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
Hey Julia! I'm with you, not against you. Note the last sentence in my post. However, we can't control how much rain falls or where it falls; and if it chooses not to fall for a lengthy time, then there is still a lot we can do to conserve water without equating to a third world country. I agree - all the things you mentioned should be explored.

I think Anna Bligh stuffed up - as did Beattie before her - and rushed into the Traveston dam proposal without fully exploring the other options. I would like the best outcome with the least disruption to the environment.

Cheers,
Ruby
 
Ruby said:
Apart from that, the overwhelming opinion of the majority of experts has been that the Traveston Crossing was a bad site for a dam.
Click to expand...

Ruby, I always start to worry when I hear phrases like "overwhelming opinion of the majority of experts." The Greens and the Conservationists are very good at digging up these people.

You may be surprised to learn that the Rudd government has awarded $950 million in new consultancy contracts since winning office. These "experts" are now running the country. Our elected representatives are only told of the decisions by Rudd once they are made. No doubt this applied to the Traveston decision.

Of course Rudd doesn't hire any consultants who might have a contra view to him.
 
Calliope - point taken so I will be more specific. The experts I am referring to are engineers and geologists and other similarly qualified people. My husband is an engineer who has worked on many large construction jobs, and for different companies. This (he has told me) was the consensus of opinion among people qualified to know.

My objection is not to dams per se, but to that particular dam.

Ruby
 

Yes I know. However I don't think Garrett rejected Ms Bligh's experts' opinion that it was a suitable site for a dam. He rejected the dam because "the social and economic advantages are outweighed by environmental considerations...the impact on threatened species."

I don't think he was concerned about the impact on people, unlike our dear Anna who has now apologised to the locals for upsetting them. I guess to win back their hearts, she will start handing out money. (our money)
 
Calliope, I absolutely agree with you about Garretts reasons for rejecting the dam! And yes, it's all about politicians maintaining their popularity!

Ruby
 
I'm tickled pink, quite a lot of praise for dams. Last time I checked, we moved over into the 21st century people!!!

Megadams are the OLDEST, most OUTDATED approach to water management still existing today. The romans graduated and evolved from aqueducts due to greater technological advancements so why can't we?

You can criticize his agenda but actions speak louder than words and Minister Garrett has infact put the environment first, for once. It is his job after all. Premier Bligh had good intentions but they were ultimately short-sighted and completely reckless. The proposal was flawed from the beginning and thankfully environmental law and good science won on the day. The burden of population and development pressures will always be a thorn in the side of fresh water ecosystems, but today we've (tree huggers) delightedly won that battle. Bring on the war.

In theory, more exploration of water supply alternatives that DO NOT create significant environmental damage is vital for our future and our children's future. Bring on Williams River/Tillegra Dam - our next challenge.
 

Excellent point Ruby. After drinking & bathing with de-salinated water for five years and understanding the precious resource, I do agree more needs to be done to reduce water waste. I know teaching is everyones responsibility so maybe the wiser ones within society will spread the word, also big industry will use water more efficiently. Not easy when dealing with human nature and the entrenched patterns.
 
The English language has also been around quite a while. Does that mean we should stop using it? The sun has been around even longer - does that mean I should stop using solar power?

Could you be specific as to what alternative, precisely, you see as being superior to dams so that we can discuss it here?

I make my comments as someone who has seen rather a lot of dams - over 40 large ones - and understands quite well the impact they have. I've also seen quite a few coal mines both open cut and underground. On environmental grounds, even excluding the CO2 issue, I'd choose dams over coal any day unless it's a highly unusual circumstance. Dams for urban water and dams for hydro-electricity are nothing compared to the impact of the desal and coal-fired power that are in practice used as the alternative.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Could you be specific as to what alternative, precisely, you see as being superior to dams so that we can discuss it here?
Click to expand...

Smurf, I doubt that you will receive a rational reply. Being a Greenie is an easy cop-out. They grow nothing, they produce nothing, they mine nothing, they achieve nothing. All they do is criticise those who do.

They are a parasitic burden we have to carry.
 
Vote 1 Julia for Prime Minister.

Seriously...why should we all have to cut back? The general population wouldn't make the slightest dent in water usage compared to industry...yet we are the ones made to place restrictions on our lives?

It's all a load if you ask me. If they were 100% serious; major pipelines would have been built rather then dotting de-sal plants around the country. We are fortunate enough to be spread across 2 climates...why not maximise these to our advantage?

Labor
 
Fundamentally, Greens are opposed to the notion of growth and development generally. You having a hot shower is not a requirement in that context. It is a political philosophy that is effectively the opposite of capitalism - it never was just about dams or pulp mills.

The whole thing is a classic example of how to implement an agenda - NEVER tell people up front what the end goal is, instead just chip away at it bit by bit. By targetting power and water, that pretty much takes care of everything else too since they are fundamental to virtually all industry and general activity.
 

Mate, no need to generalize. I was simply adding my two .

Thanks for the warm welcome though, haha.
 
EverNothing said:
Mate, no need to generalize. I was simply adding my two
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your views but you absolutely have a right to state them and I hope (genuinely) that you continue to do so.

If Bob Brown and John Gay (chairman of Gunns, a forestry / pulp mill company) can have rational discussions on a subject where they can't possibly agree (and they are indeed having such discussions) then I think we can remain civilised here on this forum.

PS I can't resist adding that the control panel in my avatar, at Lake Margaret power station (Tas), is back in action today after being idle since mid-2006. Yep, the 95 year old machines are up and running again complete with a nice new 2.2 km long wooden pipeline (yes, it really is made of wood) to carry the water from the dam toward the power station.
 
Smurf - I'm sure you've heard of TRAVESTON being referred to as "the saucer"?
Mainly because it would have been knee-deep for a grasshopper.
I'd be amazed if hydro was ever seriously considered there (and now it has been abandoned it seems).
 
Smurf1976 said:
Could you be specific as to what alternative, precisely, you see as being superior to dams so that we can discuss it here?
Click to expand...

Sure thing, dude. I personally think the funding which was earmarked for the dam should now be poured into moderately funded programs to retrofit South East Queensland with WORLD LEADING (show them Europeans how it's done) water efficiency, stormwater reuse and recycling infrastructure.

I wouldn't worry about the death of the humble mega-dams anytime soon though. The Conservation Act of 1999 (which Garrett used to help implement his decision) is used very rarely. Only during environmental emergencies.

I wouldn't worry about seeing desalination plants popping up all over the country just yet.
 
Why are dams - provided they are built in appropriate places - not a good water storage facility?
The area in which I live has a dam which was raised a few years ago to cope with the increasing population. Now that Traveston is not going ahead, the risks of impediment of inflows from the Mary River is less of a concern.
We've not had any rain here for close to four months but there is still enough water in the dam to allow for the only water restriction being "no sprinklers between 8am and 4pm".

today we've (tree huggers) delightedly won that battle. Bring on the war.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the impression you greenies constantly give. That you are engaged in a philosophical war against more moderate members of our society. It's what turns most people away from even the most potentially sensible of your suggestions.

In theory, more exploration of water supply alternatives that DO NOT create significant environmental damage is vital for our future and our children's future. Bring on Williams River/Tillegra Dam - our next challenge.
Click to expand...
OK, no disagreement here. Could you explain what the above Dam refers to, where it is and how it will provide water to whom?

As always, Smurf, a concise and rational summary.
 
I spent years at uni studying biology, I have worked in labs and animal houses as a biologist. I am supposed to be a hippy greeny type person given my background, but I am a bit of a black sheep among my peers in this area. I acknowledge that human progress requires species of animals and plants to go extinct, and I can't stand the idiotic hippies who stand in the way of bulldozers to save a pitiful little daisy or a tree of a common species. Conservationists can be very stupid, because they waste their efforts trying to save species which really are not important.

However, in this case, some very important species were on the line. The turtle is unusual in some ways, but only because of its genetic background. The breathing through the bum thing was hyped up, many Australian turtles breathe through that part of the body. The lungfish on the other hand is one of the most incredibly important species on the planet, not just because it is extremely unusual and looks incredibly cool, but it is a fish with a bloody lung! That makes it invaluable for medical research as well as biology/zoology. That's one species of fish we really just could not afford to lose. I would happily see 100 species of frogs, turtles, trees, orchids, etc go extinct if it meant the lungfish could survive.

Even if you ignore the conservation side of the dam, as well as the displaced people, the dam was stupid. It wasn't the best place a dam in the area could be built, and since the rainfall is low and probably will remain that way, a dam isn't going to help the situation anyway (dams tend to fill up when it rains, not just whenever they are built). It was an incredible case of stupidity for that dam to ever be proposed, and sense has prevailed in this case. The QLD government knew they could have put the dam in a better place and that a dam was probably not the best solution, but not until they were already too far along to back down without losing face. Had they done so earlier this stupid saga would have ended soon after it started rather than dragging out for years. Let's hope they learn from this mistake and take the time to make future decisions properly. Then again, they are politicians, so any sort of intelligence from them is unlikely! At least in this case we have come to a very good result.
 
The one thing that burns me up here in Perth is we are short of water, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. How bad is that.
 
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...