http://eaq.mediavisionz.com.au/

“Peter,

RE:TOPS Gate Failure – likely inoperable when Water levels reached 26.69 in early June 08

1. Is it possible for the calibration to be up or down from the level – indeed maybe water levels were higher?

2. From What date would the calibration be out?

3. We note in the early June event Wongi was topped over ( Wongi Water hole joined Wongi Flat) which indicates the water levels in Wongi Flat and the wider dam were at least RL26.5 probably higher - why were the gates not working? ( Remember we also have photos at the gate wall in june that will indicate height and provide an indication as to whether the calibration is accurate or not)

3.1 How can you evidence that the calibration is actually out?

3.2 How long do you claim the calibration has been inaccurate?

Public Saftey is reliant on accurate reporting of the Dam and TOPS gates operational capacity ( or lack of it ) and of accurate reporting of water levels, if the dam supervisor cannot be trusted what evidence do you ask him to provide? Who is the third party?

4. Incident reports - When we first contacted NRW we asked for a copy of the incident report written in FEB 08 – I recall the incident report was to be supplied in 72 Hours of the event – that is an incident report should have been generated around 29 January and again around 12 Febuary a third report would be generated for the June event. Would you please provide these three reports. ( I note they have not been included in the FOI documents)

RESPONSE
“Because the dam gate operations are not controlled by the BoM water level sensors, I am not willing to get involved in the accuracy of the ‘levels’ it produces at this stage. It is a reporting issue, and as such, is an issue for the BoM and possibly the dam owner (I am not sure how it is funded). It just depends on how often they update their calibrations etc. However, I am not totally surprised by the difference – it probably had not been ‘calibrated’ for some time. I know the errors can be either positive or negative. The main issue is knowing what the actual water level is … and that is typically the role of the dam supervisor.

I am unaware as to why members of the public were not allowed access to the dam on 3/6/08. It may just be a case that they wish to control who goes onto their property from a public risk perspective. Again that is not an issue that I have any power to control.

I am hoping to visit WBW towards the end of next week to discuss these uses with them and get a first hand look at the issues you have raised.

Peter Allen
Director Dam Safety (Water Supply)
Water Industry Regulation
Telephone 07 3224 7636, Mobile 0418 728 755 Facsimile 07 3224 7999
Email peter.allen@nrw.qld.gov.au
http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au

Those who would like to know more about water recycling will find a copy of my booklet “From waste-d-water to pure water” on the Sunshine Coast Environment Council’s website:
http://www.scec.org.au/water-booklet/index.php

It will tell you what we put into water, how we take it out again and how we know that it has been taken out.

Jenifer Simpson

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7230

A crowd of residents from the Mary River region, who travelled to Brisbane to farewell Mr Posselt, cheered as their “environmental crusader” launched his kayak into the Brisbane River at noon today.

The Queensland government has proposed building the dam on the Mary River, near Gympie, to supply water for the state’s booming south-east

But it is strongly opposed by environmentalists, who fear the loss of several threatened aquatic species in the Mary River, and by farmers who don’t want the fertile valley flooded.

“I am astounded … we are about to flood a major area and then plant trees to try and compensate for just some of the greenhouse gases,” Mr Posselt said.

“I don’t want the dam and a lot of people don’t wantit either. I hope we can achieve not having the dam or at least the environmental and economic cost of it.”

Mr Posselt, a civil engineer, last year completed a four-month trip along the Murray-Darling river system by kayak to heighten environmental awareness.

For this four-week journey up the Brisbane River to the Mary River and then to Harvey Bay, Mr Posselt has planned to strap his kayak to his back and carry it over part of the Conondale Range, where the Mary River temporarily disappears.

“I’m very nervous and very apprehensive about my fitness level,” Mr Posselt said.

“It’s going to be tough and it’s going to be a struggle, but I have no doubt that I’m tough.”

Mr Posselt said increased storm-water harvesting, more recycled water and desalination plants that used renewable energy would provide better answers than the dam.

“Just one of these implemented properly would mean that Traveston Crossing Dam won’t be needed,” he said.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokeswoman Anna Keenan said approval of the plan for the dam by the federal government would be a “weak decision”.

“If (Environment Minister) Peter Garrett says yes to this dam I think the government has backed down on what would be a landmark decision for environmental sustainability,” Ms Keenan said.

The Conservation Foundation has called for more Brisbane residents to install water tanks in their backyards.

“Here, 10 per cent of houses have water tanks, whereas in Adelaide 40 per cent of houses have them. Measures like that by everyday people are real alternatives to the Traveston dam,” Ms Keenan said.

PARADISE DAM

COMPLIANCE OR PARTIAL COMPLIANCE?

IS THIS THE QUESTION?

The Beattie government was given approval under the EPBC Act 1999, to build the Paradise Dam (on the Burnett River, upstream of Bundaberg) by the Howard government under Minster Kemp on the 25th of Jan 2002. On the 8th of august 2003, the Minister gave the Beattie government a variation of the approval which required them to comply with 9 conditions to demonstrate successful mitigation to ensure that a ‘significant impact’ did not occur to the MNES Neoceratodus forsterii commonly known as the Australian lungfish.

Condition 3 of the variation of approval was that, “Burnett Water must install a fish transfer device on the Burnett River Dam suitable for lungfish. The fishway will commence when the dam becomes operational” .

This variation was the result of scientific assessment of the potential impacts to the species and the requirement for upstream and downstream migration to spawning and feeding habitats.

A Queensland DPIF report by Brooks and Kind (2002) on the lungfish had made a recommendation that a decadal study of the Mary River lungfish populations was produced before any further dams or extraction was planned or indeed carried out.

On the 26th April 2006 the then Premier ,Peter Beattie, announced without any public consultation process , that his government was going to build a 300,000 MGL dam on the Mary River at Traveston , 15km south of Gympie , I was fortunate enough to be one of the 6000 people who attended that announcement and unanimously turned their backs on the Premier. On the 14th of June 2006, my contract with the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency was terminated because I was accused of breaching the public service code of conduct, as I had made comments in the media that the Beattie cabinet was ignoring the recommendation from the scientific report by Brooks and Kind.

After a concerted media and lobbying effort by the Anti Traveston Dam group , Widebay Burnett Conservation Council ( WBBCC) , Save the Mary River group ( STMRG) , and the Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee ( MRCCC), the Premier dug his heels in and responded to an accusation by Professor Jean Joss , on the Qld ABC 7.30 Report , that the ‘fishway was ineffective and not complying with the EPBC approval’, with the following;
“The paradise dam lungfish ladder is working effectively and they are breeding effectively as far as I’m concerned”.

WBBCC lodged a FOI request to the Premiers Office seeking documentation (scientific research papers or Cabinet briefing documents ) to substantiate the Premiers claims ,

“WBBCC is seeking access to all documents relating to the advice given to the premier on the functioning of the fish ladder on Paradise Dam on the Burnett River and lungfish breeding in the Burnett River”, we obtained the following response, “ a search was conducted of the records management system and physical searches were undertaken of pertinent areas of the office” , however no documents were found,”, ““Certain documents were located which were initially considered to fall within the scope of your application, however processing your request involved consultation with third parties under S51 of the FOI act 1992, following consultation and examination , the documents were considered irrelevant to your request, as the Department does not hold any documents that fall within the scope of your application, access is refused under S 28a ( 1) “ An agency or Minister may refuse access to a document if the agency or the Minister is satisfied the document does not exist”.

After a meeting with Senator Ron Boswell at the mouth of the Mary River and communications with Senator Ian Macdonald, I was requested to attend the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs Committee hearing into the Traveston Dam proposal on the 11th June 2007, to give evidence of the effectiveness of the fishway. I used the FOI request and response, to show that the Premier had based his statement on personal opinion with no credible evidence or scientific results (the premier was misleading the people of Queensland). Those of us from the Anti Dam groups who participated were successful in persuading Minister Turnbull (Howard Government Environment Minister) to agree to carry out an environmental audit of the Beattie (now Bligh) government’s compliance performance for the fish way on Paradise Dam.

The audit was carried out by officers of Minister Garrets department late last year, myself and certain other members of the Anti Dam groups had a meeting with Minister Garrett in Gympie on Monday 25 th Feb 2008, where I explained to him that the compliance can not be met because the downstream entry point for the fishway is situated at 63 M EL which is 6 mts above the current storage level of the dam, and this precludes downstream passage. The reason it is at this height is to ensure that successful fish passage does not compromise the economic performance of the dam , thereby rendering the ‘fish transfer device’ unsuitable for lungfish. This is in direct breach of condition 3 of the variation.

The Ministers officers make the following observations and determinations in respect of the ‘device’;

P02: “The Fishway has not fully commenced “(Attachment B Item 3.3).

BWPL’s Response:

“It is BWPL’s view that this condition has been met and BWPL is compliant. Continuing drought conditions has meant that the Paradise Dam storage level has not reached the design operating range for the downstream fishway of EL62.0m. The fishway design process included extensive consultation with fish experts and government agencies and advice from fishway experts over an extended period of time. The operating range was considered to offer the best cost-benefit-risk outcome for all stakeholders that balanced protecting the lungfish with cost-effectiveness of the design. The resource Operations Plan (ROP) established by the State Government specifies that the fishway is to have an operational range of between EL 62.0m and EL 67.9m. The highest the water level in the dam has reached since its construction was EL 55.62m.”

Department’s Response:

“The fishway was to commence when the dam became operational. It is DEWHA’s view that the dam became operational in December 2005.

Only part of the fishway is currently operating (upstream).

A rating of partial compliance is given when there is more than one element to the condition or requirement being assessed and the auditee has complied with some but not all elements. In this instance the fishway contains both upstream and downstream elements, and both of these have not been met, therefore a rating of partial compliance is appropriate. It is however noted, that the rating of partial compliance is due to drought conditions and low dam levels”.

If we refer back to the variation for approval, there is no mention of ‘partially complying’, the wording is distinct, “Burnett Water must install a fish transfer device on the Burnett River Dam suitable for lungfish.” The Anti Dam groups are adamant that compliance has not been met , fish passage must occur in both directions , there can be no mistake , compliance with the conditions of approval have not been met by the Bligh governments water operations entity Sunwater . The spurious claim that ‘continuing drought conditions’ are to blame is a fallacy and easily debunked.

The dam is currently at EL 57M and falling and Sunwater is selling water on a daily, ( 216MGL ) basis, rainfall at the BOM gauge near Gayndah for 2007-08 was above the 137 year median , rainfall in the SEQ region was particularly heavy post xmas and yet the dam has still not reached the 63 m EL . This actually an admission on the part of Sunwater , that the dam was a Beattie government election promise and built in an unsustainable catchment. It is unlikely that further large inflows will occur now; this will result in another year of non compliance with the conditions of approval.

It is then not unreasonable for the Anti Dam groups to put forward an argument that it is unlikely that compliance can be met in the foreseeable future unless the Federal Environment Minister applies to the Federal Court to , ‘make a remediation determination requiring a person ( BWPL or Sunwater ) to repair or mitigate damage that has been or is likely to be caused to a protected matter ( non effective fish passage for Neoceratodous forsterii) by a breach of a civil penalty provision’, under S 18 (4) , (a) & and (b) of the EPBC Act .

ROGER M CURRIE
VICE PRESIDENT
WBBCC