News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Paroo ban on new dams 'breached' 

Paroo ban on new dams 'breached'

15/08/2008 4:49:00 PM
In 2003, Bob Carr and Peter Beattie announced a pact to protect the Paroo, the last free-flowing river of the Murray-Darling Basin almost completely untouched by irrigation.

The then NSW and Queensland premiers declared there would be no new developments allowed that would divert water from the ephemeral outback river that flows for 600 kilometres through both states.

"The Paroo now has a guaranteed life - no dams, no diversions and the amount of water that can be taken out of it will be controlled," Mr Beattie said.

But now the Queensland Government has been accused of allowing a major irrigation development that breaches the Paroo River Agreement.

A University of NSW study headed by river and wetlands expert Richard Kingsford has used satellite imagery to look at development in recent years on a property at Eulo.

His report alleges works that capture overland flows have been built since the Queensland Government introduced a June 2001 moratorium that banned any new water diversions.

The Eulo property, Springvale, was given approval for nine dams that could capture 10,000 megalitres of overland flow because they were judged to be "existing works" built prior to the moratorium.

But Professor Kingsford has compared "existing works" that can be seen in 2002 with images taken this year.

"The imagery obtained provides unequivocal evidence that structures approved ... as 'existing works' (i.e. established or initiated by the 9th June 2001) were not 'existing works' on the 27th of July 2002," his report says.

"Analysis of the 2008 image identified four main areas of development, only two of which were observable in 2002.

"It is clear that since the moratorium was introduced a new 21 hectare water storage structure has been established; there is no evidence that any works had begun before July 2002 at this particular site.

"An area of 57 hectares has been cleared of vegetation, and a new channel system with a combined length in excess of 10 kilometres has been constructed.

"Only three long-term storages are visible, not the nine storages approved.

"All but two of the levee banks that existed in 2002 had new works around their perimeter that might increase storage capacity.

"The increased infrastructure works would allow for increased extraction of water." Prof Kingsford said.

Jake Berghofer, who owns Springvale, said all his water infrastructure was "fully legal" and had been rechecked by the Queensland Government this year after complaints from people downstream.

"Some of [the approved dam walls] are that old that they have got 30 year-old trees on them and you can't see them from the air," he said.

Others "have been repaired and maintained recently and that's why they look like they are new".

Ross Krebs from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources said the Berghofer property was closely monitored and all its structures that harvest water had been built before the moratorium.

He added that some of the new irrigation work that has gone in since the moratorium such as channels were allowed under the Paroo water plan because they were simply moving around the property, water that had been legally captured.

A recent Murray-Darling Basin Commission audit said that of 23 rivers tested, only the Paroo was in good health.

Professor Kingsford's study was funded by the Australian Floodplain Association, which represents communities that rely on natural flooding to sustain wetlands and grow feed for their livestock.

Mark Etheridge, a grazier and the association's president, said he was "very concerned that the spirit of the historic 2003 Paroo River Agreement ... has been compromised.

"The Paroo also has two Ramsar listings, both below the development at Eulo.

"This means ... governments have a responsibility under the Ramsar Agreement to ensure the internationally recognised wetlands are not threatened in any way."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I have no problems with green groups keeping track of development. However, I would appreciate it if the media (especially The Land) kept monitoring this specific case.

If the claims are wrong due to a lack of a simple phone call by Richard Kingsford, then this should be equally highlighted in the media and he should apologise.

Posted by Stephen on 18/08/2008 9:33:26 AM
These guys need to be careful about what they wish for. It is only a small step from banning water diversion for agricultural use to banning ALL agricultural use including grazing.

The Greens have made their intentions well known of returning the floodplains to their 'natural condition' and they know that this includes the removal of grazing animals as well.

Posted by bushed on 18/08/2008 10:00:40 AM

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Q: Do you believe the public has a right to know on which farms GM crops are being grown?

Yes
(65.9%)

No
(31.6%)

Undecided
(2.4%)

Total Votes: 613
Poll Date: 17/08/2008
26/11/2008 | If we're serious about roo farming, we'll need to start with a breeding program and kangaroo EBVs for marbling and tenderness.
 
Fuel Offer
 
Subscription
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
Media-Kit-08-09
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...