Send letters to all 4 at once

Dear Mr Rudd,

May I commend you for your enlightened “National Plan to tackle the Water Crisis”.

“Investing in water infrastructure, sustaining our farming communities, revitalising our rivers and waterways, securing water supplies in our cities and towns and ensuring that we become smarter and more efficient in our water usage” are wise aspirations.

The old technology of constructing major dams across rivers is a risky supply source in times of climate change. The “water crisis” has come about through our almost total reliance on water sourced from rainfall-dependent dams.

In southeast Queensland, there was scant attention given to the examination of alternatives in the Traveston Dam EIS.
If your government kept to the policy it took into the election, it would recognize that the Traveston proposal falls far short of its worthy and commendable aspirations. I ask that your government look to its National water vision to override Queensland’s poorly made decision to pursue this dam.

Should you fail to do so, future generations of Queenslanders will look back in bewilderment at the actions of their State Government but they would judge far more harshly a Federal Government that espoused such a noble and enlightened vision for water and waterways, yet failed to deliver at its very first test.

Dear Mr Garrett,

A dam on the Mary River threatens our World Heritage.

If a dam at Traveston Crossing had been operating during 2006/2007, flows from the Mary River to the Great Sandy Strait would have been reduced to less than 25% of the natural state. Yet the Queensland Government says the Great Sandy Strait, Hervey Bay and Fraser Island would not be affected.

The impacts on the Great Sandy Strait and RAMSAR wetlands have not been adequately addressed. Rainfall is predicted to decline and if it were to fall by only 10%, stream flows into the dam would be a cut by a third. Further reductions in environmental flow would be inevitable.

Already, worrying trends across the last decade have seen the Mary River flows cut by around half, similar to what has occurred in the Murray River system.

The dam threaten the survival of a number of endangered species, notably the Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Turtle and Mary River Cod with only untested mitigation measures being proposed. Announcing a Centre for research into these species is a welcome move but this research needs to be carried out before contemplation of a dam rather than after one is built.

Traveston Crossing Dam would, at best, supply less than 10% of SEQ’s future water needs. There are viable alternatives, not adequately considered by the government, that would give South East Queensland a truly secure and ecologically sustainable water supply with significantly lower triple bottom line impacts.

Dear Senator Wong,

In your address to the 4th Annual Australian Water Summit earlier this year, you stated that “a key element of Water for the Future is to work with the States to develop new sources of water that do not rely entirely on rainfall.” This is essential.

I also share your view that ‘the most pressing challenge is to ensure all Australian governments are responding to the impacts of climate change on our water supplies and the health of our rivers.’

I am concerned by the Queensland Government’s plans to build Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River. If it had been operating during 2006/2007, flows to the Great Sandy Strait would have been reduced to less than 25% of the natural state. Yet the Queensland Government says the Great Sandy Strait, Hervey Bay and Fraser Island would not be affected.

If we are serious about reversing Climate Change, the Queensland Government should be aiming to minimize emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. It has been estimated that aquatic weed infestations, drowned vegetation and pumping to Brisbane add up to more greenhouse gas emissions than a coal-fired power station.

Already, worrying trends across the last decade have seen the Mary River flows cut by around half, similar to what has occurred in the Murray River system. We cannot allow government to Murray the Mary.

The Queensland Water Commission sees Traveston as the last dam to be built in Queensland before turning to desalination plants. I ask your help to assist the state government to fast-track more environmentally sustainable alternatives to the dam and to allow the Mary to continue to function as a healthy waterway.

It would be tragic if your government were to espouse such noble aspirations and then cave in to the Queensland Government’s misguided determination to build this dam.

Dear Ms Bligh,

Building a dam on the Mary River poses many threats to our World Heritage.

The impact of Climate Change and a dam’s impacts on the Great Sandy Strait have not been adequately addressed. Rainfall is predicted to decline and if it were to fall by only 10%, stream flows into the dam would be a cut by a third. Further reductions in environmental flow would be inevitable.

Already, worrying trends across the last decade have seen the Mary River flows cut by around half, similar to what has occurred in the Murray River system.

If we are serious about reversing Climate Change, the Queensland Government should be trying to prevent any emission of methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. Methane will be present in the dam in very high volumes, produced by long periods of water storage, fluctuating levels, low oxygen and high nutrient in the water.

Along with the greenhouse gas costs of pumping water to Brisbane, this adds up to a dam on the Mary River making an unacceptably high contribution to Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

The dam poses threats to the survival of a number of threatened species, notably the Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Turtle and Mary River Cod with only untested mitigation measures proposed. Announcing a Research Centre into these species is a welcome move but this research needs to be done before contemplation of a dam rather than after one is built.

Traveston Crossing Dam would, at best, supply less than 10% of South East Queensland’s future water needs. There are viable alternatives, not adequately considered by the government, that would give South East Queensland a truly secure and ecologically sustainable water supply with significantly lower triple bottom line impacts.