The Network: Water history

Showing posts with label Water history. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Endersbee's Clarence River Scheme meets with disapproval of Clarence locals

Yulgilbar 'Castle', built by Jessie Street's grandfather, Edward Ogilvie

on his Clarence River property in 1863.

At the Murray Darling Basin Authority Community Engagement event in Shepparton last week (see here for details), a suggestion came from the audience for the implementation of turning the Clarence River floodwaters inland in accordance with a plan put forward by Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee. Many Australians (including Miss Eagle with regard to Endersbee's plans for an inland railway from Melbourne to Darwin) have been caught up in the late Professor Enderbsee's retirement projects. Jennifer Marohasy provides details in this post of Professor Endersbee's involvements and achievements.

Here is a re-telling of Professor Endersbee's plan for the Clarence from the Citizen's Electorate Council of Australia, followers in Australia of the American Lyndon La Rouche. I am publishing it in full here so assist in preserving its record.

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release 25th of May 2009

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 03 9354 0544 Fax: 03 9354 0166

Grafton floodwaters would save Murray-Darling—build the Clarence Scheme!

Once again, the Clarence River is in flood at Grafton, NSW, but if the Clarence River Scheme—which has been on the books since at least the early 1920s—had been built, that water would now be on its way down the Darling River, to save the parched towns, farms and lakes of South Australia.

The scheme would divert the waters of the upper Clarence and Nymboida Rivers over the Great Dividing Range into the Dumaresq River, and on into the Macintyre, Barwon, and Darling Rivers, before flowing into the Murray River near Mildura, and on down to South Australia. Additionally, a nearby Macleay River project would divert water into the Gwydir River and on into the Barwon and Darling Rivers.

Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee designed the Clarence Scheme as a pump storage scheme, which can take advantage of surplus off-peak electricity to pump water over the range and into storage dams, which will then produce hydroelectricity from an annual flow of water comparable to that of the Snowy Mountains diversion.

(Professor Endersbee was Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University, at the end of a long career which included distinguished work on the Snowy Mountains Scheme, Tasmania’s hydro scheme, and hydroelectric schemes in Southeast Asia.)

He told a Citizens Electoral Council conference in 1997, “There is the catchment of the Clarence River and it is a wonderful little cup in there, and very steep country, high rainfall and one of the highest rainfall areas in Australia, and they get the summer rains down from the monsoons coming down and they get the winter rains as well.

“So there is a lot of rainfall there and it all flows out into the sea, and if you have been to Grafton, you know how wide the Clarence River is at Grafton. It’s a big river.

“So I have ... designed a scheme for the diversion of the Clarence into the Darling. Now ... there is a lot of algae in the Darling... This would flush all the algae out of the Darling.”

Most importantly, the Clarence River diversion would go a long way to saving the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s food bowl, which produces 40 per cent of the national agricultural output, and comprises 75 per cent of Australia’s irrigated land.

Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood called on the nation’s political leaders to act with foresight for the future. “We called to build the Clarence Scheme back in August 2001 when we released our book What Australian Must Do to Survive the Depression and then in February 2002 we published a Special Report, The Infrastructure Road to Recovery including the Clarence and Macleay projects. Nothing has been done and now we’re left with a bill for flood damage and an agricultural sector dying for lack of water. This inaction must stop now.

“Mr Rudd, pay attention—this, not broadband, is nation-building,” he declared.

For a free copy of the “Infrastructure Road to Recovery” New Citizen, including details of nearly 20 water projects which could be built for under $40 billion, click here.

http://www.cecaust.com.au/

I publicly rebutted the people at Shepparton supporting this proposal saying that the people of the Clarence River district would regard this proposal as risible and that, just as the people of the Shepparton district had the honour paid to them of consultation and allowing them their say, this honour should be extended to the people of the Clarence River district.

So, Networkers, you can imagine my pleasure in reading this statement by Janelle Saffin (HaTTip to Blogotariat) originally published in the blog, North Coast Voices:

TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2010

Saffin tells Parliament 'Not a drop' from the Clarence River

Bravo to Federal Labor’s Janelle Saffin who really is in tune with her electorate in this 18 October 2010 media release.

Saffin tells Parliament -- ‘Not a drop’

PAGE MP Janelle Saffin made it clear on the first day of the Parliamentary session that she would be vigilant on protecting the Clarence River against water raiders.

Ms Saffin today told Parliament that a lot of people are talking about wanting to get their hands on water from the Clarence River.

But she said the message from the local community in response to those looking at river diversion under the Murray-Darling Basin plan is this – “Not a drop”.

“Engineering-wise, we can do anything -- we can do marvels -- but in terms of the environment and also the viability of the Clarence, it would be a disaster.

“The catchment area of the Clarence River falls within 100 kilometres of the New South Wales coastal strip.

“Our industries are fishing -- we have a huge commercial fishing industry -- and agriculture, and the economy is heavily underpinned by that commercial fishing.

“There is also forestry and tourism. It is all worth a lot to us.

“This debate is one of those debates that come up ever now and then.”

Ms Saffin said that right across her electorate thousands of cars display the ‘not a drop’ bumper stickers, part of a Daily Examiner campaign against Coalition water policy in 2007.

Following her statement in the House, Ms Saffin said she did not want to alarm people but she wanted to be up front on the first sitting day on this important issue.

“I also want to thank the local people who sent me good information on the issue this morning,” Ms Saffin said.

“The idea of diverting the Clarence River inland won’t stand up to closer public scrutiny.”

See an additional post on this topic also at Northern Voices here.

Saturday, 9 October 2010

Murray-Darling Basin Plan must not become a political football

MEDIA RELEASE
8th October 2010

National public water rights and environmental advocacy group Fair Water Use is encouraged by the broad recommendations made in the guide to the draft Basin Plan released earlier today by the Murray Darling Basin Authority, but is concerned that Federal and State parliamentarians will use the forthcoming consultation period to justify softening of the Plan for short term electoral advantage, rather than to promote the long term interests of the river system and its communities.

The group’s national coordinator, Ian Douglas, commented this afternoon, “The progressive degradation of the Murray-Darling cannot be resolved without significant impact upon those who were previously encouraged by successive governments to overexploit the waters of the nation’s most vital rivers.”

Fair Water Use believes that Australian governments must shoulder much of the blame for the crisis, as a result of a raft of inept policies, including the hyper-allocation of Murray-Darling water, the COAG decision of 1994 to develop a national “water industry” and the promotion of agribusiness-based managed investment schemes.

“Basin communities have themselves been exploited by Federal and State administrations and the pro-market lobby and have every right to feel aggrieved”, Dr Douglas added.

A politically fudged and compromised Basin Plan will be no friend to those who seek to make responsible use of Murray-Darling water. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority must be allowed to develop its Basin Plan free from pressure from those who fail to grasp, or choose to ignore, the profound, long term, economic, social and environmental implications of a degraded Murray-Darling river system.

“Governments must now devise concerted regional development initiatives, to enable Basin communities to transition to a sustainable future”, Dr Douglas concluded.

Related reading from Miss Eagle's files

Ian Douglas mentions above the 1994 decision by COAG

For more information -

which is vital to an understanding of the current state of play -

please read the following:

Hilmer Report - National Competition Policy

Council of Australian Governments Communique - 25 February 1994

COAG and Water Privatization

Unbundling Australia's utility regulation - Labson

Monday, 14 June 2010

Water privatisation : The Australian story : selling a birthright for a mess of pottage

Wondering what Ian McNeice is doing in a wig
in a post on water privatisation?
Please go here for your amusement.
It was posted here.
Scroll down to find out the source and the reason.
~~~

If Networkers want to get a grasp on Australia's water history then, alongside keeping up with the broad range of current issues, there is a need to develop a firm basis in history. I discovered this for myself when I discovered the wonderful Joe Powell. I live in Victoria and discovered Watering the Garden State: Water, Land and Community in Victoria 1834-1988. Now it is about the Victorian story but this story has great impact on Australia's national water story because of the involvement of Alfred Deakin and because of the Murray Darling Basin and its development.

Having said that and taken Networkers way back in the settler history of Australia, let us go back to the dark ages of 1994. This was when Paul Keating of living memory was Prime Minister. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) was a mere two years old.

While we of the lower orders who are not closely involved in decision-making for the nation were sound asleep, COAG met and made some decisions. The COAG decisions on water were far reaching and, if any of us of the lower orders noticed, we (moi included) probably nodded in agreement and went about our business. Let's revisit what they said in their official communique of 25 February, 1994.

Water Resource Policy

The Council considered a report from the Working Group on Water Resource Policy, chaired by Sir Eric Neal, outlining a strategic framework for the efficient and sustainable reform of the Australian water industry. The report had been commissioned by the Council at its June 1993 meeting.

The report noted that, while progress is being made on a number of fronts to reform the water industry and to minimise unsustainable natural resource use, there currently exists within the water industry:

approaches to charging that often result in commercial and industrial users of water services, in particular, paying more than the costs of service provision;
major asset refurbishment needs in rural areas for which, in general, adequate financial provision has not been made;
impediments to irrigation water being transferred from low value broad-acre agriculture to higher value uses in horticulture, crop production and dairying;
service delivery inefficiencies; and
a lack of clear definition concerning the role and responsibilities of a number of institutions involved in the industry.

The report also noted that there is a number of issues and deficiencies involving water and the wider natural resource base that require the attention of governments. These include widespread natural resource degradation which has an impact on the quality and/or quantity of the nation’s water resources.

The Council endorsed the strategic framework proposed by the Working Group and agreed to its implementation. Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania agreed to the broad principles but had concerns on the detail of the recommendations. The framework embraces pricing reform based on the principles of consumption-based pricing and full-cost recovery, the reduction or elimination of cross-subsidies and making subsidies transparent. The framework also involves the clarification of property rights, the allocation of water to the environment, the adoption of trading arrangements in water, institutional reform and public consultation and participation.

Implementation of the strategic framework is expected to result in a restructuring of water tariffs and reduced or eliminated cross-subsidies for metropolitan and town water services with the impact on domestic consumers of water services being offset by cost reductions achieved by more efficient, customer-driven, service provision.

In the case of rural water services, the framework is intended to generate the financial resources to maintain supply systems should users desire this and through a system of tradeable entitlements to allow water to flow to higher value uses subject to social, physical and environmental constraints. Where they have not already done so, States are to give priority to formally determining allocations or entitlements to water, including allocations for the environment.

Environmental requirements are to be determined on the best scientific information available and will have regard to the inter-temporal and interspatial water needs required to maintain the health and viability of river systems and groundwater basins. The Council also agreed where significant future irrigation activity or dam construction is contemplated, that in addition to economic evaluations, assessments will be undertaken to ensure that the environmental requirements of river systems can be adequately met.

Because the changes flowing from the framework are extensive and far reaching in their implications, the Council considered that a five to seven year implementation period will be required. Part of this process will involve governments consulting the community on aspects of the framework. The speed and extent of water industry reform and the adjustment process will be dependent on the availability of financial resources to facilitate structural adjustment and asset refurbishment. The detailed decisions of the Council in relation to water resource policy are at Attachment A.

The Council has asked the Working Group on Water Resource Policy to prepare a report for its first meeting in 1995 on progress in implementing the framework with further reports to be prepared annually on progress over the succeeding four years.

Networkers, we might not have known what COAG was up to - but it did. It had the blessing of the ACCC. The intention was - and it was carried out and has its impact on us all and on the land and environment of this nation up to this very day - to:

Unbundle land and water
Commodify water - made possible by the separation of land and water
Trade in water - once the water is unbundled from land; packaged in neat entitlements; then the stock exchange that is the water trading market can be opened for business and plunder.

I cannot prove that there was aforethought that the major international privateers such as Suez and Veolia would enter the fray in Australia - but I reckon, if COAG had not deliberately planned for this, there was a fair idea that it would happen.

The rest is history.

I think there is a question or questions we need to ask our politicians (of all political persuasions) of then up until now.

Did you foresee Australia's current water crisis developing/.occurring?
If not, why not? Too busy, disinterested, couldn't be bothered?
If so, why did you set the ground work for the vultures (i.e. Suez, Veolia, et al) to benefit and profiteer from our dried and drying bones and take our heritage from us.