Maria Riedl and Jon Altman on the Wild Rivers of Queensland and LNP plans

Picture from here

Maria writes to Minister Burke to protest Queensland government intentions to regulate wild rivers...

5 March 2013

Dear Minister Burke,

I would like to draw your attention to yet again Queensland government intentions to regulate wild rivers. Their actions would impact on International agreements such as CAMBA JAMBA ROKAMBA and RAMSAR wetlands as well as the aquifers, other important but not listed wetlands and areas which depend on the free flowing, unregulated systems and other states.

This is madness on the part of the blinkered Queensland government and totally disregards the impacts any regulation of these rivers would cause. There needs to be a referral to the commonwealth. There needs to be a strategic assessment immediately on the impact of separated proposals as well. Not only would the ecological diversity and biological health of matters dependent upon these free wild rivers but what about the associated infrastructure, the changes to direction of flows, the alteration of inflows to other rivers, wetlands, aquifers such as the GBR, roads, dams, pipelines...

Perhaps it is time to take a very microscopic look at the GBR and a strategic assessment of it before we have yet again the terrible Impacts as in the MBD replicated.

Queensland seems to be rushing, without referrals and without consultation with other states on the impacts of regulating wild rivers.

Aren't we ALL living in Australia, or is Queensland a separate country that does not care or consider impacts on the entire system of the GBR, the Lake Eyre Basin and even impacts on the MDB?

I ask the you ask for an explanation and that you are made aware of ANY changes to these wild rivers immediately.

Expansion of mining and other water extractive industries must not be allowed if they alter our natural environment in a manner that WILL have a cumulative and singular impact. Surely the health of our river systems, our Basins is more important than government's and mining companies and irrigators rush to make more dollars.

We are talking yet again about the Precautionary Principle and the Principle of intergenerational equity as highlighted in the EPBC Act.

As the Minister for the Environment you have the responsibility to ensure that states are adhering to the EPBC Act and international conventions and agreements that Australia has signed up for. Near enough is simply not good enough.

Again, I would also ask that the Commonwealth does not pass the EPBC Act baton to states at the next COAG meeting on this subject. States have vested interest. Prime examples are Queensland and their weakening of environmental laws to allow  so called "cutting of green tape or red tape". Victoria is another state that is on the process of doing the same, as is Western Australia. Handing over the control of EPBC Act to these will have a detrimental effect on matters protected under the act as well as all of Australia because we KNOW that cumulative impacts of single actions on each state will be unacceptable in their intensity.

The Commonwealth has a role to ensure that states do NOT weaken laws that have been. Implemented by the states to ensure their compliance with the EPBC Act. This is exactly what they are doing in preparation of huge huge huge expansion of mining, for minerals for water, expansion of cotton, of other crops that are no sustainable on a continent that has such a shortage of water. Water must be shared in a balanced manner with the environment and not everything is about money!!!

Have a close look at what states are sneakily, without consultation, doing to National parks!!!! Cattle in them, prospecting, thinning or logging, hunting, developments, more roads, mining etc

We need a rethink on what a "National" park is and what they are setup for. It shouldn't be that single activities are approved piecemeal wi strategic assessments!

I also have concerns about the Tarkine and your failure to list the 430,000ha as recommended. An opportunity Minister Burke.

If there will be a change of government later this year perhaps this presents you (at the moment) with an unprecedented opportunity to make decisions that are nation building, such as listing the the entire area of the Tarkine as recommended, as ensuring that the EPBC Act is not passed to the states and rejigging the EPBC Act to include cumulative impacts, stronger strategic assessments, climate change and...

You have a once in a lifetime opportunity, please use it as it was used in the Franklin Dam listing. You can if you have the will. Please, this is about the future of our natural environment which is already degraded and in dire peril from many many fronts.

Regards

Maria Riedl

~~~~~~

Further reading
SA Govt urged to fight  Qld's Wild Rivers change

Overturn , axe and bury:  the LNP and  Queensland's Wild Rivers Act

Wild Rivers and Indigenous economic development in Queensland

Maria on the MDB, Desal, NVIRP, Mildura and the Tim Holding resignation

My feisty friend, Maria in Mildura, has written to her local Council to remind them of salient facts concerning Tim Holding who announced his resignation from politics last Friday.  Miss Eagle is nothing if not a cynic about politics, politicians and, in particular, post-politics careers.  Will watch with interest how Tim Holding will earn a crust from here on - something to do with water could be on the cards?

~~~~~

15 February 2013

Dear councillors,

Tim Holding is the politician who, against all logical thought, approved water decisions like:

1. the north-south pipeline, which was to take water from the dry north, and forever, out of the Murray Darling Basin

2. the Wonthaggi desal plant which is the biggest in the southern hemisphere, locking Melbournians into millions of dollar payments no matter if they do not take one drop of water and releasing nasty chemicals back into the sea

3. and  NVIRP,  part of which is just juggling figures and calling it saved water, eg measuring from different sections, and lining channels with black plastic

4. Closed down the local FMIT (First Mildura Irrigation Trust) set up by the Chaffey Brothers, which had been looking after irrigators for a historical 114 years, not giving them a chance. With LMW putting his criticism letter on its website for a few years and calling the letter history. The Supreme Court jury made a decision on this lately that was not flattering to either Mr Holding or FMIT

All of the above forces Victorians to pay millions and millions for these decisions well into the future and lost us our local FMIT and still leaves the very high possibility of taking water out of the MDB forever to Melbourne.

This instead of recycling and conserving and looking rigorously at long-term environmentally sustainable options by planning well into the future with proper community consultations.

Instead he made these decisions without proper EIAs and without listening to the community. In fact ignoring their concerns by limiting the referrals for these projects and limiting public consultations so he had his own way. (He did not want a repeat of the Nowingi Toxic waste dump hearings which lasted 58 days). This includes those of the community who went to a lot of trouble to present at the hearings for the desal plant and the hearings for the north-south pipeline. And then failed to take into account us up in the north, by only concentrating on the NVIRP area, that too was a decision made around a table of vested interest people.

Our council, realising the importance of maintaining water in the MDB, assisted the community and myself, by paying for buses to Yea and Bendigo because by taking water from the north during the longest drought in history he was taking this water to Melbourne, out of the already stressed Murray Darling Basin, forever, never to be returned to the MDB, when there were other options.

For him to now state that some of these decisions were his best shows that some politicians just don't get democracy and environmentally sustainable development and don't care whose money they spend because they do not admit responsibility, because they just move on and out, leaving us, the people to pay for over 25 years, for these whopper of bad decisions.

He also broke a cardinal rule of bush walking by failing to take a gps or any safety signalling device and walking alone, forcing tax payers to pay for his one day jaunt into the Alps (the area just burnt) by getting lost. A helicopter was called and guess who paid for that?

He dived at a dive site just set up, with a new sunken ship, when no one else was allowed to dive there for safety reasons.

This is probably the best decision he has ever made and certainly in the best interest of Victorians. Thank you Mr Holding.


http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/holding-to-quit-politics-20130215-2egpc.html


Regards

Maria Riedl


"Democracy is not a spectator sport"

Another milestone in the hydropolitics of the Murray Darling Basin

The catchments of the Murray Darling Basin

Picture is from here

MEDIA RELEASE

28 August 2012

Picture from here

Craig Knowles, Chair, Murray Darling Basin Authority

Statement from the Chair

Today is an important milestone in the progress towards a Murray–Darling Basin Plan as it represents, under the process mandated by the Water Act, the end of the period where Basin ministers advise the Commonwealth minister of any further views on the draft plan.

Basin ministers have today provided both their consensus views and individual state views on the current version of the plan. From this point, any suggestions or directions about further changes can only come from the Commonwealth minister. We note that the Commonwealth minister has, despite his clear authority to act unilaterally, indicated his intention to use his best endeavours to continue to work with all jurisdictions to finalise the plan this year.

The Murray–Darling Basin Authority will now consider the information as part of the next step of progressing the draft plan. This opportunity for Basin ministers to provide their views follows their ministerial notice to the MDBA in July, where ministers achieved common ground on a number of important and key issues.

As the Commonwealth minister has noted in his statement today, it is anticipated he will be providing further comments on the draft plan as he continues his discussions with Basin ministers in the coming weeks.

The MDBA would like to thank the Commonwealth and state and territory governments for their suggestions so far and to restate our commitment to use a balanced approach to managing the water resources of the Basin. We also thank the many groups and individuals in the Basin who have contributed to this process of developing the plan and also reaffirm our commitment to continue working with them as we undertake this important national water reform.

ENDS

For more information contact the MDBA Media office at media@mdba.gov.auor 02 6279 0141.

Follow the MDBA http://twitter.com/MD_Basin_Auth

Join the discussion on the MDBA blog: http://freeflow.mdba.gov.au/

Murray–Darling Basin Authority
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: (02) 6279 0141

e: media@mdba.gov.au
w: www.mdba.gov.au

blog: freeflow.mdba.gov.au 

t @MD_Basin_Auth

Related articles

• Inquiry demands more detail on Murray-Darling plan
• WATER PRIVATISATION: Demand a state-by-state plebiscite to sort out and protect the Murray-Darling Basin
• Where the Murray Darling Basin Starts..
• Burke says vital progress made in Murray talks
• Murray-Darling plans revised to help break deadlock
• Murray-Darling water deal 'unfair'
• Wentworth Group condemns latest Basin Plan version as based on shoddy foundations

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?

NSW Irrigators have numbers on the impact of the Murray Darling Basin Plan in NSW. Please discuss

So many friends of The Network are active in the defence of water for the environment under the Murray Darling Basin Plan.  On the other side of the argument, are the irrigators.  The strongest voice among the irrigators is the NSW Irrigators Council.  To-day @nswirrigators have tweeted as follows:

Below is the Basin Impact Analysis done by the NSW Irrigators.

You can read online or download tokeep.

New ways of getting polluting coal to the surface

Have received this email from my good friend, environmentalist,  and Networker Denis Wilson who blogs magnificently at The Nature of Robertson

~~~

It has long been understood that there are vast coal reserves in the Murray Darling Basin, (at least as far out as Mildura).

Thing is, those coal reserves have never been regarded as "viable" for mining.

Now someone is floating the idea of developing a 2nd generation Methane exploration system, based upon techniques seemingly proven in the USA.

This is NOT good news for these regions (if anything like the disruption which has occurred in QLD and northern NSW is any guide).

Be prepared to read into the fuller report (linked), to find out what it might mean for you - South Australia, Victoria (Gippsland, Otway as well as Murray Regions) and southern NSW.

Picture above is from here

'Second Generation' methane exploration - based on biologically-generated gas in relatively shallow, low-rank coals, and prompted by the phenomenal production from the Powder River Basin of the USA - is barely a year old in Australia. Within this timeframe, however, such exploration is already showing encouraging signs for commercial success, and ACM is at the forefront of this work following recent discoveries in NSW.

Tertiary coals of southeastern Australia, especially in the populous states of New South Wales and Victoria, constitute particularly attractive, shallow gas targets. Hosting enormous coal resources, these areas are only just beginning to receive attention.

Outside of the Gippsland Basin, the greatest potential for onshore early Tertiary coal in Australia probably lies in the Murray Basin of NSW, Victoria and South Australia. The Murray is a very large basin of about 300,000 km² (compared with some 74,000 km² for the Powder River Basin), comprising Tertiary and Cainozoic sediments. The eastern Murray Basin of NSW and northern Victoria with its extensive Tertiary coal development constitutes an important but until recently untested Powder River Basin analogue. Early work by ACM and an associated company has already defined a large area of gas-charged early Tertiary sediments in this basin, where the companies have more than 50,000 km² of contiguous tenure. 

Demonstrating that biogenic gas is not confined to younger coals, ACM has also discovered substantial volumes of biogenic methane from shallow Permian coal seam aquifers in its Gunnedah Basin tenure of northern NSW.

http://www.pesa.com.au/publications/pesa_news/oct_01/nsw_supp/acm.htm

Coincidentally, Somerton Energy has claimed various leases along the Victorian "Otway" coast and offshore regions, and in South Australia.
http://www.somertonenergy.com.au/index.htm

Can hardly say "cheers" can I?

One thing matters regarding the Murray-Darling Basin: returning it & its environment to health

The Murray River at Cummeragunja, NSW

Basin Plan must return Murray-Darling to health

April 17, 2012

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s submission on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan calls on the Basin Authority to strengthen the plan by putting more water back into the Basin’s rivers and setting the system on the road to long-term health.

ACF’s submission, released today, is one of thousands that have gone to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority calling for a stronger Basin Plan.

“In addition to the Australian Conservation Foundation’s submission, more than 1000 of ACF’s members and supporters have made submissions to the Authority,” said Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Don Henry.

When you add up all the submissions that have been made by members of the Lifeblood alliance and through the Adelaide Advertiser, it seems that at least 7,000 of the 12,000 submissions received by the Authority call for a stronger Basin Plan that will return the river to health

“There is a rising chorus of voices across Australia, especially from South Australia and Victoria, insisting on a stronger plan,” he said.

“A stronger plan that safeguards the health of rivers in the long term would improve the sustainability of industries and communities that rely on the Basin environment.

“Water Minister Tony Burke should instruct the Authority to assess the benefits of providing higher volumes of water – such as 4000 gigalitres – to the river system.”

ACF’s submission calls for a stronger plan that returns more water to the river system and keeps the Murray mouth open, questions the planned increase in groundwater extraction, urges the Authority to take account of the impacts of climate change and seeks adequate cultural flows for the Basin’s Aboriginal people.

Healthy river systems lead to healthy housing prices in the Murray-Darling Basin

Print

News & media

Healthy rivers support healthy house prices

March 22, 2012

Analysis of the selling prices of houses in 90 local shires across the Murray-Darling Basin shows house values are rising — and they are strongest in river valleys that are in good ecological health.

The analysis, by the Australian Conservation Foundation’s economic adviser Simon O’Connor, shows a solid link between healthy rivers and a strong housing market.

“Houses in all parts of the Basin increased in value between 2006 and 2010, but house prices in regions where the river system remains in good health increased in value at a higher rate than house prices in the parts of the Basin where the river system is struggling,” Mr O’Connor said.

“Some opponents of a strong Murray-Darling Basin Plan have tried to suggest that returning more water to the environment would damage house prices in the Basin, but our study, using a more detailed set of data, tells a different story

“There is in fact a strong correlation between healthy rivers and healthy house prices.

“The best protection for regional communities and farming families is to keep the Basin’s rivers, Australia’s lifeblood, flowing.

“A strong Basin Plan is the best chance we have to secure a healthy environment and strong economy in the Basin."

The study used Australian Bureau of Statistics house price data from 90 councils and shires in the Basin and matched this information against the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s Sustainable Rivers Audit, which rated the ecological health of the Basin’s 23 major river valleys on a scale of extremely poor to good health.