EIS thoughts

[David Wise]

Hi all

I've been thinking about strategy in responding to the EIS, and I think it will be important to consider what we know the two potential federal environment ministers, ie Turnbull and Garrett, and aim to hit particularly hard in areas that we know are of special personal significance to them.

The election will go down to the wire and could go either way, so we need to be ready for both possibilities. And we know that the decision is going to be made after the election, rather than before, so it is more likely to be based on science than politics. I doubt either of the major parties will be prepared to committ themselves on it before the poll.

So we need to think about which issues matter most to Turnbull & Garrett.

With Turnbull, we know that his is a fan of federal control of water, and that his stated preference for solving the SEQ water crisis is to build Dams in Northern NSW. Now I don't think there should be Dams down there either, however if we want to get him to stop Traveston, it will be necessary to get him on-side, and we can do that if we do a good job of undermining the reasons given in the EIS for rejecting his preference for Dams down there.

Also Turnbull is ultimately a capitalist who believes that money and human ingenuity can solve natural problems. So I think he will be more likely to believe that the fish ladder and conservation centre will actually reduce the risks to threatened species.

On the flipside this also means he would probably be open to desalination as an viable option.

Garrett is (was?) more of an environmentalist that Turnbull, and is more concerned with indigenous heritage, so we would need to focus more on the threat to species, the cultural heritage, etc and try particularly hard to undermine the reasons in the EIS for rejecting water tanks (he is ex-ACF and the ACF is pushing water tanks).

There will not be much point pushing desalination and dams in Northern NSW with Garrett as they both have major environmental question marks over them.

Also I think that although Garrett is toeing a more "conservative" line on the environment at the moment, this is probably just because of the looming election, and the need to avoid frightening the mainstream. Once the election has passed (if Labor wins) he may be on a longer leash and more able to follow his natural instincts. And he will be fanging for a chance to restore his environmental credentials after all the flack he has copped lately. So all we may need to do is present him a sensible environmental basis to make the decision that deep down he wants to make.


Rgds

David Wise

[westholme]

I hope you are right in part about Garrett, David. I'm afraid I'm not as positive as you. I feel we have lost him to the deep, dark underbelly of politics. I feel he will try and regain his environmental street cred by giving the dam the go ahead with a myriad of conditions and compliance orders (not unlike the pulp mill). Making approval conditional on certain compliance orders and provisions seems to be the Government's modis operandi these days as opposed to simply knocking things on the head....unless it involved parrots and windmills. Enforcing conditional approval is a way for them to keep their conscience clear while passing environmental catastrophe's. The more moral the conscience the longer the list of conditions. I expect Garrett's list to be exhaustive so that he can go home at night and sleep comfortably with his hemp teddy.
All your points are valid one's and thanks for your wisdom David Wise.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[arawajo]

It might not be Garrett who makes the decision. The ALP's website, (http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php) had this under Water and Infrastructure,

[westholme]

yikes!
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[imackay]

I'm still trying to get my head around the process involved here. I'm familiar with a development application where the proponent prepares an EIS which invariably understates (or fails to mention) some adverse impacts and exaggerates benefits and needs for a proposal.

Opposing parties then make submissions pointing out the seriousness of these deficiencies in the EIS, BUT THEY DO SO TO AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY....... a Council for example.

In this dam process we make our submissions after wading through the 1600 pages ... but WE MAKE THEM TO THE PROPONENT.

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF OUR SUBMISSIONS HAVE TO ACCOMPANY ACCOMPANY THE EIS TO CANBERRA OR DO THEY MERELY"INFORM THE EIS"?

It's like giving feedback to Dracula that his bloodbank mightn't be in the best hands.

When you think of all the good submissions to the Terms of Reference (things like considering effects of climate change (why are ALL our dams underperforming after all) and Population Viability Analyses etc) that didn't make it through to see the light of day in the final Terms, you'd have to wonder if we're not being conned again.

Honestly, is the Govt really likely to a) delete some of its EIS should we provide conflicting information
b) include any valid points we make

The most one can hope for, it seems is they they might go away and do a bit more work on something that we had picked up, and therefore, given a certain propensity for spin, effectively strengthen their case.

It seems they're holding all the aces if we keep playing.

Someone, lift me out of pessimism. Please.

[Bronwyn]

Ian,

you have spoken and aired SOOOO many concerns I have been having. The more of the "EIS" I read, the more cynical I become with the whole process of the "EIS". The more I think that, those with the passion of saving Mary, are actually going to become the authors of the next updated version of the "EIS" that is presented to the "Judge and jury" of Mary's fate. These driven people, fervently applying their bleeding eyes, hearts, souls and amazingly inept fortitude and intelligence could be being manipulated to inadvertently help this BASTARDISED State Govt, get over the line.
My pessimism and cynicism has been there from the start of this proposal back in April 2006. I am finding it now beating at full revs.................after only just really starting to read the "EIS". It is so unbelievably NON believable, I can ONLY wonder why it has been written and presented so??
There is something afoot....................that reeks beyond anything I can fathom.
I am there in your pessimistic seat, Ian, and would dearly love to move somewhere much more comfortable.
I really have a feeling of being an "Enemy of the State" being watched, manipulated, and used.

[westholme]

It is hard not to be pessimistic Ian, especially, as you pointed out, after the TOR debacle where they basically ignored anything that could truly weaken the dam building case and included only the most benign of amendments.
I have been feeling the same way a bit. Is this EIS going to be a repeat of the TOR. Hundreds of submissions, some of them raising more than valid concerns. CG consults with QWI to work out what should be in and out. TOR comes out with mostly aesthetic changes included, it seems, to placate the media. (So that the media believe the Gov has done the good and proper thing by the submitters, "look how many changes we've put in for these people, aren't we a nice, caring Government"). When the TOR comes out, those submissions are never heard from again. Now, we can have another run at it, only, no doubt, to be ignored again. How could anyone not be pessimistic, or cynical. Besides, as Darren E's signature on the bottom of his Forum posts says:
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies" - Walter Lippman; and I think this community is so cynical about anything relating to this dam because so many have the ability to detect lies.

Oh, and as far as I know, the submissions don't go with the EIS to the Feds. The buck stops with the CG I think.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[Darren E]

Ian,

Good questions:

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF OUR SUBMISSIONS HAVE TO ACCOMPANY THE EIS TO CANBERRA OR DO THEY MERELY"INFORM THE EIS"?

- who cares about "have to"? They bloody well will accompany the EIS to Canberra because every single one of them will be addressed to the federal department as well as the Qld C-G.

Honestly, is the Govt really likely to
a) delete some of its EIS should we provide conflicting information
b) include any valid points we make

- no, probably not. They'll keep digging themselves deeper into their hole, but we'll be there to back-fill it.


I have a very cynical view of what the government is trying to get away with here, and a total lack of faith that they will adhere to any due process, but I'm not pessimistic yet. They want us all to give up, and their update brochures on land acquisitions and their slick DVD's, etc are designed to make you think it's hopeless, so don't give the bastards the satisfaction. Yes they might be holding some (but not all) of the aces, but remember the old western saying "Smith & Wesson beats four aces". (note I'm talking about fighting spirit, not guns).

When they start getting to you, try playing this at full volume:

http://www.savethemaryriver.com/downloads/audio/wewillnotgiveupthefight.mp3
_________________
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything" - anon.
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies" - Walter Lippman

[expansa1]

[elaine]

How about this one (to the tune of an old nursery rhyme)
"Anna Blighty had a farce
EI - EI - S"

_________________
"Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

[imackay]

Darren you are absolutely right. We need to recommend that submissions go to the Coord Gen so as they get counted but that people also send a copy to the Fed govt as well.

When I saw the sheer bulk of the print copy of the EIS and tech reports last night I couldn't help feel there was a definite intent to "traveston swamp" us with paperwork.

Or maybe it arose from all that scorn in the senate enquiry about the brief GHD desktop study, mostly blank pages and maps. Sort of Like "they want volume , we'll give 'em f***ing volume."

Elaine keep working on that song, it's a great idea.

[Darren E]

[Darren E]

And in that farce there was a fish ladder,
EI-EI-S.

With no engineering here,
And no proof it works there,
Here no design, there no science,
Everywhere a Big Lie,

Anna Blighty had a farce,
EI-EI-S.








On the serious side, each of these things (predators using the fishway as a hunting ground, dead lungfish after going over the spillway, and turtles crushed by the fishway mechanism) have all been observed and reported by the DPI&F and the EPA during studies conducted at the Ned Churchward Weir on the Burnett River.

More info:
http://travestonswamp.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3364
_________________
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything" - anon.
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies" - Walter Lippman

[Tricia]

Thank you Darren for my first laugh of the day!

[imackay]

Darren, you're absolutely right about the predator-ease perspective of fish ladders/ lifts, collecting pools etc. Even the humble weir in Gympie just upstream of the Kidd Bridge acts as a predator focus with anyhing swimming either downstream or up having to swim through a relatively narrow, concrete chute-induced "rapids" .

Cormorants love this spot, it's the equivalent of pizza home delivery, except there's no need to order, you simply stake it out and pick off what comes past. The more usual protected, plant lined river edges are gone as are the protective qualities of logs etc.

There was a similar thing in forestry years ago when the Conondale Range Committee campaigned heavily about the role of hollow-bearing trees in being nesting sites for a diverse bunch of creatures. Existing practice had been that these magnificent but hollow giants were pushed and burnt during logging operations as their "pipe" up the centre made them not very useful for milling. Forestry started retaining them as "habitat trees" even though all around them would be cleared. This was forward-thinking in the smart state with the trees being identified beforehand and marked with a "P" for "possum trees".

The problem was that the surrounding disturbance more ofeten than not killed the tree and animals were unlikely to make a bee-line across the open clearing to get the the hollow tree.

The resultant dead habitat tree standing tall above the surrounding regrowth still often bore its letter "P". Trouble was it was now a predator tree,as it provided an excellent vantage point for birds of prey.

Good intentions often have some unanticipated outcomes. Methinks there's a parallel to collection pools and fish ladders and lifts.

The enormous population of Little Pied Cormorants on Paradise Dam would seem to bear this out.