Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Opinion

How much water did Snowy Hydro release from Lake Eucumbene during the floods?

By

THE managing director of Snowy Hydro, Terry Charlton, denies that Snowy Hydro contributed to the devastating flooding along the Murrumbidgee in early December in which homes were destroyed and wheat fields drown.  He does, however, admit that until Wednesday, December 8, water was being released from Lake Eucumbene.  

Lake Eucumbene has the capacity to store the equivalent of nine Sydney Harbours and was at only 25 percent capacity. 

A chart, recently provided to me by a Snowy Hydro staff member,  shows the extent to which lake levels were falling early December.  

During just one 24 hour period, between 8th and 9th December, lakes levels fell six centimetres which is equivalent to 6,000 megalitres of water being released. 

That is a lot of water; enough water to provide all of Melbourne’s water needs for one week, or grow 5,000 tonnes of rice.  

And yet according to Mr Charlton no water was released from Lake Eucumbene during that 24 hour period.  

In The Australian newspaper on December 15, journalists Samantha Maiden and Lauren Wilson reported that Federal Water Minister Tony Burke and a spokeswoman for the NSW Office of Water also denied any water was release by Snowy Hydro except from overflowing lower storages because of excessive rainfall and flooding. 

The chart of lake levels and an operational plan for Snowy Hydro for December 9th, also provided to me by a staff member, however, indicate that very significant quantities of water were released from Lake Eucumbene.

The communities of the Riverina deserve to know the truth.  

Snowy Hydro must make public all the documentation that they hold on all water releases, and also all inflows, for Lake Eucumbene for November and December 2010.   Only then will we know the extent to which Snowy Hydro contributed to the flooding – or not.

***********

Previous posts on this issue can be found by scrolling down here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/tag/snowy-hydro/

The comment thread on this blog post was closed at 12noon on January 05.  There will be more posts on this issue providing opportunity for more comment.

Rockhampton Flooding: Comment from Tony including about the Fitzroy Barrage

By

THE river at Rockhampton, even while 25 miles from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean, is still tidal, so the salt water backs up into the river with the tides. Fresh water flows down the river. So as a constant supply of fresh water is maintained for supply to the City, the salt cannot be allowed to mix with the fresh. So the Barrage was constructed across the River, not a dam per se, but just a means to keep the salt out of the fresh. Concrete Pylons were constructed, and in the gaps between them large steel gates were installed…   Read more here: http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/the-rockhampton-flood-crisis-the-fitzroy-river-barrage/

Aboriginal self-determination: The Whiteman’s dream – Gary Johns

By

GARY Johns, a former colleague and friend of many years, has just had a book published by Connor Court entitled ‘Aboriginal self-determination: The Whiteman’s dream’.   I haven’t got my copy yet, so can’t provide a review, but no doubt it will be hard hitting.   Gary believes in integration, not self determination, for Australia’s aborigines.  According to Gary:

“Aboriginal self-determination is a white man’s dream. Those who continue to lobby for the grand experiment of aboriginal self-determination, long after its costs have been revealed, should say sorry to those the policy has harmed – every woman bashed, every man drunk out of his mind, every child molested, everyone without a job. Aborigines, especially those in remote Australia, need an exit strategy from the dream. The exit strategy outlined in this book destroys the rallying cry for culture. Instead, it shows that the way to self-determination is through individual dignity.”

Order your copy here: 
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=155

The National Parks: America’s Best Idea

By

ONE of the best Christmas presents I received this year is a film by Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan entitled ‘The National Parks: America’s Best Idea’ – as twelve episodes contained in a case of five DVDs.

So far I’ve watched episodes one to four which begin with John Muir’s campaign to protect Yosemite in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California from commercial development and ends with his failure to stop the flooding of Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley.

As the case cover explains: “Nearly a decade in the making, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea…  is a breathtaking journey through the nation’s most spectacular landscapes and a celebration of the people – famous and unknown – who fought to save them for future generations to treasure.”

The first four episodes provide tremendous insight into not only the environmental campaigns lead by John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club, but also the important role of President Theodore Roosevelt in establishing and protecting national parks and also national monuments in the US.  

The film is a reminder of how much was at risk before there was environmental legislation and protection.  The story of the slaughter of bison in Yellowstone National Park to the verge of extinct is particularly harrowing.  

John Muir would nowadays be called an environmentalist, or conservationists, but one hundred years ago he was recognized as a preservationist.   In losing the fight to protect Hetch Hetchy Valley it may have appeared that the preservationists had lost to the conservationists.  

In fact John Muir may have lost the battle, but won the war: Most of today’s environmental and conservation groups campaign for preservation, rather than conservation.    And of course the management of national parks today in Australia, is mostly in accordance with the preservationist’s philosophy.

The film is narrated from the perspective of the preservationists with a deep respect for natural history and natural landscapes.  

*******************
Following is an explanation of the difference between preservation and conservation. 
from Wikipedia… 

“In July 1896, [John] Muir became associated with Gifford Pinchot, a national leader in the conservation movement. Pinchot was the first head of the United States Forest Service and a leading spokesman for the sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of the people. His views eventually clashed with Muir and highlighted two diverging views of the use of the country’s natural resources.

Pinchot saw conservation as a means of managing the nation’s natural resources for long-term sustainable commercial use. As a professional forester, his view was that “forestry is tree farming,” without destroying the long-term viability of the forests.

Muir valued nature for its spiritual and transcendental qualities. In one essay about the National Parks, he referred to them as “places for rest, inspiration, and prayers.” He often encouraged city dwellers to experience nature for its spiritual nourishment. Both men opposed reckless exploitation of natural resources, including clear-cutting of forests. Even Muir acknowledged the need for timber and the forests to provide it, but Pinchot’s view of wilderness management was far more utilitarian.

Their friendship ended late in the summer of 1897 when Pinchot released a statement to a Seattle newspaper supporting sheep grazing in forest reserves. Muir confronted Pinchot and demanded an explanation. When Pinchot reiterated his position, Muir told him: “I don’t want any thing more to do with you.” This philosophical divide soon expanded and split the conservation movement into two camps: the preservationists, led by Muir, and Pinchot’s camp, who co-opted the term “conservation.” The two men debated their positions in popular magazines, such as Outlook, Harper’s Weekly, Atlantic Monthly, World’s Work, and Century.

Their contrasting views were highlighted again when the United States was deciding whether to dam Hetch Hetchy Valley. Pinchot favored the damming of the valley as “the highest possible use which could be made of it.” In contrast, Muir proclaimed, “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the hearts of man.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir

Nathan Dam would have mitigated Theodore flooding

By

State and federal governments, blinded by alarmist reports falsely predicting a dry future, have done very little about flood mitigation – except perhaps from sea-level rise.

Earlier today, the small town of Theodore was evacuated as the Dawson River flooded.     

The Dawson River merges with the McKenzie River, forming the Fitzroy River, which flows through Rockhampton and into Keppel Bay – a little to the south of where I now live.

For years locals have wanted the river dammed upstream of Theodore including for the development of irrigated agriculture.

Construction was to be completed in 2005, but the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Queensland Conservation Council fought the Commonwealth Government over potential downstream impacts on the Great Barrier Reef and won – and construction never started. 

In 2006 the Nathan Dam was identified again as important infrastructure, this time for the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy, in particular for the mining industry. 

Planning for the dam, however, was again interrupted for environmental reasons, in particular the potential impact of the dam on the critically endangered Boggomoss Snail. 

Initially the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts mandated a translocation trial to assess the viability of relocating the snail to an alternative habitat – then it was discovered there were many more snails and with a wider geographic range than initially thought.

I am not normally in favor of more dam building, for example, there are already enough dams within the Murray-Darling Basin.  And I am against grand schemes to pipe water long distances at great expense, for example from North Queensland to the Murray Darling Basin.

However, Queensland could do with a few more dams particularly dams like the proposed Nathan Dam.   The water would be used locally for mining and also to develop a local irrigated agricultural industry.   At the moment much of the catchment is grazed, and that has its own environmental impact.

And I wonder if there might not be a net environmental benefit from the dam if it stops the flooding of towns like Theodore and the city of Rockhampton.

How significant are water quality impacts on a body of water, when it flows, for example, through a town like Theodore?

*********************

Related Links:

Theodore floods: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12084735 

WWF wins court case against Nathan Dam: http://www.edo.org.au/edoqld/new/nathanwin.pdf

Recent planning for the Nathan Dam: http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/water/infrastr_prg_works/pdf/nathan-dam-qr-aug2010.pdf 

And I spoke to these notes in Sydney earlier in the year, about how we live in a land of floods as well as drought, but government was not listening: http://www.htw.com.au/Industry_Presentations/Jennifer-Marohasy-Presentation-Sydney-2010.pdf