Keep going, you’ll get there.

So the facts are:

* Logging in catchments reduces water quality and quantity. State Government research in 2002 indicated this was causing the loss of 20GL per year from the Thompson catchment alone. Much of which has now been logged. Have a look on Google maps or Google earth to see for yourself. And read the 2002 Our Water Our Future Government report.

* The government instructed “consulation process” by DSE on this topic in progress right now has ruled out the option of stopping logging in water cathments prior to 2030 – so that existing wood supply contracts are met, (and presumably so that a few local logging jobs in marginal seats and CFMEU factions are not lost).

* The process itself recognises internally that stopping logging by 2010 is the “best case scenario” for water yield increase. Yet it is excluded from consideration as a “poliitically acceptable” option, we were informed.

* Nothing has gone to cabinet yet – the process greenwash is still in train. But the stakeholder reference group was informed that the exit by 2010 option was excluded from future cabinet consideration by instruction from government. This is political interference with proper process. Or maybe proper process just doesn’t exist where the Brumby government is involved?

* The consultation process is consequently a sham. Community feedback on the best option is being ignored. So I, and every other environment group bar one, have withdrawn from the consultation – which is now proceeding with mostly industry and company representatives.

Think back to the Otways in early 2006. The Bracks government furiously denied evidence that logging was destroying the Otway forests and that they should be protected. Then in the middle of the state election campaign they announced glowingly that they were “protecting the Otways forests with a new national park”. Future dated, so logging has proceeded up until now. Some areas are (or soon will be) protected, but much has been destroyed between then and now.

Spot the pattern? They will do the same thing again with water catchments. Denial (as per Wilful), then a glowing announcement for future-dated protection of the water cathcments in the midst of the 2010 election campaign. Allowing enough time for them to log out the remaining high quality ash forests – they don’t care about the rest. I peduct the future date to be 2015.

If the quantity logged is so low (as claimed by Wilful, the Government, and the loggers) then it surely follows that it is easy to just stop it now? But no, they judge woodchips to more important than our water.

And they want us to pay $3b to produce desal water – at much greater expense than stopping the woodchipping in the catchments.

This really is the “State of Victorian politics – it’s all about the projects”. Just add “and vested interests” too. Keep the insane logging going (politics), then spend billions on a mega project (desal) to attempt to “fix it”. And crank up carbon emissions on both counts.

This is a bigger picture view of this syndrome: [link]

Here is the DSE website for the Harvesting in Catchments process if you want to look at the details.

However, I may have to limit my responses from time to time, I can’t always easily respond dispassionately when I see something that I believe to be deliberately misleading.

My bottom line when it comes to harvesting in the catchments is pretty simple:

* conservation groups are using it because they don’t like harvesting full stop – they have an a priori ideological, non-rational motivation. Large old tree worship.

* information about water impacts has been poor, it is getting better. This has allowed misinformation to flourish.

* under normal rainfall conditions harvesting happily coexisted with water supply. Indeed it has for a very long time. More was being harvested a while back when the dams were full of high quality water.

* The recent dry period is unprecedented. If it’s climate change then taking harvesting out does make economic sense, because Melbourne supply is considered more important. If it’s just a dry period, then stopping harvesting makes no sense.

* harvesting remains relatively trivial, the far greater issues are the fact that the forest is regrowing from 1939, and bushfires will happen in the future, and then we’re all stuffed.

* Ultimately, harvesting will be drawn down, due mostly to politics, also due to the economics, where poor decisions in other spheres for expensive desalinated water and limited water conservation measures press this otherwise sustainable industry out of business.

(I wonder how much Southern Rural Water charge for their water from the Thomson? A lot less than desal water I bet).

Having typed all that up, I reckon I don’t have any more to say on the subject f forests here for the time being. I know I’ll never convince Peterc of anything, and vice versa. Happy to talk about other Vic government management issues.

It is not much spoken about in the dailys but a couple of folks are talking about it quite passionately here. With vastly different opinions.

Hope they do not stop, because I might learn something.
Maybe they should just cool down a little.

So what you’ve said above is patently untrue. Which you would know, since you say you’ve been part of it.

And you know what went to Cabinet? Oh really? You are a man on the inside!

The best option they have specified is to “phase down logging in catchments by 2030″ – by which time they will have logged all the high quality forests they want.

They are modelling the “best” option to exit all logging in catchments by 2010, but political intervention from the government has precluded this option going to cabinet. Which is of course nonsense.

They have ruled out input/feedback from environment group stakeholders (of which I was one) that exiting logging in catchments by 2010 is the best option for safeguarding Melbourne’s water supply, and in line with what the public wants.

The government doesn’t really care about what the public wants or protecting Melbourne’s water supply, or that our water is worth more than the woodchips.

I predict they will announce “protection of Melbourne’s water catchments by 2015″ in the run up to the 2010 state election and claim that this is great outcome. Meanwhile, the chainsaws and bulldozers are working overtime, and we continue to lose our water.

The elms in the Burke Rd catchment, the remnant Ashburton Forest and private lawns and gardens have been really struggling due to ongoing water restrictions. The recent rains will hopefully help them out a bit.

Boroondara spends $1m a year trucking recycled water to parks and ovals. So logging in catchments is costing them (and me as a ratepayer) money because it is depriving Melbourne of water.

Desal and empty dams are ineffective “cures”. Stopping logging in catchments is scientifically proven and effective “prevention”.

Rather than Batchelor’s “Dirty Clean Coal Institute” we need a “Renewable Energy Insistute” (since Labor and the coal industry have misappropriated the word “clean”). There would be good export opportunties and income for this too.

There is also a great geothermal site near Maffra, and obviously a lot more opportunity for wind power along the coast (Orange-bellied parrot not withstanding).

We just need more political leadership rather than the Batchelor Brumby approach of digging the open pit coal mines deeper and pretending they are are “clean”.

On the water tank analysis, my calculations are that we could yield savings equivalent to 175GL by spending $3b on domestic rainwater tanks, with much lower carbon emissions than desal. I have written to the Government on this but silence is the answer. They are in a bunker, and fixated on mega projects.

This is a simpler method for collection and use of stormwater than large scale downstream options.

The Government should ask the people what they want rather than ramming decisions through without any public consultation or engagement. After all, they supposed to represent us, not rule as an autocracy which backflips on issues like desal.

Let’s have a referendum on the options. Personally, I favour a mix of centralised and distributed. I would prefer 1b on desal and 2b on water tanks and recycling. And reducing carbon emissions, rather than increasing them.

Brumby wants to build the new brown coal power station partly to power the desal plant. Water tanks would use a fraction of the power – despite Brumby’s ill-informed comments to the opposite.

There’s no scientific evidence that timber harvesting increases the intensity of wildfire, but plenty of direct operational evidence that the experience of driving a bulldozer in this kind of terrain is irreplaceable, and the access roads are put there and maintained by the timber industry.

Of course, the roads have plenty of other bad features about them, but that’s not germane here.

I’m not even going to bother with the local council claim – as a matter of fact the wilderness society do a better job (even though that was just a cut n paste job). Which doesn’t make them more correct…

Quite a lot actually. Boroondara Council officers wrote a report on why logging in catchments should stop. You can down load it from [here]

That would be all the elm logging on the Burke Road Hill catchment then. You know – just behind JB HiFi. Amcor has an office across the road – they’ve almost completely felled the west side by now.

They probably keep that report next to the ones on building fusion reactors and curing cancer. To paraphrase Homer “Councils, is there anything they can’t do?”.

Furthermore, this study commissioned by the ACF indicates that water tank retrofits simply are much more expensive than desal.

Just like domestic PV, Peter; sometimes big ugly centralized engineering schemes are cheaper than distributed solutions.

Secondly, what the hell do Councils know about anything?

Quite a lot actually. Boroondara Council officers wrote a report on why logging in catchments should stop. You can down load it from [here]

Here is their conclusion, voted on by Council and supported 8 votes for 1 against:

The onset of climate change and impact of long term drought means we must carefully manage our water resources, especially as Melbourne’s growing population creates greater demands on water supplies. The adverse impacts of logging in water catchments on biodiversity, water yield and quality and carbon sequestration are of concern. It is recommended that Council advise to the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change of Council’s opposition to further logging in the water supply catchment.

Bushfires is in catchments is an issue too. But logging exacerbates this as it removes fire resistent cool temperate understory, particularly in drainage gullies, and replaces it with drier more fire-prone regrowth.

It is pretty obvious that logging in catchments should stop, and that the reason it continues is political. The Labor party just can’t break their union and industry shackles on this. But they probably will in the run up to the 2010 election.

Building another brown coal power station (and the desal plant) will of course ramp up climate change further too . . .

Firstly, 16GL not 30GL, using worst and best case scenarios for water yield (noting that worst case isn’t what the industry are suggesting). This is a cumulative water yield increase of 1.0% by 2050.

Secondly, what the hell do Councils know about anything?

The pure and simple fact is that the only thing driving low dams right now is low rainfall. Virtually the only thing driving it in the future is bushfire.

The only thing that may ameliorate a bushfire are heavy machinery crews that are experienced at operating in densely wooded, steep terrain (what, like logging contractors? yes, just like them) who have access along roads that are subsidised due to forestry access.

Craig Mc, your proposed dam on the Mitchell might fill up with a flood once every 15 years and would be empty the rest of the time so it would clearly be useless most of the time.

Because if a river is not flooding, it obviously must be empty.

$500 million! pre-PPPs I guess. Bargain.

Well that’s 1981 money I guess, so you’d probably need to at least quadruple it for today’s money. Plus it took a decade or more to do, which is longer than almost all PPPs can wait for return.

as you perfectly well know, stormwater capture has been costed and the desal plant is a lot cheaper.

Robert, if you have any information to support your assertion, please provide a link. I haven’t seen any to date. I think its bullshit.

Wilful, making personal attacks doesn’t address the issue in question.

It is really very simple; logging in catchments costs us about 30GL of water per year (one fifth of what the desal plant would produce). It is just common sense to protect our catchments, as 14 Melbourne councils have now supported. The water is worth more to us than the woodchips.

Craig Mc, your proposed dam on the Mitchell might fill up with a flood once every 15 years and would be empty the rest of the time so it would clearly be useless most of the time. Also, the water-starved Gippsland lakes system – mainly due to diversion of the Latrobe River for Melbourne’s water supplies – would be further deprived of water and end up dead like the Murray mouth.

So Brumby says today he wants to remove water restrictions? We are better off strengthening them, recycling our water, using more stormwater (including domestic tanks). County people know this, but city folk are still basically profligate in their use of water. Just look at all the huge domestic swimming pools.

Melbourne’s water supplies can be met with very little addditional environmental impact. But the Government’s fixation on mega carbon intensive solutions makes them blind to this. Let’s hope they wake up before our goose is cooked. And the Liberals of course are no better . . .