Experts torn on plight of Mary River turtles

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by ho-hum, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. ho-hum

    ho-hum New Member

    Sep 15, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    As someone who lives a long way from this region I did ponder the opposition to this project from this perspective but didnt enter the debate because these decisions shouldnt be influenced from long distance. I have been a victim myself of decisions being made based on TV public opinion from Sydney and Melbourne. Although I am VERY aware that more and more country folk are suffering because of the 'needs' of the city. At least this monstrous drought that occured bought the drought home to city folk in a big way.

    Before I move on with this subject. Why does Brisbane need more water when there are people like Jerry Coleby Williams who is very water self-sufficient. Maybe industry isnt paying enough for its water.

    I was a bit sad the debate didnt centre around practical permaculture solutions and not fall in line with the, often, emotive two-sided political rhetoric. As a permie I believe we could have said 'yes' to the dam and attach to it an extensive log of claims. Not all permaculture type claims require a financial impost.

    All new development applications, under influence of this dam, need a Permaculture Impact Assessment.
    The dam and its environs modified to improve the conditions required so they flora and fauna can flourish.
    Make the project environmentally positive.
    Guaranteed, in perpetuity, environmental flows.
    Interest free farm loans to fence the river from stock [including people]

    At this point I havent considered the people who live there and only because I do not know enough about them or where they live. I am aware of the communities of Jones Hill, Kybong, Dagun, Amamoor, Kandanga, Imbil, Brooloo and Kenilworth but only by name.

    Lastly, if this water is 'needed' and not available then the Premier should shut down all development and population growth in Brisbane. Make the existing water supply go further. This would also include a development moratorium on the proposed dam area.

    Not good at this 'big stuff' type writing but here goes anyway.


  2. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    May 14, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Re: Experts torn on plight of Mary River turtles

    g'day ho-hum,

    yes it is a complex issue, but i believe we don't need the dam, and damming any river changes the flow & ecology of that river (look at teh snowey), that river never again does the river get a flush from flood waters, and when you look at it the dam would not be in a high rainfall area, teh dam would be too shallow (av' depth 3 meters, good storage dams should be built in steep rocky areas) the dam would flood over arrable land so the water level would be affected by soaking away and with the shallow depth also evaporation as does the 2 dams they like talking about in the brisbane environ they are the somerset and wivenhoe, built as flood mitigation dams they are shallow and over arrable land, that leads to water loss. a lot of brisbanes water comes form a variety of other dams one being lake manchester or mt crosby, not tat dam wall must be near 100 years old should be raised in height as was talked about when bleaty was in charge this being a better storage dam makes more sense.

    industry does not do it's share of saving water and any extra cost they incur they pass on which again should not happen everyone should feel the pain of good water mangement (if it needs to be painfull we feel no pain in our hosue)if i can put it that way. also the water tank issue the gov' never encouraged people to think long and hard about their water mangment plans for their home so they encouraged people to put in water tanks that are way too small to make nay change to how much water they consume from the system (and the gov' has worked that out now the number crunchers again got it wrong, lot of rebate money wasted) i'm a bit more generous that what i heard one person say they reckon the minimum sized tank to make any difference is 5000 gallons (yes gallons app' 22000 litres), me i say a bare minimum of 3000 gallons is yards better than the 3000 to 5000 litre tanks commonly installed.

    up here they are still looking at easing watering restrictions sometime in december that should be wiped and tightened, up here the allowable use per person is 200 litres a day we run on 35 litres per person a day, we got to 80 litres per person without any pain, so with a 200 liter limit there is a lot of water wastage going on as i know lots of people only using 50 litres per person a day and many are using their own tank water and no town water. yet when you hear the daily usage it is up in that maximum 200 litre mark.

    if the travesty was built i would say not one drop would ever have been pumped to the brisbane water grid, and in drought conditions that we are still in it might take 20 years to fill i dunno, and i also think they needed that water for future nuclear power station in the sunshine coast area.

    now those people who had been paid compensation for their land most where still living on the land running their agricultural business and paying a megre $1000++ dollars per year(wouldn't pensiones who rent like a rent that cheap), they now of course will have first option to buy back that land and still have good change left over out of their compensation payment, the gov's bad planning costing wasted money they like they do often.

    with mt crosby(that is where the main water treatment plant is) dam there used to be a suspension bridge so people could go look at the dam and walk across the wall, that bridge has been allowed to fall into decay and has been emove so now no public can go anywhere near the dam to have a look.

    travesty has been a dabcale from day one.


Share This Page