Traveston travesty
Sue Brooks November 5th, 2009
I received this from a resident and thought I would share it…
“It is a shame people keep thinking that this dam is needed and the people who lose their land are required to sacrifice for the greater good. It isn’t like that. I’m sorry to keep ranting about this, but people need to realise they are being conned. Anna Bligh is now saying a desal plant has to be built now if Traveston is knocked back. That is simply not true!! The Coordinator General knows that – here’s a direct quote from his report :
“Observing that the water supply initiatives to be implemented by 2012 (inclusive of the Project’s 70,000 ML/annum yield) will place the available supply at approximately 50 000 ML/annum greater than the projected demand at 2026″ ——-P21 Evaluation report
This is worked on the projected population increase and 230L a day per person. (Hervey Bay uses about 150-160 L per person per day right?)
So based on the figures they are currently using (which seem to be different to the ones they used before – which showed they didn’t need Traveston at all – the might be assuming high population growth whereas the used to assume medium population growth) the short fall is only 20,000 ML/a by 2026 in 17 years time. So why build something expensive and risky like Traveston which is more than three times what might be required in 17 years now?? All they need to do is extend the rebate schemes for domestic retrofit and tank installation and that shortfall would be easily made up (you might recall the ISF report identified 180,000 ML/a of savings).
Please feel free to share this information with anyone you think might be interested or benefit from understanding this”.
In this day and age I fail to see why our leaders are not seriously considering the long term implications of supplying essential natural resources (clean air, water and food) to a growing population versus the capacity of our environment to provide same.
Traveston Crossing Dam is in the wrong place. It will destroy essential farmland. It will impact on endangered species and fish breeding grounds. I think the dam is an example of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We have an essential natural resource in the Mary River and its valley and estuary. If we destroy it what can replace it? Do we forever keep damming rivers and drowning productive farm land to provide room for more people?
- Uncategorized
- Comments(1)
I suppose that the other side of the argument is that the Labor govt went to the election with the promise to build the Traveston Dam. They were voted in, and if they back down, it is a broken promise. They can claim that they have a mandate to build the thing.