Lower Kowmung River to be Destroyed!!

[GPSGuided]

I know the area well, it's just money and a want to do it that's needed and a shame about the indigenous input but you're quite right on any consultation with them.

Next to impossible given our Australian social and electoral system, and a complete lack of political capital from any side of politics to effect it.

[Giddy_up]

I know all that GPS but from an environmental perspective it's the best solution. Riverine areas are returned to just that and allowed to flourish and another river system and associated ecosystems don't get flooded. I know it will never happen though



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GPSGuided]

The best environmental outcome is to drastically reduce human population by 90% or more. Given our 'above other animals human rights', these are all just hypotheticals and leads to no practical outcomes.

[Giddy_up]

The best environmental outcome is to drastically reduce human population by 90% or more. Given our 'above other animals human rights', these are all just hypotheticals and leads to no practical outcomes.

Out of interest, what do you see as the solution to the OP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GPSGuided]

The solution should be based on comprehensive consideration of all the facts. Unfortunately I doubt any of us have all the information to objectively assess the solution to balance downstream/upstream needs and financial feasibility of any plan. Calling for a solution here will most likely to be subjective. Yet, running an effective socio-political campaign can put any subjective agenda at the forefront. Isn't that how our system works? So there's no 'right' solution but a politically practical solution.

[DarrenM]

I know the area well, it's just money and a want to do it that's needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a fairly naive and simplistic view if you think over 100,000 people are just going to uplift and move their families and leave behind property, farms and businesses that have been handed down over generations, worked extremely hard for, and supply food, goods and services for greater Sydney and beyond.

People will continue living along the river system regardless of the outcome.

[Giddy_up]

I know the area well, it's just money and a want to do it that's needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a fairly naive and simplistic view if you think over 100,000 people are just going to uplift and move their families and leave behind property, farms and businesses that have been handed down over generations, worked extremely hard for, and supply food, goods and services for greater Sydney and beyond.

People will continue living along the river system regardless of the outcome.

Rather than call my approach simplistic, offer up your own solution. Perhaps you have and maybe you are proactive in trying to effect change on this. Maybe you sit on a committee or you have access to ministers, I don't know. I do know this though, it all starts with the first step and until someone takes it, nothing changes. Governments know we are for the most part gutless at worst or poorly organised and very disjointed at best and they pretty much do what they want and know they will get away with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DarrenM]

I said from the beginning it's a tough one and I don't know of a better solution but when someone asks what happens downstream I figured as someone who works in these areas, have been part of many cleanups and have watched friends lose property and equipment, lost work and been cutoff for long periods, wanted to answer from the other side. I still think it is a simplistic approach of displacement. I'm just trying to put the reasons many people are asking for something to be done.

It will flood anyway even when the dam is only at 50% capacity but after the latest ECL threatened to push it over the current 98% I don't think the plan to raise the wall should be shutdown by saying it's a better option to move everything out of the way.
It needs a greater engineering mind than mine to produce an answer. I'm very keen to hear other options like some already put forward.

Don't be confused about my stance on the destruction of wilderness. I've spent my life enjoying the wild and would hope there is a better solution.

[Giddy_up]

I said from the beginning it's a tough one and I don't know of a better solution but when someone asks what happens downstream I figured as someone who works in these areas, have been part of many cleanups and have watched friends lose property and equipment, lost work and been cutoff for long periods, wanted to answer from the other side. I still think it is a simplistic approach of displacement. I'm just trying to put the reasons many people are asking for something to be done.

It will flood anyway even when the dam is only at 50% capacity but after the latest ECL threatened to push it over the current 98% I don't think the plan to raise the wall should be shutdown by saying it's a better option to move everything out of the way.
It needs a greater engineering mind than mine to produce an answer. I'm very keen to hear other options like some already put forward.

Don't be confused about my stance on the destruction of wilderness. I've spent my life enjoying the wild and would hope there is a better solution.

I don't know the answer either but if you're local to the issue and you care about it then you can effect the change. It's *&%$#! hard work, trust me I've tried it and lost, but I tried.

[DarrenM]

Ok,
Maybe I'm not trying hard enough to change something that requires an engineering degree and great knowledge of civil planning etc. As I've already stated, somebody asked what the other side of the story was and I've given some insight into that.
If you think moving the entire basin population out of all the flood prone areas an affordable and practical solution then I'd disagree. It's a noble idea to save the Kowmung but I can't see it getting across the line unless the said 100,000 or more get behind the idea of moving. They won't.

[Giddy_up]

Ok,
Maybe I'm not trying hard enough to change something that requires an engineering degree and great knowledge of civil planning etc. As I've already stated, somebody asked what the other side of the story was and I've given some insight into that.
If you think moving the entire basin population out of all the flood prone areas an affordable and practical solution then I'd disagree. It's a noble idea to save the Kowmung but I can't see it getting across the line unless the said 100,000 or more get behind the idea of moving. They won't.

I all ready acknowledge the fact that it won't, I'm not disagreeing with you.

[DarrenM]

I'd like to get back to the Kowmung as motivation to find an alternative to a difficult problem. I guess it comes down to ballot box decisions which is a mine field in its own right.

[Xplora]

The problem is really to do with urban expansion. Farmers and those who have lived on the river for many years are used to the floods and accept them as a part of the natural scheme of things. I have been in many floods in the Hawkesbury/Nepean and for the most part things go pretty well (if/when they did not then I would have known about it) but as Sydney grows there are more people moving into the area who have no idea about floods and that presents a danger. Insurance companies are also buying into the debate and their voice is huge. The cost to insurance companies for floods staggering and money talks. The productivity loss becomes insignificant. Balancing the destruction of wilderness with bricks and mortar is always going to be hard but in the end wilderness will not win. I think a compromise was reached with the lowering of the original extension and it is to be used as mitigation and not storage. Areas like Pitt Town and McGraths Hill are growing fast and the farm land is being cut up for building. Floods can affect the supply of water into houses as well as the flow of waste water out. Once that stops then the whole area has to be evacuated for health reasons. No small task so reducing the risk is a good idea. I have no idea though about the best way to do that but I know both sides of the argument cherry pick the information so to make a judgement you should do your own independent research.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

The Kowmung is some of my favourite country and I'd hate to see any degradation caused to the system or its ecosystems. I'm in no position to question the need for additional flood mitigation, so I take that as given (others closer to the issue and/or affected areas may have cause to differ or reinforce). If it *is* accepted that mitigation measures are a legitimate need, the issue boils down to a handful of questions:

- What are the alternatives? I personally think asking potentially hundreds of thousands of residents to relocate is entirely impractical and not a legitimate alternative.

- If the wall is raised for mitigation purposes, are there any safeguards against the storage level being raised above the current maximum in non-emergency scenarios (eg. during a drought)?

- If such safeguards can be provided and inundation of the lower Komung is only occurs during extreme weather events, what will the actual impact to the system of irregular inundation be? I suspect "destroyed" might be a tad hyperbolic, although that probably depends on one's definition.

- If the answer to the latter is that there is 'some' quantifiable degradation (obviously not definitive but within some tolerances), how is this balanced against the above need for flood mitigation? Eg. is there some tipping point at which the damage caused overrides the need for flood mitigation? I'm sure some would argue that the tipping point is zero damage, while others might be more pragmatic. At the other extreme I know people (relatives unfortunately) who would argue "bugger the environment, there are lives/properties on the line", no matter what the river damage level.

Part of me wants to oppose any such measures... it is 'wilderness' after all. But (at the risk of being flamed) the pragmatist in me accepts that, depending on the answers to the above, human needs might prevail in this case, as long as the measures are only for emergency purposes and the damage isn't too significant.

[Allchin09]

Some interesting discussion coming out of this thread.

The Colong Foundation for Wilderness, which I am a part of, will most likely take the lead on a campaign to protect the Kowmung, Coxs and the wilderness that surrounds Lake Burragorang. It's still early days so there is time to get organised and form an effective campaign. For those who are interested in getting involved, stay tuned to this thread.

I believe that the Kowmung Committee, which also was part of the fight again the dam raising which was proposed over two decades ago, will be reforming. I'm also hoping that Bushwalking NSW will also get involved.

For now, I think the most important thing we can do is try and gain as much information about the proposal as we can, and from there try and get an understanding of what sort of resulting impacts there will be.

Kind regards,

Alex.

[GPSGuided]

It's Tuesday now. Did the spill happen?

[robl]

This link has some current levels.

http://www.waternsw.com.au/supply/dam-levels/greater-sydneys-dam-levels

Current news.
From http://www.waternsw.com.au/about/newsroom

Warragamba Dam update
Water
20 June 2016
Rainfall over the Warragamba catchment was at the lower end of the BoM forecast, with a catchment average of 27 millimetres of rain. Based on the rain received the inflows into Warragamba are unlikely to result in the dam spilling.
With all of Sydney’s storages at or close to full supply staff at WaterNSW will continue to monitor the dams closely over the coming weeks.
WaterNSW will also continue to work alongside the BoM and the State Emergency Service to monitor the situation as per our usual processes.

[gayet]

I would like to clarify a misconception:

Walk_fat boy_walk

asking potentially hundreds of thousands of residents to relocate...

DarrenM

if you think over 100,000 people are just going to uplift and move their families and.....

At no point have I suggested hundreds of thousands or either one hundred thousand people should be moved. What I was referring to was relocating those people residing in the low lying areas that flood with every rise in the river. Areas that flood regularly, not 1 in one hundred years episodes, certainly not 1 in 700 or 1 in 1000. but the 1 in 50 or more often. Those areas that are repeatedly in the news seeking assistance because once more they have been affected by a natural event - and event the land they are living on handles perfectly well and with great benefit to the rest of the non-man made /modified land.

But, in future could some thought be given to land development and consider the increasing likelihood of floods and not go ahead with inappropriate activity and then expect someone to fix it for those who failed to think. If a property is regularly impacted by flood or fire, then it shouldn't be there, regardless of the hard work and money and family history plowed into it. It was a poor decision originally and continues to be a bad decision.

[DarrenM]

If a property is regularly impacted by flood or fire, then it shouldn't be there, regardless of the hard work and money and family history plowed into it. It was a poor decision originally and continues to be a bad decision.

If it shouldn't be there due to flood or fire risk then we are back to the problem of moving large sections of the community again. Poor decisions have always been made in the past.

The last ECL just wiped out homes on the Northern beaches so do we remove all the homes along the eastern seaboard as a solution to consistent storms ? No, we manage by building better erosion proof frontages. Was the decision to build so close poor? Probably.

I really think it requires time spent in some of the areas affected. I have the benefit of spending the last 30 years skiing on the river and also working in and around properties that are often not even close but still affected. We've been lucky enough to dodge a few bullets with the Dam getting close but not adding to a river system that is already in low to moderate flood as we saw on the weekend. It wouldn't take much to see another big flood like the early 90's. I don't want to see the Kowmung under threat but if we are going to make a stand, there has to be a better answer than, "well they shouldn't have built anything downstream of the Dam."

They have improved some of the old problematic roads in McGraths Hill with bypasses which have helped. Every major road in Sydney has upgraded over time due to the population increases. It's easy to cry poor planning but the existing roads used to cope quite well for the time.

[GPSGuided]

What I was referring to was relocating those people residing in the low lying areas that flood with every rise in the river...

At a time when the city is projected to grow from 4.4M to 7-8M in the coming decades, along with housing and infrastructure shortage, would you be surprised that there's going to be no money nor resources to relocate these people?