| |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
| |
| These are the letters that will be generated |
| |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
|
|
| |
 |
| |
| |
| |
 |
|
|