Wentworth Group condemns latest Basin Plan version as based on shoddy foundations

Picture from here

Wentworth Group slams latest version of Proposed Basin Plan:

The following review of the latest offering from Craig Knowles' MDBA largely validates  FWU's long-held concerns about the true intent of the Basin Plan, and is published in full:  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)   SUITE 3, 3B MACQUARIE STREET, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, 2000 Telephone: +61 2 9251 3811    Contact: Tim Stubbs, Environmental Engineer Email: information@wentworthgroup.org    ACN 128 963 431 "This is the third attempt by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to produce a proposed Basin Plan. This latest version reinforces the fact that if you start with shoddy foundations you will end up with a shoddy house. In the case of the proposed Basin Plan, some things get worse with each iteration. This August version of the Plan does not identify how much water must be returned to achieve a healthy working river and comply with the Water Act. Yet again no scientific justification has been given for why 2,750 Gl is the proposed reduction in water extractions. This number will still not achieve the majority of targets required for a healthy working river. The Authority has attempted to justify the 2,750 Gl volume through the identification of “constraints” to water delivery. The August edition of the Plan requires the preparation of a constraints management strategy 12 months after the commencement of the Plan. This will be critical information that must be considered by the Parliament before making a decision on the Basin Plan. It will be of little use 12 months after the Parliament makes an uninformed decision. Ground water extractions are to increase by over 1,700 Gl from current levels. Nowhere is it made clear why this resource should be given away in such huge amounts without a clear and defined need. In its analysis of groundwater sustainability the Authority has neglected important issues and has made indefensible assumptions to the extent that the public, and ultimately Parliament, are being misled about the sustainability of groundwater use in the Basin. The August edition of the Plan proposes a new mechanism to allow the taxpayer to further subsidise the irrigation industry within the Basin beyond the $8.9 billion already allocated. The Plan proposes a mechanism to increase or decrease the Sustainable Diversion Limits as a result of irrigation infrastructure upgrades or environmental works and measures. Both measures will be paid for by the taxpayer, therefore any water saved should go to the public good (the river) not private benefit. Currently the Plan proposes that water savings from environmental works and measures should go to irrigators even though the taxpayer will foot the bill. The unfairness of this arrangement is amplified because environmental works and measures never deliver equivalent environmental outcomes to the flood events they replace. As it stands, the Australian Parliament should reject this Plan because unless current scientific consensus is completely wrong, it has no chance of creating a healthy working Murray Darling Basin. The Water Act requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to determine the volume of water that needs to be returned to the river to achieve the objectives of the Act. The Authority must determine this volume and clearly identify and quantify the cost and complexity of addressing any “constraints” within the system. The Minister and ultimately the Parliament can then make an informed decision on what is the right outcome for the $8.9 billion of taxpayers money being spent on this reform. Each of the dot points above are outlined in more detail below. How much water? The only analysis undertaken to identify how much water must be returned to the river to achieve the targets set under the Water Act identified a range of between 3,856 Gl (high uncertainty of achieving the targets) and 6,983 Gl (low uncertainty of achieving the targets). This analysis was in the Authority’s original document, the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan released in October 2010. Since the Guide the Authority has failed to model how much water the river actually needs. Where did the 2,750 Gl come from? As with previous editions the August edition of the Basin Plan provides no scientific justification for why 2,750 Gl is the appropriate volume of water to return to the river. Supporting documents for earlier versions of the Plan had emphasized that 2,750 Gl was the starting point of an adaptive management process culminating in the 2015 review. The 2015 review and the adaptive management process have all been scrapped however we are still left with the unjustified “starting point”. The CSIRO led review of returning 2,800 Gl to the river identified that the sustainable diversion limits associated with this volume “do not achieve the majority of hydrological targets.” Constraints In supporting documentation for earlier editions of the Basin Plan “constraints” to the delivery of environmental water were given as a justification for the 2,750 Gl volume. CSIRO in its review found that “While operational constraints preclude the meeting of some hydrologic and ecological targets, in other cases the shortfalls against targets appear to be a result of insufficient environmental water, the shortcomings in modelling environmental flow regimes in unregulated rivers or a combination of these factors.” An assessment of these constraints, how significant they are and how they can be addressed under the $8.9 billion Water for the Future Program will be a critical input into the Parliaments final decision in the Basin Plan. The August edition of the proposed Basin Plan requires the Authority to prepare a Constraints Management Strategy within 12 months after the commencement of the Basin Plan. This requirement for the Authority to identify information critical to decision making 12 months after the decision has been made personifies the incompetence of the Authority and the failure of the Basin Plan. This Plan would not pass a science test, a fairness test, a governance test, it would not even pass the laugh test. Groundwater The August edition of the proposed Basin Plan increases groundwater extraction by over 1,700 Gl on current levels of take. In its analysis of groundwater sustainability in previous editions of the Plan the Authority has neglected important issues and has made indefensible assumptions to the extent that the public, and ultimately Parliament, are being misled about the sustainability of groundwater use in the Basin. No additional supporting information has been provided with this edition of the Plan. This edition is worse than the previous edition with a new groundwater unit in Queensland being invented and 100 Gl of extraction being permitted where there was previously none. There are also additional increases of 15 Gl in the Goulburn-Murray Deep and Wimmera - Mallee deep groundwater units. Extractions in the Goulburn-Murray sedimentary plain are increased by 4.1 Gl and in the Eastern Porous rock plan areas extractions are increased by 4.0 Gl. Extractions in the New England Fold Belt are also increased by 1.1 Gl. No justification is given for these increases or their sustainability. Adjustment mechanism The August Proposed Basin Plan includes an adjustment mechanism for certain additional changes in infrastructure and other measures that occur between the commencement of the Plan and 1 July 2019. This does not include infrastructure or other measures that either were in operation at the time that the Basin Plan commenced or were expected to be in operation by 2019. There are two defined types of infrastructure or other measure: 1.      Supply measure – if a work or measure results in an increase in the quantity of water in the river systems before take (for example through reduced evaporation in lakes and storage systems) the saved water is allocated to socio-economic use (that is, the adjustment reduces the reduction amount) 2.      Efficiency measure – if a work or measure results in a saving of water after take for consumptive use (for example more efficient irrigation), the saved water is allocated to environmental use (that is the adjustment increases the reduction amount). This allocation of savings is wrong. Both efficiency measures and supply measures will be paid for by the taxpayer, therefore any water saved should go to the public good (the river) not private benefit (socio-economic use). When calculating a supply adjustment (the volume saved from environmental works and measures) the calculation is to be done on the basis of “a repeat of historical climate conditions”. This requirement means that what will be likely dubious estimates will become further and further from reality as climate change impacts affect the Basin. This failure to acknowledge the impacts of climate change conflicts with Government Policy on climate change. On top of this there is the simple fact the environmental works and measures can never deliver all the environmental outcomes of the natural flood events they purport to replace. Subsequently the culmination of these factors means that the taxpayer is paying for irrigators to get more water and the stated outcomes the taxpayer is supposedly buying will not materialise in reality."

Related articles

• Murray-Darling water deal 'unfair'
• Murray-Darling plans revised to help break deadlock
• Inquiry demands more detail on Murray-Darling plan
• Revised Murray Basin plan released
• Where the Murray Darling Basin Starts..
• States still at odds on new plan for Murray-Darling
• Water Act powers could decide Murray fate
• Resisting the Murray-Darling Basin Plan - in whose interest?

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan now an unprincipled and corrupted document - before it is officially published!

21st November 2011

Basin Plan: “compromised” and “corrupted” 

Accusations have been flowing freely from all sides, including from the Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, with respect to the leaking of the Draft Basin Plan.

Following a recent meeting with the Federal Minister for water, Tony Burke, coordinator of Fair Water Use, Dr Ian Douglas, reported to FWU members that the Draft Plan was expected to be a “highly compromised” document, with the Authority failing in its statutory responsibility to manage the Murray-Darling river system in the interests of all Australians, rather than to the benefit of a vocal section of the irrigation sector and, of late, the shareholders of predatory coal seam gas miners.
Dr Douglas commented this morning,  “As a result of concerted pressure applied by commercial and political interests, the Basin Plan is now an unprincipled and corrupted document: one which will endorse the expenditure of many billions of taxpayer dollars to source only 300 gigalitres more water than the Productivity Commission has calculated would be achieved by buy-back alone, and one which seems certain to fail the environment and citizens of Australia.”
“The majority of the irrigation community seem to be accepting of the need for meaningful change, and many have made the transition from wasteful irrigation techniques - often at their own expense.”

“However a powerful minority, mostly involved with flood or open-furrow irrigation of water-hungry crops, appear to view the river system as a golden egg-laying goose, and will continue to resist any meaningful attempt to address the environmental degradation of the Basin.”

“In addition, it seems that Basin state governments, largely to blame for the mess that our rivers are in, due to rampant over-allocation of water licences, have successfully pressured the Authority to maintain water use at close to previous levels; most cynically by increasing groundwater extraction from the Basin.”

Dr Douglas concluded, “Under Craig Knowles, the Murray-Darling BasinAuthority has apparently abandoned any attempt to draft a sincere Basin Plan. Fair Water Use has serious concerns that, in responding to political and corporate lobbying, Mr Knowles has compromised the independence and integrity of the Authority”.

Authorised by:Ginny Brown
Media Coordinator
media@fairwateruse.com.au

Fair Water Use (Australia)+61 (0)8 8398 0812
PO Box 384, Balhannah, South Australia 5242
http://www.fairwateruse.com.au

Radical irrigators and mining interests exclude the rest of us from a say on the Murray-Darling Basin

From Ian Douglas, Co-ordinator of Fair Water Use ~~~


As promised, here are my thoughts subsequent to the meeting with the Federal  Minister for water on the 8th November:

It appears that the MDBA has settled on a mere 2,800GL reduction in diversions. However at the same time, they have approved an increase in 2,400GL in groundwater extractions: this is of prime significance to the coal seam gas industry, and results from pressure applied by the NSW Government.

The 2,800 figure appears to have been “reverse modelled” by the Authority – they seem to have selected this figure as being one that the red-neck but powerful section of the irrigation lobby might grudgingly accept (although they would go through the motion of vigorous objection and unfounded claims re community impacts).

The Authority then set about trying to show how the Plan would address the concerns of other stakeholders (dry land farmers, responsible irrigators, tourist industry etc). This is a cynical exercise and not supported by reputable science.

The Authority has yet to produce scientific evidence that the indicator site method being used to monitor the overall health of the river system is in any way valid.

I made the following points on behalf of FWU:

•       FWU believes that the Plan has been hijacked by a radical minority of the irrigation sector, and recently mining interests, and that all other stakeholders are being treated as peripheral to the debate.

•       FWU has concerns that the “localism” defined in the Draft Plan will exclude the majority of non-irrigating stakeholders from the local decision-making process.

•       FWU hopes that, once the Minister takes possession of the Draft Plan, he will make every effort to include all Australians – as the Plan is of national significance.

•       FWU requests that, to address understandable community resistance to change, the Minister accent the support to be offered to regional communities in their transition to reduced dependence on irrigation, and reminded him of the growth of non-irrigating business in the Basin.

Murray Darling Basin Authority slammed by Fair Water Use for "astounding ignorance"

MDBA slammed for "astounding ignorance"

MEDIA RELEASE 26th October 2011 Reports that Craig Knowles, Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, is considering a dramatic increase in groundwater extractions as part of his Basin Plan have stunned public-water rights and environmental advocacy group, Fair Water Use. The group’s coordinator, Ian Douglas, responded today, “This announcement suggests an astounding level of either ignorance or cynicism on the part of the Authority, and specifically Craig Knowles.” “If the former, it would appear that Mr Knowles understands less about the hydrologic cycle than most secondary school children, and the absolute continuum that is surface water, groundwater and in-stream flows”, he continued. “Proposing a 2,400 billion litres a year increase in take from the groundwater component of the resource, whilst modelling a reduction in diversion limits of a mere 2,800 billion litres, implies that the Basin Plan may involve a reduction in total extractions of a paltry 400 billion litres, around one tenth of the minimum amount recommended; it would also give the green light to a massive increase in the production of contaminated water by mining activities in the Basin”, Dr Douglas concluded.

Further reading:

 Limits on water drawn from ground to increase

Murray Irrigation Limited

Murray groundwater limits to increase

Murray Darling  Basin Authority to open floodgates for mining

Understanding the groundwaters of the Murray Darling Basin

Sustainable Groundwater Management

Craig Knowles subverts the Murray Darling Basin Authority? A one band? Irrigators to get their own way? #MDBA #irrigators #MDBpolitics

Tweet

Murray-Darling Basin Authority 

now a one-man show?

MEDIA RELEASE

30th March 2011

The reported comment by new Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Craig Knowles, that he has “washed his hands of the old Basin Plan”, further promotes the impression that Mr Knowles is single-handedly revising the mission of the Authority, according to Fair Water Use (Australia).

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority currently comprises five members. Fair Water Use has contacted Mr Knowles to ascertain whether his reported comments reflect the stance of the Authority - or merely his personal position on the issue.

In addition, Fair Water Use believes that it is inappropriate for a senior public servant to summarily dismiss a major document which is currently the subject of a comprehensive Senate Inquiry.

National coordinator of Fair Water Use, Ian Douglas, commented today, “Sadly, it appears necessary to remind Mr Knowles that the principal aim of the Authority is “to manage the Basin's water resources in the national interest”, and not to act as an advocate for the irrigation community”. 

Resignation of MDBA Chair Mike Taylor: that left unsaid speaks volumes #agchatoz

Further to the post below relating to the resignation of Mike Taylor as Chair of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, I have now received a press release from Fair Water Use:

The resignation of MDBA Chair, Michael Taylor, is a clear symptom of the utter frustration permeating the Authority as a result of attempts by vested interests to sabotage the Basin Plan and an apparent unwillingness of the Commonwealth to allow the Authority to perform its vital task free from political pressures.

Mr Taylor also indicates that the Authority has received further legal advice that it is unable alter its recommendations with respect to the volumes of water required to restore the environment of the Murray-Darling River system. That should come as no surprise, as the stated role of the MDBA is to manage the Basin’s water resources in the national interest, not in such a way as to placate those who would prefer to continue business as usual.

National coordinator of Fair Water Use, Dr Ian Douglas, responded to the news of Mr Taylor’s resignation saying, “The Commonwealth and particularly Minister Burke should be roundly criticised for attempting to add responsibility for economic and social management of the Basin to the brief of the Authority”.

He added, “The stunts of renegade groups of irrigators, including the burning of the Guide and the establishment of the faux MDBA website, are now seen for what they are: knee-jerk attempts to discredit the messenger, stemming from an unwillingness to accept the long-term implications of an over-exploited and degraded river system”.

As intimated by Mr Taylor, irrespective of the content of the final Basin Plan produced by the Authority, the survival of the river system will hinge on whether the Commonwealth and Basin state governments are genuine in their stated desire to restore the nation’s most vital rivers, or whether, as now appears all-too-likely, they will squib the issue for short term electoral gain. 

Picture of Mike Taylor from here.

Fair Water Use: Irrigators & Lobby Groups: Water theft & diversions

News archive In addition to current news items from Fair Water Use which appear below, a wide range of our previous articles can be viewed via the subheadings of the News tab on the side-menu.

Irrigation lobby seeking to redefine “independence” 6th December 2010 Following release of the Guide to the draft Basin Plan, there has been a range of claims from irrigator groups and others which appear to question the independence of the Murray-Darling Authority and CSIRO; lobby groups seemingly intent on portraying these statutory bodies as no less than a mob of rabid conservationists. The irrigation lobby is now utilising Orwellian Newspeak to promote its agenda: Andrew Green, Chief Executive of the South Australian Citrus Board, demanding that funding be made available to irrigator groups to enable them to draft their “independent” assessment of the Guide. In an attempt to make it more palatable to some vested interests, the proposed Basin Plan already contains compromises which the Authority admits will condemn the health of the river to an uncertain future: putting at risk the nation’s most vital river system in a well-meaning but misguided attempt to reduce short term economic impacts. It is the ultimate paradox that those who seek further softening or scrapping of the Basin Plan are the very groups who, in time, stand to lose the most from such actions.

Murray-Darling water theft confirmed 16th November 2010   At a meeting with FWU earlier this year, then water minister, Penny Wong, admitted that the Commonwealth had no idea of the scale of illegal water diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. Supporting FWU's long-voiced concerns about the poor regulation of surface water diversions, the following extract from a new report compiled by the Australian Institute of Criminology confirms the extent of water theft within the Murray-Darling Basin. Read more...

When tap water catches fire . . .   Could this happen in Australia ? -  if coal-seam gas mining is allowed to "explode" in this country . . . .

Basin Plan: communication is the key The concerns of Basin communities regarding the Basin Plan Guide could have been assuaged with improved communication on all sides. Professor Chris Miller shares his thoughts on ABC Radio (23rd October 2010): LISTEN HERE

Is the tide beginning to turn ? It seems that the mainstream media are at long last prepared to air discussion about fundamental concerns surrounding the governance and management of Australian water. Listen to anextended interview with FWU's Ian Douglas on Melbourne Talk Radio (MTR 1377), recorded on the 30th August 2010, covering a range of relevant water topics.

Bottled water industry In response to requests from supporters, we will be posting information and links on the growing international campaign to increase awareness of the social and environmental implication of this industry. In September 2009, when Bundanoon, NSW declared its intention to ban the sale of bottled water in the town, industry heavyweights were quick to wail that this was an infringement of the public's right to choose; ignoring the fact that the decision was based on this very principle. Moreover, as reported by the Australian Water Network last year, "unfortunately, on the day Bundanoon blitzed the world, the local council approved a development application by Norlex Holdings to further advance plans to set up a bottled water plant right in the middle of the world’s first bottled water free town".

Federal regulator: little choice but to approve monopoly Although without precedent, yesterday’s decision to permit the take-over of the National Air group by its only remaining Australian competitor, Breathe Easy (Australia), is seen by many as the only way forward, finally putting an end to the cost-cutting war and subsequent infrastructure degradation that, in recent months, has left around 20% of Australian homes effectively disconnected from domestic clean-air supply, with widespread public health consequences. The judgement comes as no surprise to many observers, who could see the writing on the wall following the fateful COAG meeting of October 2035, at which Federal and State Governments agreed to the incremental sell-off of all publicly-owned clean-air utilities, thereby giving the green light to privatisation of national clean-air supply, which burgeoned following collapse of the Global Climate Change Agreement in 2020. Read more...

"When the Big Gum Falls" A new acoustic version of the CD single that we have been promoting for the last few months is now available for free download, thanks to the generosity of publisher and FWU supporter, Black Cockatoo Music, which has donated the song to help us continue and expand our efforts, advocating revision of the management of the Murray-Darling, based on a genuine care for its environment. The lyrics appear at the foot of this posting. DOWNLOAD "WHEN THE BIG GUM FALLS" :  HERE   If you do download the single, please consider making a donation to FWU via the secure PayPal service:%20%20%20<="" form>="" title="" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(44, 104, 166); ">

Related articles

• Scientists push for strong plan on Murray-Darling (theage.com.au)
• Basin not just about environment: farmers (news.theage.com.au)
• SA to hold its own Murray meetings (news.theage.com.au)

WHAT NETWORKERS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR? A JOYCE-WONG DEBATE ON WATER?

Dear Networkers,

My apologies!  When I posted on the matter below a couple of days ago, I got all excited.  Now I should have known better.  I should have realised that all that comes from the mouths of politicians on water is not sensible.  The debate has been and gone - but you had to be listening to Adelaide radio to hear it.  I suppose because only Adelaide people heard it there were predominantly South Australian issues under discussion.  Oh well!  Too bad, so sad!  But wouldn't a nationally televised Great Water Gate Debate be a marvellous thing.

Perhaps it is too late to work yet another debate into the hectic round of the election campaign, but what about having a monstrous huge debate around the time of the release of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.  It could include not only politicians but scientists, academic experts, community people and consumers.

What about a whole series within a national debate so that we know not only the issues in our home states - but the Great Water Gate issues in all six states and two territories?

What if we learned so much about water from such a series that issues such as unbundling; deforestation; revegetation; water pricing; desalination etc tripped easily from our tongues and into our conversations?

Aaaaaah, dream on Miss Eagle....what if.......?!!!

From Ian Douglas over at Fair Water Use, comes news that Barnaby Joyce is taking up Penny Wong's challenge for a debate on water.  Bring it on!

~~~~~~~~~~

National Water Policy: 

Show me yours and I'll show you mine

MEDIA RELEASE

5th August 2010

National public water-rights advocacy group, Fair Water Use, welcomes the statement from federal coalition water spokesperson, Senator Barnaby Joyce, that he is willing to debate water policy with Senator Penny Wong.

National coordinator of Fair Water Use, Ian Douglas, has responded to the announcement saying, “The current lack of water policy statements from all parties reflects poorly on those seeking to be responsible for our water resources in little more than a fortnight”.

He continued, “Australians are increasingly aware of the need for protection and careful management of their water – much threatened by the policies of successive administrations; a vital topic, demanding rational debate rather than finger-pointing”.

“There is increasing objection in the electorate to the ongoing process of privatisation of Australian water; an agenda which no major party has yet had the honesty to put forward as official policy during any election, state or federal. This issue must be brought into the open for discussion before this federal election”, Dr Douglas concluded.

Fair Water Use (Australia) has contacted the three major parties, requesting that they clearly enunciate their position on water privatisation prior to the upcoming federal ballot. 

Initially seen by governments as a cheap means of providing and operating water utilities, privatisation has proved an abject failure in most parts of the world where it has been implemented – leading to dramatic escalation in charges, poor service and a fixation on unnecessary, inefficient and environmentally destructive infrastructure development; reaping huge profits for private water corporations at the expense of the general public.

An increasing number of countries are extracting themselves from contracts with water companies, returning control of water supplies to public authorities.

However Australian governments seem oblivious to this trend and continue to pursue a process of privatisation by stealth: encouraging management of water as a commodity rather than a common “good”, leaving it exposed to international market forces rather than protected for future generations of Australians. The social inequity and allegations of corrupt corporate practice, which plagued this process overseas, are now being mirrored in this country.

The major parties must now indicate their stance on water privatisation - Australians deserve no less.

GAS RUSH : ENERGY : WATER - Across the world

WEEKLY WATER NEWS JULY 27, 2010 Michigan’s New Natural Gas Rush: Energy and Water in Play A Leasing Frenzy read more... Dear Miss Eagle, America's deep shale seams, one of which runs through northern Michigan, contains enough natural gas to fuel the country for a century. That's awakened the fossil fuel industry, which spent a record $178 million in May leasing state-owned mineral rights. But drilling and production practices that involve millions of gallons of water and thousands of pounds of chemicals have generated considerable public concern. This week Circle of Blue takes its first look, and certainly not its last, at the promise and potential peril of producing natural gas from Michigan's Collingwood Shale. Meanwhile, China grapples with its new position as the worlds largest energy-consumer and faces its biggest oil spill. In Africa, the PlayPump, a water-storing device fueled by the merry-go-round energy from kids that defies the laws of thermodynamics--has fallen out of favor with the international aid community, including with UNICEF. Looking more at long-term sustainability in foreign policy, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announcedPakistan water programs last week. As Asian carp continue to be a potential threat to the Great Lakes, Midwestern state officials filed suit in a U.S. District Court to force the government to take more drastic steps to block the invasive aquatic species. And Sitka, Alaska faces a few hiccups that could hinder its bulk water export ambitions. Well, dear Networkers, what can I say.  It is clear that Australia (in particular New South Wales and Queensland) is not the only place in the world suffering from the Coal Seam Gas phenomenon. Recent events in Queensland regarding Cougar Energy led a friend to write suggesting a moratorium until the science was settled on this subject.  I wrote back as follows: Anything that would stop this would need a REAL campaign.  I don't believe a moratorium until the science is right is the way to go.  That argument could be knocked over in five minutes flat. One only needs to argue that science is never settled. There is another way - and it uses a phrase I only came across recently on Lateline. I might have been thick - but the big boys know about it.  It is the phrase "social licence". Here is the link to the transcript of Geoffrey Cousins on Lateline.  The social licence is what is behind what Geoffrey Cousins did in sorting out Gunns at Boardroom level.   Social licence means that, whatever the big boys might want to do from the ivory towers of their boardrooms, it can be very difficult when the people around you don't give their permission or their affirmative consensus in what you wish to do. Fast forward then to Background Briefing's program 'Gas Rush'.  Here is the link to the transcript and audio.  Towards the end of the program, one of the more senior folk in the CSG industry mentions the social licence.  He says, more or less,  that those who have taken the trouble to consult with people have not had any bother.  The bother comes from those who rush in. I believe that on so many environmental fronts this phrase has to become embedded in our society.  It can only do this by pressure from widespread communities and campaigns. The social licence for the current CSG push or gas rush is dubious.    The effects in so many ways are massive - not only for the environment but for communities and how they live.  It is not drawing too long a bow to suggest that Australia's own food security is under threat.  Yet do these resource buccaneers have the social licence of the communities they enter, the states they operate in, or of the people of this nation? So,, I am all in favour of a campaign - but a serious one that can get runs on the board.  May be Geoffrey Cousins has to be consulted since he has done what seemed impossible to so many - but he has certainly pulled Gunn's teeth and their share price has improved to demonstrate the benefit.  So let's set up a campaign that says that, with all the govt permissions and licences you receive, there is one more.  The social licence of the community.  If you want it, you prove yourselves worthy of it.  Oh, and BTW, if you think your company is doing the right thing - the social licence to you have may be withdrawn along with those clearly doing the wrong thing.  And just as government licences frequently carry some conditions - any social licence the community might give you may carry some conditions as well. In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the Bimblebox campaign against the coal companies.  Please see the relevant post here.  At the end of the visible part of the post you will see a link saying 'Read more'.  Please click on this and you will find a petition which you can copy, paste, print and sign. I also attach for you a coal map of Queensland.  What is happening across Queensland is of significant environmental interest.  I don't want to take up any more time because you could go to most places on this map and find a concerning story - and inevitably it would link in some way to impact on water.  If anyone wants to know more, please ask.  But I think I have given you enough to get going.  But if you want to some clues - look at Gladstone and Bowen, both Great Barrier Reef towns. Qld Coal Map from here. FURTHER READING: Residents contiinue fight against 'filthy' gas projects

g '