Additional comments by the Senator Andrew Bartlett
1.1
The level of public interest in this inquiry from south-east Queensland
and northern New South Wales, as well as from people interested in water
management and environment issues, is an indication of how valuable a Senate
Inquiry can be.
1.2
The Committee's majority report gives a reasonable summary of the
information the Committee received through the course of this Inquiry, but does
not draw any major conclusions or recommendations from it. Whilst I appreciate
water management issues are predominantly a matter for the Queensland
government, and decisions made about the proposed dams in Queensland under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act are a matter for
the federal Environment Minister, I believe it is appropriate for the Committee
to make specific recommendations about these issues, if there is the evidence
to back them up.
1.3
The assessment processes regarding the Traveston and Wyaralong dams will
not be completed until after the federal election. It is therefore unknown who
the federal Environment Minister will be at the time, and what party will be in
government when the decisions needs to be made under the EPBC Act about whether
these dams go ahead. It is inappropriate, under law, for a Minister or
political party to indicate what decision they will make under the Act, in
advance of seeing all the information on which they must base their decision.
However, there is no doubt that the EPBC Act provides the federal Environment
Minister with the power to stop both these dams if the projects are assessed as
being in breach of the federal environment law.
1.4
It should be noted that, had the EPBC Act not been passed into law, in a
significantly strengthened form, by the Democrats in 1999, the legal avenues
for the federal government to stop the construction of the environmentally and
socially destructive Traveston Dam would not exist. Despite the Democrats being
accused at the time of "the most disgusting
sell-out of the Australian environment and laws to protect the Australian
environment that this Senate chamber has ever seen."[1], it is a simple fact that the
power to stop dams such as this did not exist at federal level prior to the
passage of the EPBC Act. Without straying too far outside the purview of this
inquiry, while the EPBC Act could certainly have been better enforced and
better resourced, it is only because of the existence of the EPBC Act that a
number of other environmentally harmful proposals have been stopped or
mitigated, including logging of native forests in Tasmania or the Nathan Dam in
Queensland.
1.5
Whilst the legal process under the EPBC Act requires that all the
evidence be assessed before a decision is made by the federal Environment
Minister on whether to approve an action, the evidence provided to this inquiry
makes a very strong prima facie case that the Traveston Dam will have a
significant negative impact on matters of national environment significance as
defined under the EPBC Act - in particular, the impacts on key threatened
species (most notably the Queensland lungfish), Ramsar listed wetlands and the
World Heritage values of the Great Sandy Strait.
1.6
For example, the evidence by internationally acclaimed lungfish expert, Professor
Jean Joss, was unequivocal. Her submission to the Committee stated that "the
completion of the Mary River dam would almost certainly push it to “critically
endangered”, and in the long term will lead to its extinction in the wild"
an assessment reaffirmed at the public hearing."
Senator BARTLETT—Is that your scientifically based
opinion?
Prof. Joss—It is.[2]
1.7
Whilst a lot of focus has understandably been given to the communities
and catchments upstream of the dam wall which will be inundated, the impacts on
water quality and the adjoining lands should not be underestimated. Evidence
provided at the public hearing Gympie by the Tiaro & District Landcare
Group and the Mary River Riparian Landholders Group[3] was very valuable in giving an
indication of how serious the environmental consequences have been from the
construction of even a small barrage. It is clear that harm to the majestic
wetlands and estuaries of the Great Sandy Strait from the Traveston Dam will be
unavoidable and significant.
1.8
There has been much evidence provided to this inquiry, such as the
material provided by Professor Stuart White on behalf of the Mary Council of
Mayors[4],
which shows that there are workable alternatives that can be achieved. The
comprehensive evidence provided by Dr Bradd Witt, Katherine Witt and Andrew
Taylor[5]
not only demonstrated the serious flaws with the Wyaralong Dam proposal, but
provided clear alternatives, scientifically derived from publicly available
evidence. Their evidence was not substantially refuted by the Queensland
government, and showed both that Wyaralong would be a very expensive and unreliable
project, and that there are ranges of more reliable, less expensive
alternatives.
1.9
The Australian government has the mandate and the responsibility to
intervene in these projects. I believe the risk of south-east Queensland
metropolis of running out of water and permanently degrading important
environmental assets is so great that Federal intervention is justified in this
case.
1.10
The Australian government responsibilities for EPBC as well as for
implementation of the COAG's National Water Initiative require the Federal
government to be satisfied about the environmental sustainability and economic
viability of the proposal.
Environmental sustainability
1.11
The development of dams globally often causes dislocation of local
people and environmental damage. Development plans also often fail to deliver
on the promised outcomes relating to water quantity and quality. Over 60% of
the world's 227 largest rivers have been fragmented by dams, which has led to
the destruction of wetlands, a decline in freshwater species - including fish,
turtles and birds - and the forced displacement of many people.
1.12
It is time the outdated knee-jerk response of building more dams and
water storages was confined to the history books. As evidence to this inquiry
shows, many existing dams in south-east Queensland have totally failed to
deliver reliable water supplies whilst causing immense environmental damage. To
keep repeating the mistakes of the past is just plain crazy, particularly when
they are such expensive and destructive mistakes. If anything, it if time to
start looking at removing some of these failed water storages and restoring
some of our waterways to health, rather than spending billions of dollars to
stuff things up even more.
1.13
The Queensland's governments plans to dam the Mary River and Teviot
Brook fail to recognise the need for transparent and cooperative planning, fail
to meet the need for robust information to underpin predictions of water
availability, and fail to thoroughly investigate the potential for alternative,
decentralised sources of supply to meet the water needs of the urban areas of
south-east Queensland.
1.14
The Committee has missed an opportunity to undertake a more in-depth
analysis of the implications of stage one versus stage two of the Traveston
project under the EPBC Act, and to encourage the Minister for the Environment
and Water to keep this in mind when considering the referral of the project and
its impacts on the 59 state and Commonwealth listed species potentially
affected by the project.
1.15
Critical habitat protection is essential for species viability, and the Mary
River provides critical habitat for the biologically irreplaceable and ancient
Queensland lungfish.
1.16
The example set by the Paradise Dam – a Dam backed by both major parties
in Queensland, but already widely acknowledged in evidence to this Inquiry as a
disaster - should be closely explored by the Queensland government and by the
Commonwealth Minister for the Environment. The impacts of that dam, including
ecological and environmental effects, its current low volume and the lack of
economic benefits for the people most closely affected, must be taken as a
strong example of the likely outcome of plans to dam the Mary River.
1.17
This inquiry, like many before it, has made plain that issues relating
to dams are not limited just to the design, construction and operation of dams
themselves. Decision-making processes that consider dams must investigate and
address the social and environmental impacts that follow from the re-allocation
of a fundamental resource from one place to another.
1.18
The Committee heard evidence that questioned the appropriateness of
bi-lateral arrangements under the EPBC Act where the State government performs
the assessment function under the EPBC Act at the same time as being the proponent
of the project under assessment. The Committee should recommendation that this
situation is reviewed.
1.19
The Committee also heard evidence that in several proposed water
infrastructure projects, the effects of climate change on river flows were not
taken into account in the assessment of water supply.
Economic viability
1.20
The Queensland government must publish its comprehensive evaluation of
viable alternatives clearly explaining costs and risks associated with each
alternative compared with the costs and risks of the proposed Traveston and
Wyaralong dams. To move any further down the planning and assessment
processes for the project without giving the community the benefit of this
wisdom can only further undermine the legitimacy of the proposals in the minds
of the community and experts.
1.21
To ensure the economic viability of this project there should be a
thorough investigation of alternatives including detailed assessment of
storm-water harvesting such as rainwater tanks. It is possible past assessments
of tanks have been outdated by the rising costs of building dams in less than
ideal sites.
1.22
In quantifying the cost of the Traveston dam, the following types of
costs should be included:
- Planning, feasibility and impact assessment
- Land acquisition
- Dam construction
- Diversion and reconstruction of the national highway and energy
distribution infrastructure
- Distribution costs all the way back to Brisbane
- Management and maintenance costs of dams and distributions
- Carbon costs given an emission trading system will start by at
least 2012
- “Offset” environmental costs
- “Upper bound” ROI capital costs required by the NWI
- Time value of money – expended now but revenues a long way down
the track
1.23
The cost efficiency of the project can then be assessed when ranked by
cost/megalitre, a calculation which is obviously influenced by yield
assumptions. Yield can not be sold if the dam is empty. If you build the dam
and the drought continues there will be a long wait (and more cost) until it
pays back
1.24
Once the cost per megalitres has been calculated it is quite possible
the dam is more expensive than many other alternatives. This conclusion may be
consistent for the other dam proposals as well, in which case switching budgets
currently assigned to the dam to the emergency fit out of rainwater tanks to
large shopping centres, factories and houses with in high and moderate rainfall
and use areas, may provide more water sooner, safer and cheaper.
1.25
It is also apparent that south-east Queensland is moving towards
reaching its population carrying capacity. Much more genuine, thoughtful
consideration needs to be given to ways to reduce population growth pressures
in south-east Queensland and provide incentives for settlement of people in
other parts of the state. This does not mean 'fencing off the area' or
'keeping people out', it means doing some more considered long-term planning
that does not just assume population growth as a given for a specific region,
and puts balanced assessments about environmental and social impacts, and
efficient investment in infrastructure ahead of the priorities of property
developers.
1.26
These dams will not save Brisbane from drought. As has been regularly
detailed in the Courier-Mail, existing dams may well run out well before
Traveston can be built. It cannot be guaranteed that recycling or desalination
projects will provide enough water in time. Yet faster, cheaper and more secure
options exist. Traveston and Wyaralong repeat the folly of all dams - they fail
in drought when water need is at its most severe. Some analysis has shown the
both Traveston and Wyaralong would be bone dry by now even if it had been built
in the nineties. This shows that neither Traveston nor Wyaralong would be a
secure option. The example of Paradise Dam, currently at 9% capacity, is a
useful one to keep in mind when considering this. Instead we must look to
consistently using less water and re-using stormwater and waste water more.
1.27
Chronic wastage and excessive use continues in the suburbs of Brisbane.
Rainfall close to the coast is much higher than the Wivenhoe or Traveston
catchments. If the dams' massive budgets were spent on tanks, recycling and
retrofit of water saving technologies, south-east Queensland would have a more
secure future. Other dams such as the Borumba Dam raising could be even worse
environmentally. This proposal poses all the same impacts on downstream
threatened species, as well as drowning higher quality vegetation and just like
other dams relies on rainfall - and will fail when needed most.
Recommendation 1
1.28
All political parties, and particularly the two major parties who are
competing to form the next government, should give an unequivocal statement
that they will use the powers in the EPBC Act to stop either or both of the
Traveston and Wyaralong dams if the evidence clearly shows there will be a
significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.
Recommendation 2
1.29
Whilst there have been some positive projects developed by the
Queensland government in recent times encouraging water tanks and other
rainwater harvesting, there is far more that can be done and can be achieved in
this area. Should the Queensland government continue in its refusal to
adopt a comprehensive evidence based, best practice approach to delivering
sustainable and secure long-term water supplies for south-east Queensland, the
federal government should use it powers and responsibilities under the National
Water Initiative to ensure the large amounts of money being splashed around are
properly applied.
Andrew Bartlett
Senator for Queensland
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page