Public comments on the “Emergency response for the crisis management-Acid Sulfate Soils in the Goolwa Channel, Finniss River and Currency Creek, South Australia” were submitted to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts’ by April 22, 2009.
We expected a response from the Federal Minister Peter Garrett by May 6. However, the clock has stopped in order to give the SA Government time to respond to questions from the EPBC in Canberra.
Many concerned citizens with local knowledge and expertise regarding Acid Sulfate Soils provided critiques of the proposal (EPBC 2009/4833) for weirs and regulators. However, unlike public comments on Environmental Impact Statements, the submissions received with respect to Referral are not posted on the EPBC website.
The Executive Summary of submission by the River, Lakes and Coorong Action Group, summarises many of the issues raised in other submissions.
1. The Referral purports to be an emergency response but it is further evidence of mismanagement and lack of an integrated holistic plan for the River, Lakes and Coorong. The proposal is ill conceived and will not achieve its stated goals, rather it will exacerbate an already dire situation.
2. The impact of the proposed action on matters of NES will extend far beyond the footprint of the embankments/dams/weirs/bunds/regulators. The blocking of the fresh water flows from the Finniss River and Currency Creek, their diversion into the newly created “Barrage weir pool” and the pumping from Lake Alexandrina into the pool will effectively sacrifice Lake Alexandrina as a fresh water system.
3. The threat of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) is not a sufficient rationale for the action.
• The scientific data presented on ASS do not support the action;
• There are too many unknown factors re ASS and acidification to
proceed with confidence;
• There are alternatives that are known but have been ignored;
• Recent independent monitoring challenges the severity of ASS.
4. In the absence of a plan for a fresh water recovery, the triggers for removal of the embankments/dams/weirs/bunds/regulators at Clayton and on the Finniss River and Currency Creek are not credible.
5. The proposal relies on fresh water coming down the Finniss River and Currency Creek. For this to be assured there would need to be action taken, including the Water Allocation Plan (WAP) for the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges, to reduce diversions in the tributaries. Winter rains cannot be relied upon to produce the amount of water needed to fill the proposed weir pool.
6. The proposal should be explicit regarding the water that is to be pumped and impounded in terms of who has rights in that water.
7. A credible alternative to this proposal would include
• an integrated holistic long‐term plan for the Rivers, Lakes and Coorong;
• fresh water options;
• regulation of the upper reaches of the Finniss River and Currency Creek;
• bio‐remediation, mulching, fencing to protect potential ASS;
• local treatments of identified ASS hot spots;
• treatment of the water bodies to stave off acidification;
• further research on soil and water chemistry
• meaningful engagement with local communities.
0 Responses to “Proposed Weirs and Regulators for Clayton Bay, the Finniss River and Currency Creek”