People may recall that not long ago the Hinze Dam behind the Gold Coast was practically empty and they were pumping water from the Wivenhoe. Then a few years ago it rained half a metre in one day and has been raining there ever since. These micro-climate patterns develop, last for years and then suddenly change.

The strategy behind recycling was to have a greater proportion of our water needs met from climate-independent sources, but that got stuffed when the Bligh Govt got the wobbles over actually adding it to the supply on a regular basis.

The real argument for desal is that it is climate change proof. There s no guarantee that enough rain will keep falling in the mary river catchment.

“When you’re talking about a dam that would have delivered around about 150,000 megalitres a year, 200 megalitres per day, it is a bit too simple to say there is any one solution out there that will make up for that deficit,” Mr Robertson said.

You have to be a bit careful about the figures being thrown around. I understand the 150,000ML is the figure for Traveston Stage 2 which was planned for a couple of decades hence. The immediate comparison is between Traveston Stage 1 which was going to cost $1.8 billion and yield 70,000ML as against two desal plants which will cost $2.4 billion (2007 figures) and yield 90,000ML.

That’s not a humungous increase in the price of water, as we are being led to believe.

I heard Kate Molloy, the former Labor member for Noosa who defied the Beattie Govt on the dam and was duly disendorsed, says that Anna owes her an apology and she should be endorsed to run for the seat again next election.

Meanwhile there is going to be NIMBY resistance to desal plants at Tugun and elsewhere. I heard on talkback radio that you can feel the vibrations of the Tugun plant from 500 metres away. Tugun was designed and built in a helluva hurry as Armageddon loomed. So I don’t know whether it was just bad design or whether it is a normal downside of desal plants.

I gather by your post your a supporter of the Dam? Anyway, by your logic I would assume the Dam supporters will now, on principle, will not avail themselves of any dairy or agricultural products from the area, or the surrounding areas, or areas related to the surrounding areas. You know, what’s good for the goose. Good luck with that.

If the Queensland and Federal governments had not deliberately brought about population growth since at least 8 December 2005, when the Queensland Government, on the occasion of the anticipated birth or arrival of the 4 millionth Queenslander the following day, placed a full page advertisement in the Courier Mail (and I suspect, interstate newspapers) asking for people to move to Queensland, we would not be facing these choices.

Why if this is necessary to cope with population growth, does Rudd plan to increase Australia’s population by 60% by 2050? Why did both Bligh and Fraser welcome this?

I see Anna Bligh has likened herself to Eleanor Roosevelt:

“Anna Bligh defies Traveston dam fallout”

The Premier yesterday quoted famed former United States first lady Eleanor Roosevelt as she maintained she was tough enough to continue in the top job.

“Eleanor Roosevelt once said that a woman is like a tea bag – you never know how strong she is until you put her in hot water,” she said.

Of course, Bligh is only strong when it comes to trampling on the rights of ordinary people. She’s as ‘strong’ as a new-born kitten when it comes to standing up to property developers, land speculators and mining companies.

—

myriad74,

I read the Anna Bligh had also (correctly) pointed out the inconsistency between Garrett’s decision on the Pulp Mill and his decision on the dam:

Ms Bligh hit out at Mr Garrett, saying she “profoundly disagreed” with his decision, which selectively accepted the views of some scientists and ignored the social impact on southeast Queenslanders.

“It is a mystery to me how the federal minister can approve a pulp mill in Tasmania for commercial profit and not approve a dam for the water needs of 2.5 million southeast Queenslanders,” she said.

Nevertheless, I find an inconsistent Minister for the Environment preferably to one who is consistently against the environment.

—

Brian,

I also remember hearing of plans to mount a high court challenge, so, technically they did have a “Plan B” after all, but it was a Plan B with almost no chance of success, going from past experience.

Quite a few people have incurred enormous expenses as a result of failed court chanllenges. Earlier this year many of us were moved to contribute to the fund to pay Bob Brown’s unbelieveable $250,000 costsw which were awarded against him as a result of a failed court challenge.

Kate Milne, a Greens Tweed Shire Councillor faces cost of $30,000 as a result of her failed legal bid to stop the Repco car rally in the environmentlly sensitive Tweed adn Kygle Shires held in September.

Others who have had large costs awarded against them as a result of failed legal challenges include the Blue Wedges group opposed to the environmentally reckless deredging of Port Phillip Bay (as mentioned above) and the YOur Water YOur Say Group who attempted to stop the deslaination plant on Victoria’s Bass Coast (also mentioned above).

daggett, I’m not sure whether it was the Save the Mary group but I heard that someone was planning a high court challenge, the purpose of which would have been to hold the project up in the courts until Bligh was defeated at the next election, which she surely will be.

I understand that at least one landowner sold with a buy-back clause in his contract if the dam didn’t go ahead.

BTW I noticed that daily consumption is now 137 litres per person per day, down from 150 after the recent rain. That probably represents how much is being used on gardens these days. There are plenty of drought resistant plants that will grow in Brisbane.

And should they visit or go to live in Brisbane, they will choose not to avail themselves of that city’s water.

In all fairness, they should now volunteer to assist the government to find a solution to the problem of providing sufficient water to meet the demands of South East Queensland.

Whilst Peter Garrett’s decision to stop the building of the Traveston Dam is to be heartily applauded, he did no more than what should be expected of a Federal Minister for the Environment when faced with such an environmentally reckless proposal.

This is the second significant occasion, that I can recall, on which Garrett has acted in favour of the environment, that is, in other words, treated his statutory obbligations seriously. The other occasion was when he blocked the Bligh Government’s similarly environmentally reckless plan to build a coal loader in Shoalwater Bay.

Garrett’s overall dismal environmental record

On every other significant issue that I can recall, he has acted against the environment.— Uranium mining, the Dredging of Port Philip Bay the Tasmanian Pulp Mill, the Car Rally in the environmentally sensitive Tweed and Kyogle Shires, failure to act to protect the Murray Darling system, the building of a massive deslanation plant on Victoria’s Bass Coast, the North South pipleline, the overall massive expansion of Australia’s coal exports, not to mention his failure to take a visible stance against the Federal Governent’s reckless plans to grow our populaiton, etc., etc.

If Garrett’s decision is truly a sign of him changing heart back to become the environmentailst he once claimed to be, then we would explect to see him, from now on to act consistently in favour of the environment and to find ways to reverse previous decisions harmful to the environment.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I am not expecting that to occur.

If I am right, then it would be more accurate to conclude that Garrett’s decision against the Traveston Dam was the result of a political calculation concerning how much he needs to do for the environment in order to retain any political credibility.

The Save the Mary River Group had no plan B

One alarming aspect of this controversy is that the Save the Mary River Group had no strategy for dealing with an adverse decision from Peter Garrett.

Environmentalists should never put themselves in a position where they have to virtually beg of our political representatives to do the right thing. If the Minister for the Environment does not fear environmental groups such as the Save the Mary Group and does not go out of his way to meet their reasonable demands, then they are not doing their job properly.

Prior to that Save the Mary River Group‘s principle strategy was to campaign for the Liberal National Party (LNP) and against the Labor Government at the 2009 state elections, thereby alienating many environmentalists who had good reason to be concerned about some of the LNP’s poor environmental policies.

The Save the Mary Group explicitly damned the Greens in their election literature for their reluctance to give their preferences to the LNP when the Greens were (for all their considerable faults) at least as consistently agains the dam as the LNP.

With the re-election of the Bligh Government, and a cross-bench not holding the balance of power, that strategy got them nowhere.

In the 2008 local Government elections they failed to back the Integrity Gympie team, which was committed to fully utilising the resources of the Gympie council to fight the dam, and, instead allowed candidates who were prepared only to pay lip service to the fight against the dam, to win.

Astonishingly, in a referendum held in Toowoomba in 2006, anti-dam campaigners, together with the Queensland Greens, campaigned, ultimately unsuccessfully against community activists for the imposition of recycled water by the City Council. As a result, relations between them and a group of people in South East Queensland, who would naturally have been sympathetic towards them have been poisoned ever since, including during the critical 2009 Queensland State elections.[1]

At the moment, the Save the Mary River Group can count themselves very lucky that, this time, Peter Garrett’s political calculations came down on the side of the environment.

James Sinnamon

Brisbane Independent candidate fortruth, democracy and economic justice,Australian Federal elections, 2010

Footnotes

1. For their part, anti-water-recycling and anti-fluoridation campaigners largely reciprocated the Save the Mary Group’s counterproductive stance, and this appears to have also harmed, rather than helped them at the ballot box.