It has now been three years since the decison to Dam the Mary was made by then QLD Premier Peter Beattie.
This article first appeared on the 25 June 2006 on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog:
More About Politics Than Water: Steve Dennis on Damming The Mary
Steve Dennis, a member of the Save the Mary River Campaign Committee, is not convinced that the Queensland Government proposal to dam the Mary River is just about water. It could even be about nuclear power, argues Steve in the following guest post:
“The Queensland Government, or more specifically Premier Peter Beattie, is posturing in the media unshakeable determination to build a megadam on the Mary River, in spite of growing opposition, and strong evidence to suggest that the proposal has insurmountable flaws.
Media snatches like “If the figures stack up, it’s a done deal…foregone conclusion…..feasible or not, we will build this dam….” appears to contradict his deputy premier Anna Bligh,and ministers, plus information sheets from the Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Water, and even his own comments in Parliament which state : If the government commits to the project, all the relevant studies and impact assessments will be undertaken, and the required approvals at state and federal levels will be met, and this will take 2-3 years.
There appears to be still a long way to go before this is “a done deal”, but the Premiers confidence, and media posturing would suggest otherwise.
The announcement to build the dam, which will inundate 76 sq km’s of prime agricultural land, including over 500 hectares of endangered remnant rainforest , on collectively 900 properties came on 26th April, after a decision that appears to have been hastily finalised in cabinet. The Government departments involved were caught unawares, and unprepared. There were immediately responses of outrage from residents along the length of the Mary River, as the local shire councils joined Environment groups to voice their disapproval. Several mayors from affected shires have requested a meeting with the Premier since the announcement, but, unlike his open door policy for developers, his door is currently firmly closed.
Meanwhile, the politics behind the decision showed an unmistakable tactic to divert attention from the “Health Crisis” in Queensland (or more specifically, the fact that one foreign trained surgeon managed to negligently mistreat several patients at the Bundaberg Hospital, attracting wide media coverage). The timing, in the months leading up to a State election, and as the dry season and falling water storages ensured SEQ (South East Queesland)’s urban population would have water restrictions inflicted on them, heightening water consciousness, was no doubt premeditated. Further, the location of the proposed dam, in a non-Labour electorate held by an ineffectual Independent ex- One Nation Elisa Roberts, and a previous National stronghold, gives the decision a Triple seal of approval for “political correctness”.
The political intrigue is also augmented by the fact that the proposed dam will flood 9km’s of the Bruce Highway (Hwy #1). There has been much negotiation in the last 12 months with Federal Minister for Transport, Warren Truss, over the route for the Gympie bypass, with many taxpayers dollars spent on studies, and the proposed dam not only floods the existing Highway, it knocks out of contention 4 of the alternatives. Minister Truss was apparently caught flat footed by Premier Beattie’s announcement - it is also Warren Truss’s electorate, Wide Bay, through which the Mary River flows, and the fact that he had no prior knowledge of the proposed dam confirms the poor level of communication between State and Federal Governments.
The degree of sensitivity within State Government and Labour party ranks on this issue has been highlighted by the Labour Member for Noosa, Cate Molloy, who has indicated her intention to introduce a private members bill in opposition to the dam. She has been threatened with expulsion from the Labour party if she does, which would account for the reason she didn’t carry out her original plan to “cross the floor” and vote against the proposal in Parliament in the June sitting. However, she has subsequently stated her intention to introduce the bill in the August sitting, and recently joined an anti-dam rally outside the Labour Conference held in Brisbane over the June long weekend. Needless to say, she has since been ostracized from the Labour party, and may have to stand as an Independent in the upcoming election.
As the 3rd stage water restrictions come into force in Brisbane, the Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Water have started a campaign to convince all in SEQ that the proposed Traveston Crossing megadam on the Mary , along with at least one other dam (on the Logan River) are the mainstays behind securing adequate water for the next 50 years for the burgeoning population of SEQ, mooted to be increasing by 1000 per week. The intriguing issue is the fact that the current storages are predicted to run out by 2008, and, under the legal requirements for studies and planning, etc, neither dam will be started till at least the end of 2008, and the Mary River Dam may have no water in it till 2013. It obviously begs the question, where will the water come from before then?
From an environmental and geotechnical point of view, the site of the proposed Mary River dam carries more negatives than positives. The proposed inundation area is a wide flat flood plain, not your traditional deep, steep, rock walled type dams. Doubt has been cast over the areas ability to hold water, and Professor David Williams, Associate Professor in Geomechanics at University of Queensland, has publicly condemned the project, citing that seepage and evaporation could possibly cause at least an equivalent of the expected yield (150,000 ML’s) to be lost each year. By Professor Williams calculations, the average depth of the dam would be around 8 metres, and based on Bureau of Meteorology estimates on evaporation, approx 1.4 metres would be lost each year to evaporation, while anywhere between 0.3 and 3 metres could be lost in seepage.
According to the World Commission on Dams, a project funded by the World Bank, dams of this nature will have a high tendency to produce large amounts of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, as rotting vegetation decomposes, and will also have a tendency to foster enormous areas of blue green algae, which will impact on water quality. The Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Water have yet to counter these claims, although the Minister, Henry Palaszscuk (pronounced Pal O’Shea), has recently been quoted in the press saying “I have faith in my department”. The government has released almost no specific information about the proposal, and even the map outlining the inundation area was claimed recently by DNRMW’s Project Manager for the Mary River Dam, Scott Smith, to be only approximate, because their current knowledge of the contours of the area is only accurate to plus or minus 5 metres!
Hard to believe in this age of sophisticated GPS’s and related technologies, but this was the claim as letters went out to residents informing them that they are likely to have their land compulsorily acquired for the project. It is still the claim 8 weeks later.
Meanwhile, DNRMW “information sheets” state that “property owners likely to be affected by the project will continue to receive detailed information on the plans directly from the Queensland Government. Most landholders feel they have yet to receive any detailed information directly from the Government.
There was an initial, vague map, which showed the likelihood that 2 towns, Kandanga and Imbil, would have serious flooding risks at full dam capacity. There has been, since, a proposal that a “bunding” would be built around Kandanga to prevent this occurring, but there is much scepticism over this, and an assertion that such a structure would cause floodwaters (if and when they occur, but historically have been spectacular) to back up to a greater degree, and, with a full dam, take a prolonged time to recede.
The Premier has recently been quoted as saying ”The Mary River Dam will be built, feasible or not”. One of the main feasibility concerns has been whether the wall will have sufficient rock to anchor it too, as drilling so far is not finding rock for 30 metres, and above the rock found is soft alluvial material. The DNRMW Minister Henry Palaszczuk has told Brisbane ABC radio presenter, Madonna King, that they have had to realign the dam wall as they were unable to find rock where they initially looked. In one sentence he said that they needed to find rock to anchor the dam wall, and soon after said it didn’t matter that they hadn’t found rock there, as all it means is that the wall will”just have to be a little bit deeper”. Engineering opinions state that you can build anything as long as you are willing to spend enough money. However, it’s not the constructed wall that has the most doubt, but the natural walls of the valley, believed to have many faultlines through them, and hence may be a major source of loss through seepage.
Recent flow data analyisis has shown a flaw in the assertion that 85% of the flow downstream will be maintained, whilst still achieving the yield.
The Mary River is renowned for spectacular floods, but these high flow events occur about every 15 years, interspersed with the odd year of moderate flows. The majority of the time, the Mary is a low flow river. The Government’s calculations on yield are based on 115 years of flow records, but they appear to fail to take into account the fact that 70% of the river’s flow occurs 5% of the time. There is a high probability, therefore, that the proposed dam may not fill till there is a megaflood, which historically occurs when the catchment has reached a saturation point, usually coinciding with water abundance across the SEQ region.
The flow data is an important aspect of this proposal, as the downstream effects of this proposed dam is what the Environment Groups (Queensland Conservation Council, Sunshine Coast Environment Council, and Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council) are partly up in arms about. The impounded area will have direct impacts on 2 endangered species (under the EPBC Act,1999), the Mary River Cod (called the Murray River Cod by Premier Beattie in a gaff, when announcing the dam), and the Mary River Turtle, along with the vulnerable Queensland Lungfish, which is only found in 2 rivers, the Mary and the Burnett. The lungfish is a unique link in evolution, having a single lung which allows it to breath air when water oxygenation is low.
This adaptation would allow individuals to survive in an impoundment, but no spawning can occur in dams. The lungfish, for instance, requires riffles for spawning, and several breeding site of all 3 species will be lost with the proposed dam, so the downstream flows will play an important role in allowing them to avoid extinction.
The Government asserts that the downstream flows can be maintained, but their own figures put under the microscope appear to allow for no flow for over 6 months of the year, and still have 85% total flow maintained, with high flows in the wet season making up for the seasonal low flows at other times.
Apart from the freshwater species, there are also great concerns about the effects the reduction of flows will have on the Ramsar Listed Wetlands at the mouth of the Mary River, the World Heritage Listed Great Sandy Straits, and of course Fraser Island. The fish stocks rely on nutrient flow from the river, and the combined effects of reduced flow and reduced nutrient carriage will have a dramatic impact on species in the straits. The long term effect on fish stocks is incalculable, but suspected to be profound.
In parliament recently, Premier Beattie quoted the Paradise Dam, on the Burnett River, near Bundaberg, and specifically its fish ladder, as a shining example of his Governments efforts to address environmental concerns.
However, in the Fraser Coast Chronicle, 19th May, there is an article about the fact that the fish ladder had already broken down, and had to be manually operated rather than automatically, as it was designed to. Meanwhile, Professor Jean Josh, from Macqaurie University, and recognised as a world authority on Australian Lungfish, has publicly called into doubt that the lungfish would use the fish ladders, and has suggested that the full impact of the Paradise Dam would not be known for many years, as lungfish can live to 100 years, but can’t breed in still water.
A recent report by the Worldwide Fund For Nature, called “To Dam Or Not to Dam? Five Years on from the World Commission on Dams”, has highlighted the Paradise Dam, among 6 other dams worldwide, that has failed to address one or more of the 7 strategic priorities. To quote from the report, “In WWF’s view, this project fails to observe WCD strategic priority 1 for gaining public acceptance, 2 on comprehensive options assessment, and 4 for sustaining rivers and livelihoods”.
The Beattie Government continues to argue that their main criteria for selecting the Traveston Crossing site on the Mary River is for the potential yield. There is a determination to proceed with the project, in spite of concerns about cost, environmental and cultural impact, social impact, geotechnical feasibility, and, as has been highlighted by the WCD, hydrology and flow data raising doubts that the dam deliver the yield quoted.
The decision to proceed with the project is due by the end of June, and if so, a newly listed private company Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd will take over completion of the project, including the land acquisition process. The community and landholders have obvious concerns about having to deal with an unknown private organisation, with no track record, unknown faces and uncertainty about the company’s charter, stakeholders, and what code of conduct the employees will be acting under. There has been no information given directly, or indirectly, to affected parties.
All of the above poses the question: What is the real reason for this proposed dam?
Many see it as a smoke screen for the Health issue in Queensland. Some see it as an effort to sure up votes in water strapped coastal urban SEQ. Some have linked a megadam with a Nuclear Power Station for SEQ- the same motivation for long term water needs, ie increasing population, will require large amounts of energy production, and coal fired power production is likely to lose support as climate change becomes more evident. Many see it as a way of appeasing developers who are waiting to capitalize on the population increase in SEQ.
Whatever the true reason, this issue continues to stimulate debate and will be a major platform for the next Queensland State elections.”
Dr. Steve Dennis, BVSc (Hons), MACVSc
stevem
