Environmental AuditMore than 500 kms of drains have been dug in the last 10 years without any overview of the successes and failures, the benefits and the deficits of the scheme or its costs to the fabric of the USE community. A contemporary, whole of project assessment is long overdue. Underscoring the call for the balanced and thorough, whole of landscape environmental audit, the stop the drains coalition points out that the EIS that underlies the Upper South East Project was completed in the early 90's, and that it is both an antiquated and demonstrably flawed document which requires contemporary revision as a matter of urgency. Evidence has been mounting for years that the economic and environmental costs of the drains far exceed the benefits. The majority of those expert in the field of deep drainage readily confirm concerns about the long-term sustainability of groundwater drains. There has been no significant flooding in the USE for 10 years and watertables have been falling in the region for 15 years due to decreased rainfall. If southern Australia has moved into a 30 year drying cycle and has global warming on top of that, "a double whammy", Professor Peter Cullen (Chairman of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists) called it on Lateline recently, it would be prudent to activate the precautionary principle of wise environmental management and review the on-ground results of the project so far before any further drain digging is undertaken. Add to the 30 year drying cycle and global warming understandings that were not on the radar in the EIS days: carbon credits, carbon sequestration, biofuels from drought-proof perennial native vegetation, land use change which, together with the fact that 10% less annual rainfall translates into 30-40% less surface water runoff, the need to re-examine the foundation of the Upper South East Project becomes imperative. It has been a decade since "flood management" has been an issue in the Upper South East on account of diminished rainfall. It is obvious that the drains have been draining groundwater. There have also been undoubted agricultural gains associated with lowering the saline groundwater, but there are also problems, e.g. sodicity, that have the potential to severely impede agricultural production and have no scientific resolution, as well as the more general knowledge gap of how both the drains and agriculture productivity will perform in relation to the lowered groundwater in a "normal" Upper South East flood. It is obvious to all who live in this region that the impacts of the scheme have been positive and negative. The most obvious negative impact has been on the conservation and biodiversity values of the region on account of deep drains going through or near the magnificent freshwater wetlands, the vital organs, the kidneys of the body of this land, and contaminating, salinizing and killing them. It is both a tragedy and a scandal that should not be allowed to continue. It was the compelling reason why the stop the drains coalition took the stand they did and why the line in the sand was drawn at Kyeema, a best parctice agriculture and environment property which has a thousand acres of vulnerable red gum woodlands and ahs planted over 1,000,000 native trees. The USE Plan is highly divisive. There is a credibility gap between the words and intentions of the USE Program Board and the on-ground evidence that substantial and irreparable damage is being done to the biodiversity values of the region. The Environmental Audit must be carried out by the most qualified, nationally respected people in Australia who have no self-interest in the scheme, who are of impeccable reputation and who are able to exercise and communicate the range of disciplines required. Stop the drains approached the following eminent Australians who each indicated their willingness to serve: Chairman: Mr. Alex Campbell, WA farmer.
Member: Professor Mike Young.
Member: Dr John Williams, hydrologist.
Dr John Williams suggested a CEO for the Audit Committee be found from one of the three following candidates:
The environmental audit should be funded out of existing Upper South East Project funds with landholders, State Government and Federal Government having input into its terms of reference unless it extends beyond the Project area where other funding sources must be found. |
|
