AN OBSERVATION OF THE CONFLUENCE OF STATISTICAL ABERRATIONS, DAM RATIOS, TIMING AND UNCOMMON RAINFALL EVENTS THAT COMBINED TO PRESENT OUR DAMS AS VICTIMS OF A SEVERE DROUGHT. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. THEIR INFLUENCE ON CONCLUSIONS REACHED AND ACTIONS TAKEN.

Author : J. V. Hodgkinson F. C. A. Chartered Accountant : August 2006 to December 2009

The Underlying cause of our depleted dams had the appearance of "drought". However most people would not class 80 percent of rainfall compared with the Bureau of Meteorology long term average 1961 to 1990 as a "drought". This is the case in the catchments. Even less people would class it as a "drought" when closer examination of the rainfall shows that the inflow producing four Summer months had been quite normal with 99.7% in the Wivenhoe and 91.3% in the Somerset catchments. The 20% deficiency was in the low inflow producing eight non-summer months.

This incorrect conclusion of "drought" has clouded the real underlying cause of our depleted dams. It is the random nature of large scale rain depressions and they are our main water supply. They occur on average every 4 years and have the capacity to fill our dams in a few days. The last gap was six years 2001 to 2007 and caused a major and expensive panic. Further evidence is available in the tab DEPLETED DAMS or Click here

Dealing with those large scale events that extend beyond the 4 year average requires a very different approach than dealing with a "drought". The current water resource strategy has ignored the short history of the Wivenhoe dam.

May 2009: Updated and under constant review

The principal objective of our correspondence with our decision makers was to have an independent assessment made of our proposal. 

It involved the efforts of Mr Ron Mc Mah, Grazier of Imbil, Mr Trevor Herse, retired of the Gold Coast and myself from Brisbane. None of us are affected by the Traveston Dam proposal nor do we represent any organization of any kind other than concerned citizens of SEQ.

The delay of several years in the lodgement of the approval process due to environmental concerns brings our proposal into sharp focus.

Federal Government - Prime Minister Right Hon K Rudd MP

Mr Rudd is my local member and I have kept him informed of my observations since well before his elevation to Prime Minister.

The end result is that his Senior Policy advisor on water and environment reviewed our material in a one and one half hour meeting in December of 2008. He was of the opinion that an independent review of our material and that of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning be reviewed on the basis that "if there is anything in it then a detailed review be conducted". He correctly pointed out that it was a decision of the State Government. He advised the Department of his opinion. 

State Government

A meeting was arranged with Minister Lucas in Late January 2009. He was called away in his position of acting Premier and Mr Hinchcliffe, his parliamentary secretary stood in. He gave a generous amount of his, and two officers of the QWC, time to put our proposition.

I summarised the meeting in a letter to Mr Hinchcliffe on the 31st January 2009. Unfortunately Parliament was prorogued by the upcoming election. Since then he has advised that he is unable to respond as he considers the matter may interfere with the Coordinator General's independence in assessing the Traveston Dam.

Our view is that our proposal is unique and outside of that scope should the decision makers so decide.

For this reason the letter is published as it may be several years before the Coordinator General is satisfied with the Environmental concerns of the Traveston project.

Should there be a response, it will be published in full.

The letter can be viewed in the Hinchcliffe tab

The QWI (Queensland Water Infrastructure)

In response to a Gold Coast Bulletin "Focus" article on our proposal, we were fortunate to have a response article in the Bulletin by the QWI being the proponent responsible for the building of the Dam who is also responsible for the assessment of our proposal. We are indebted to the QWI for publicly raising these objections as It has enabled us to give a detailed review of their assessment of our proposal to the Coordinator General with a copy to Member for Griffith, my local federal member.

The delay in the approval process does not appear to have any relevance to our review of the QWI objection to our proposal and therefore it is now included in this website as it may be many years before it receives consideration if ever. 

It can be viewed in the Cord Gen re QWI tab.

Premier and Mr Reeves MP Parliamentary secretary to the Premier

At the same time a request was made of the Premier to ascertain if there were any further reports, other than those that we had already dealt with, which would cause us to desist in our request for an independent enquiry?

It was responded to by Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier Mr Reeves MP. There were none offered. The further comments made enabled us to have the complete picture of the current assessment of our proposal. Our response was forwarded to Mr Reeves with a copy to the Coord General.

The correspondence can be viewed in the Premier Reeves MP tab.

The Coordinator General has acknowledged our correspondence.  

Federal Government other than the P.M.

We have been advised by Ministers Garrett and Wong that they will fully consider our proposal within the confines of the portfolios that they hold once the EIS is prepared by the Coordinator General and forwarded to them.

We have kept the Member For Griffith (my local Member and PM) informed of progress for some time and matters have now been concluded with his Senior Advisor. 

Subsequent to the delay in the Traveston project, Minister Garrett has released two reports that are adverse to the Traveston proposal.