This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

No More Dams?

Jump to new

Calliope

Joined
2 July 2008
Posts
7,102
Reactions
6
Irrespective of any decision Peter Garrett makes today on the future of the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, we can be sure that the last dam to provide water to any large city in Australia has already been built. An approval by Garrett would involve so many restrictions and red tape as to make it not viable; and then there are always court challenges.

The very militant NIMBYs have won the war. Their latest secret weapon is a rare a**e breathing turtle, but they have many more up their sleeves.

What we can look forward to is more power hungry and expensive desalination plants and recycled sewage.

It is ironic that in one of the world's driest countries we are prevented from conserving water by so-called Conservationists
 
Garrett has knocked back the dam based on matters of "national environmental significance."
 
Personally think most enviromental desicions are based on the size of the envelope passed.

No offense to envelope recievers.
 
I wonder what will happen to the hundreds of acres the government bought on the assumption the dam would go ahead?

Won't they now have to compensate those people they forced out of their properties?

What a mess.
 
Peter Garrett was pretty quick to sell out his beliefs and jump on the Uranium bandwagon, maybe this is a way of saving face in the short term, I would have thought with the population growth rates expected for Australia in the future, Water and future water consumption would be a number one priority, still can't understand why they didn't run a pipeline from Argyle dam and Ord river catchment to the more populated areas of WA when the natural gas pipe was being laid years ago but I guess I'm not as clever as our Pollies....
 
Julia said:
I wonder what will happen to the hundreds of acres the government bought on the assumption the dam would go ahead?

Won't they now have to compensate those people they forced out of their properties?

What a mess.
Click to expand...

Well Julia, isn't this the norm for Labor Party run Governments who endorse ex union hacks who have no idea how to manage the public purse.

How can the country progress without conservation of water? Desalisation Plants are costly to construct, operate and maintain. The power alone to operate these plants is enormous and of course that will increase the CO2 emissions from the coal fired power stations. I thought "green head" Garrett wants to reduce green house gases!!

Perhaps we could construct a large statue of Anna Bligh and Peter Garret on the Traverston Dam sight in memory of the the amount of money they have wasted on this project or even shift the Barcaldine dead tree of knowledge to the dam site to remind us of the dead wood in the Labor Party.
 
Calliope said:
Garrett has knocked back the dam based on matters of "national environmental significance."
Click to expand...
Now where have I heard those words before...

Bottom line is the decision not to build the dam directly results in increased CO2 emissions. So at least Garrett can't claim climate change as "the highest priority" when he's just given it a lower priority than stopping a dam. It's about 5kg of CO2 per kilolitre of water based on figures I have for a desal plant in SA.

What I can say though is that in terms of getting dams built, general thinking is that you need a majority Liberal government both state and federal for it to happen OR a Labor state government with a leader who isn't personally opposed to dams.

Not having any facts and figures I really can't comment on the merits or otherwise of that dam.

I don't think we'll see major new urban water supply dams anytime soon at least for most of the major cities. But on the other hand, Tasmania did build the Meander dam not long ago (used for irrigation and hydro-electricity) and has plans for an assortment of catchment diversions and similar works as well as a quietly simmering debate about revisiting the big dams era should a carbon tax come into effect. Meanwhile Victoria has a significant new hydro scheme actually happening too.
 
In the end Garett made the right decision and I applaud him for it.

Well done baldy.

If damming up Mary River might potentially kill off endangered species then of course the plan should be rejected. Yes, desalination plans are expensive and a minimum of at least two will need to be built in that area of QLD but it's the ONLY logical solution left which wouldn't endanger lives. As a future Queensland taxpayer I know I would rather fork out more more money then see certain species of frogs, fish and turtles wiped out.

For the moment, rainwater harvesting and recycling with STRICT water restrictions will have to do but Queensland should have debated and brainstormed future resolutions years ago.
 
I don't know enough about the pros and cons of the Traveston dam to know how much its non-construction will affect the overall water supply for SE Qld into the future. But - undoubtedly to the displeasure of people who are fans of various obscure water creatures - I'd actually put the supply of water to human beings ahead of saving something that swims for its life, and which most people have never heard of.

Anna has been suspiciously acquiescent regarding Mr Garrett's decision and has assured us she will not be appealing against it.
I can't help having the uncharitable thought that the whole thing could be an agreed decision between the Qld government and Mr Garrett. It's one less piece of hatred for the electorate to hold against Anna, and this decision will now leave her free to let costs blow out on as many desal plants as she likes, while she says to anyone who objects: "well, if you'd let me build Traveston, we wouldn't need this."

Or maybe I'm just being unreasonably unkind.
 
Another excellent potential water source for SE Qld is the millions of litres of pure fresh water that flows from Eli Creek on Fraser Island into the sea every day. It would be an uncomplicated matter to put a pipeline from Fraser Island to the mainland (a very short distance).
But the greenies object to this. (Well, of course they would.)
 
No problem with that as long as you accept that you are advocating an increase in CO2 emissions in order to achieve the no dams outcome.

I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just that there are two environmental sides to the dams argument. One is wild rivers / species / wilderness whilst the other is CO2 emissions / climate change. One environmental outcome is gained at the expense of the other - which one is actually most important is, of course, a matter of opinion to which we are all entitled.

There are environmental impacts from tanks too. I don't have figures but just visualise a few million of them (one per house) and consider all the materials needed to make them and fuel used to transport them. That's a lot of minerals dug up and a lot of diesel fuel burnt. They certainly aren't without impact that's for sure.

As for water restrictions, short term it seems inevitable but it's akin to relying on the emergency brake every time you want to stop the train rather than fixing the normal brakes and using them. You're completely stuffed as soon as something goes wrong with no further backup measures available. Impose water restrictions under normal conditions because supply doesn't meet demand and there's nowhere left to go when drought hits, equipment fails etc. Then we end up literally running out of water altogether.

If there's one thing that's a given with dams debates it's that they keep coming back. 5, 10, 20, 30 years later the issue just keeps popping up whenever a relevant issue arises. There are people not yet born who will be hearing about this one for years to come until either a permanent alternative is built or the issue is revisited and the dam is built.

In that context desal is a solution, but not a permanent one given the ongoing spending and impacts associated with it - plants will be built but water authorities will end up reluctant to actually operate them except in emergency situations due to the cost. Then we get a few wet years and the plant sits there doing nothing. Then it falls apart and doesn't work when needed.
 
I have no sympathy with bum-breathing turtles which most people will never see (or hear) but I do have a special affection for the Queensland Lungfish since studying it in Biology classes at the Uni. and discovering how it fits into the scheme of things. I doubt that building a reservoir would further endanger this unique creature. It has been used as a NIMBY wedge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_lungfish

 
Conservation issues aside, there are other good reasons why I am pleased theTraveston dam is not going ahead - the area is prime grazing and agricultural land, and the catchment is too shallow being two of them.

I would prefer to see the state government give every house in south-east Qld rain water tanks and keep water restrictions in place. We have become used to using less water, and we could all do well to be more responsible -and less profligate - with our most precious resource.

Ruby
 
Then what do we do when the next drought occurs? If water restrictions are permanent and the system is only built to cope with that level of demand, then how do we cut demand below that level when a genuine shortage (eg drought) occurs?

Ban washing hands and brushing teeth?

I do think the fish argument is nothing more than a convenient tactic though. Here in Tas there's a very large man-made lake that is the only known habitat (anywhere) for one particular species as well as being home to another endangered species. And yep, the more extreme elements of the conservation movement would like to drain it because they don't like dams and in doing so wipe out a species or two.

The whole argument is more about in principle opposition to dams than any real concern for endangered species based on what I've seen first hand. I doubt the situation in Qld is any different.
 

South East Queensland (SEQ) is Australia's fastest growing region. By 2031, its population is expected to grow from 2.8 million to 4.4 million people. The region covers 22,890 square kilometres, stretching 240 kilometres from Noosa in the north to the Queensland-New South Wales border in the south, and 160 kilometres west to Toowoomba.

Mr Rudd is a keen supporter of this population growth. Perhaps he should tell Garrett. For the first time in my memory we have water restrictions on the Sunshine Coast. This is because Ms Bligh has built a pipeline (at great expense) from Brisbane to tap into our dams. This will make it very difficult for the Sunshine Coast to assimilate this population growth. The Traveston Dam will be sorely missed.
 
It is no wonder the dam has been stopped, first we have a Turtle that breathes through its bum, next we have politician who talks through his bum. I find it very sad to see all that winter water just wasted going out to sea.
 
pilots said:
It is no wonder the dam has been stopped, first we have a Turtle that breathes through its bum, next we have politician who talks through his bum. I find it very sad to see all that winter water just wasted going out to sea.
Click to expand...

You're right pilots. The problem with Peter Garrett is that it's a bit hard to distinguish his head from his bum.
 
There is such a thing as cutting your suit to fit your cloth (or whatever the qote is). City people connected to a water supply still use more water than they need to because up until recent times we have never had to think about conserving water, and every household installing water tanks would be good start in taking responsibility for one's water usage. Country people relying on their own water supplies have a lot more respect for it.

We installed two tanks at our house at the beginning of the drought. They have never been empty, and often overflow. At present we use the water only for the garden and washing cars, but are thinking of having the toilet and washing machine plumbed in. There is also room for more tanks if necessary - and it is just a suburban block. Human beings can be endlessly creative when necessity requires, and there are other avenues to explore to ensure continued fresh water supplies.

Apart from that, the overwhelming opinion of the majority of experts has been that the Traveston Crossing was a bad site for a dam.

Cheers,

Ruby
 
Out of all this desperation to fix water problem, somehow no politician dares to mention POPULATION CONTROL.

We have enough water for less people!
 
I disagree, Ruby. We're not a third world country. We should be able to have showers of a duration greater than 3 minutes if we wish (without being silly about it). And we should be able to enjoy our gardens without carting buckets around just so precious plants don't die. And let kids play in sprinklers on hot days if they don't have access to a pool.

I installed three x 5000 litre tanks. Fine, if it rains but they have been empty for months. No rain here for more than three months.

I'd like to see recycled water used for industry and agriculture, rather than the drinking water that presently goes there. And efficient harvesting of storm water. Also think the consideration of a pipeline from FNQ should not be automatically dismissed on the basis of cost. I'd like to know how that would compare with the four desal plants Ms Bligh is currently suggesting.
There was a report on the radio yesterday that the water which ran off the dam up north (I think near Townsville) during last summer's wet season would have filled Wivanhoe several times over.

Happy said:
Out of all this desperation to fix water problem, somehow no politician dares to mention POPULATION CONTROL.

We have enough water for less people!
Click to expand...
Good point, Happy. Mr Rudd is so enthusiastic about big populations which of course equal big government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...