Traveston Protest, Parliament House,Qld. Credit: STMRCG.
By Rich Bowden
Protests over the proposed Traveston dam in Queensland have increased in intensity as the project awaits the go ahead from the federal government.
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and her deputy Paul Lucas have supported the controversial project, arguing the dam in the south east of the state is required to guarantee future water supply in the region. Mr Lucas said the dam option was a cost effective solution compared to other proposals such as desalination.
Speaking to the ABC last week, Mr Lucas said the state’s water supply crisis would need to be resolved by a more expensive resolution if the contentious Traveston dam were not approved.
“If we don’t have Traveston, something else will need to be built,” he said. “It’ll be an extra desalination plant and it will be more expensive and people’s water [price] will go up further.”
He warned if approval for the dam was not forthcoming from federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett, it would be difficult to obtain approval for any such project in the state.
“Traveston is a good solution, it is a good outcome, and if people say they shouldn’t be building Traveston, then they should be consistent and say we should never build another dam anywhere in Queensland.”
However a series of independent reports made public since the dam proposal have criticised the dam project, questioning its need and recommending other solutions, such as water recycling and desalination as more cost-effective and environmentally friendly.
One report from the Institute for Sustainable Future (ISF) released last week, contradicted Mr Lucas’s claims.
“The Traveston Crossing scheme performs poorly on both these counts,” ISF Director Professor Stuart White said, referring to his team’s research on the dam’s cost and drought relief. “It will not provide any additional water in the current drought and at $3 per kilolitre is an expensive option in terms of investment required for water returned.”
A key finding in the 2008 CSIRO report; “Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia and New Zealand,” also appears to back anti-dam claims by saying that “sourcing recycled water and desalinated water closer to the point of use may require less energy than pumping water from remote areas.”
Opposition intensifies
Mary River residents, who have opposed the siting of the dam since its proposal in 2006, have accused the state government of making “policy on the run” on the issue and have launched a series of protests.
“Again, no public consultation has been entered into on the proposed mitigation measures throughout the state EIS process to date,” the President for the Save the Mary River Coordinating Group, Glenda Pickersgill said in a statement.
“We are calling for the full extent of these proposals be made available for public comment as part of the federal assessment process when it is in the hands of the federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett,” she added.
Proposed Traveston dam Site. Credit: patrickmccully/ flickr
In the latest of the anti-dam protests, a rally was held outside Parliament House in Brisbane on Friday to highlight risks to the endangered koala population in the proposed dam region.
In a statement released by the group Monday, Ms Pickersgill said the proposed inundation would impact on stands of forest redgums, (Eucalyptus tereticornis) which provide favoured habitat for koalas in the Mary Valley area.
“Within the SEQ Bioregion, koalas are listed as vulnerable under the state Nature Conservation Act. Its simple koalas need trees – No trees, No koalas – Stop cutting down trees! Its not good enough for the Bligh Government to continue to give lip service to “green” policies and push full steam ahead with massive clearing though inundation and fragmenting the Mary Valley,” she said.
Share on Facebook
