pick it to pieces, rather than trying to make it work instead of looking at raising Borumba as a viable option,” Mr Gibson said.

“Interestingly, under Labor’s own water strategy, stage three of their Traveston plan in 2035 is raising Borumba. So even in their own planning they conceded that raising Borumba will provide extra water for South-East Queensland.

“But what they refuse to do now - and what they have refused to do under the process - is properly consider Rob McMah’s proposal.”

However, a spokesperson for Mr Jensen last night said raising Borumba would cost $3.1 billion, compared to the $1.8 billion for Traveston stage one.

“The Borumba Dam option, to supply the same 70,000ML/year that Traveston stage one would supply, did not stack up on two accounts,” the spokesperson said.

“A hydrological analysis identified an excessive number of supply failures when modelled against Traveston stage one for 30 years following completion.

“There were 51 out of 109 modelling sequence failures for Borumba versus six for Traveston”.

Save the Mary River president Glenda Pickersgill said raising Borumba was “an option” but not their preferred option.

“We believe their are cheaper, more reliable solutions, like harvesting water where it falls that do not rely on shifting the water from Borumba to Somerset,” she said.