Addendum to Submission Against Proposed Traveston Crossing Dam.

Following the lodgement of my submission against the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, I prepared and lodged an addendum to my original submission to provide additional explanatory and justification notes.  A copy of the Addendum to the Submission is reproduced here:

Further Explanatory and Justification Notes - Traveston Crossing Dam Submission

Addendum to submission TCD dated 27th November 2007.

Attached (1) submission to the Coordinator General.
               (2) the Lambert Plan, alternate water supply for the SE Qld populace (present and future)

Recent announcements on the acceleration of predictions of climate change events is of dire concern. There are probably, at this stage three classifications we may direct to climate predictions and no doubt these will change from time to time as the studies progress. It is of concern however that climate change forecasting of such predictions as they affect the national and regional scene is only now being established. Predictions to date have revolved, more or less, around world predictions tuned to large regional areas. Even so the predictions for the SE and South of Australia has shown drier climates ahead, much the same as SW United States. It may be just coincidence that the Australian east and southern inland is in the worst drought in memory and that California is gripped in the worst bushfire catastrophe in recent times.

The three classifications for prediction being
(a) real
(b) probable
(c) possible

Whilst the predictions based on world research, relating to the Australian predictions mentioned above, may be put into the cat (b), the extent, duration and predicted timing at this stage may only fall into cat (c). The purpose of the study team is to classify both cats (b) and (c) in terms of cat (a) as accurately, confidently and importantly, as soon as possible. If the present drought is a reflection of climate change we are already inthe grip, a revelation that some scientists are deliberating as at least (b) and possibly (a).

It is the rate of change as well as the change itself that must be of prime concern. The predictions by the world’s best science that climate change is real is now universally accepted. The rate of timing of the occurrences predicted has however, surprised even the best earlier predictions and is evident for all to see as glacial, sea ice and terrestrial ice melts in both hemispheres.

The melt of the sea ice and retreat of glaciers in the southern hemisphere together with the same scenario plus the melt of the tundra in the northern hemisphere (evident and no longer a matter of conjecture) serve to authenticate climate change, no matter what individual reasoning deems the cause. The melt of sea ice will change the nature of the polar ice from reflection of the warming rays to absorption of same by the replacement darker ocean. This will have the effect of exacerbating the warming at the poles and possibly steering the ice melt curve into the exponential category, if not already there.

The above, although to some appearing irrelevant to the consequences of the Traveston Crossing Dam (TCD), serves to demonstrate the uncertainties, at this stage, in time of predicting its rate of effects. This is pertinent to the TCD in that it is proposed to build a $1.6 billion dam without the knowledge of the effects of climate change in say 10, 20 or even 50 years time. That the predictions have accelerated so alarmingly must be of major concern in the uncertainties of feasibility study as it relates to future stream capacities. As mentioned in the attached text it is a gamble, a $1.6 billion gamble.

The objection to the offsetting of the construction of the northern inter-connector pipeline (NCP) to costs other than the transportation of TCD waters to Brisbane precincts is, in my opinion, obscuring the true cost of the dam. The NCP mentioned in the Cardno report allows for 65 ML/day. The anticipated extraction from the TCD is 192 ML/day, three times the volume. If the NCP is planned for other than transportation of TCD waters what are the final parameters of the NCP in terms of capacity, destinations, costs and relevance to the TCD?

At the deliverance of 192 ML/ day to the obvious destination of Brisbane via North Pine, why is not the delivery pipeline part of the dam costs? It is inconceivable that the dam, with all its upheavals, trauma, loss of very good agricultural lands and productivity and threat to the river ecology, would attain justification without the conduit to the major beneficiaries, those who have suffered restrictions because of the inadequacies of the climate affected Brisbane valley dams. QWI must apportion the costs of the NCP to the capacities relevant to the TCD extraction, together with ongoing pumping and maintenance costs. Without that the dam justification is without principle.

In relation to the Brisbane valley dams the EIS mentions that the rainfall supporting those dams is considerably less than that of the catchment streams supporting the Mary River flow. This is not supported by the EIS statement of the Somerset Dam not having been filled since 2002/03. The Somerset dam is supported by streams such as Sheep Station Creek, Kilcoy Creek, Sandy Creek and Stony Creek all rising in the Conondale Range area and the Stanley River, rising near Peachester (normally high rainfall) just south of Maleny. The Mary is supported by streams from the Conondale Range and the Maleny area.

A direct conflict in the consequences surrounding the above statement leaves serious doubt as to the statements expressed in the EIS. The possible failure, after construction, of such a costly, social and environmental impact project, cannot be eliminated when based upon assumption or misleading statements, and disregard of the consequences of future climate changes.

It will be noticed that considerable attention is paid to North Stradbroke Island (NSI). NSI has similar problems not so much with flow rates but with aquifer levels. The balance of salt water/fresh water interface is critical in that the salt (with density being more than that of fresh water) is kept at bay by the delicate balance of the fresh being head pressured by nature of its proportionate rise above sea level, corresponding to the island sand mass retentions.

As the salt is only 3.5 % in the sea water it is easy to see just how delicate the balance is. Any withdrawal that reduces the prime fresh water table in the sand mass lowers the head pressure and therefore lowers the resistance to the surrounding and underlying salt water pressures.

Apart from the threat to the ‘prime water table dependent’ flora of the island sand mass, the threat to the island surround ecology is real. Rising sea levels will add to the salt water pressures against a lowered fresh water head due to depletion by extraction activities.

It is therefore imperative that the extraction be reviewed with such volume reduced, rather than expanded and in the face of rising sea level, to cease altogether. The proposed desalination, green powered whether from renewable energy at NSI or elsewhere, is the solution to both Stradbroke Island’s ecology and water supply to the fast growing SE corner.

The Damming of the Mary River is to the detriment of its people, its productivity, its environment and its extended environment, the Great Sandy Straits. It should not be built and alternatives (glossed over in the EIS) should be investigated. The attached alternative is presented for consideration.

Jeff Lambert5/12/07.
eagle@skymesh.net.au

(Return to Submission Against Proposed Traveston Crossing Dam)

My alternative proposal entitled “The Lambert Plan” can be viewed here.  This is PDF document about 1.9MB in size.  If you have the free Adobe Reader software on your PC, the document will open in a new window in your browser.  If you are on a dial up Internet connection, it is suggested that you download the document to your PC.  To download the document, right click on the link and select “Save Target As” and save the document to your PC.