Exclusive : Proposal an expensive gift to irrigators at the expense of coastal communities and the environment, conservationist says

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

New South Wales has been secretly exploring a highly controversial plan to turn the state’s coastal rivers inland to provide more water for irrigators and towns in the west of the state.

The proposal, put forward by WaterNSW, echoes the plan for turning rivers inland first mooted by John Bradfield, the engineer who designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge, in 1938. He was unable to convince government of its merits before he died in 1943.

But the idea appears to have new currency.

The NSW proposals are revealed in a freedom of information request made by the Guardian.

Australia launches emergency relocation of fish as largest river system faces collapse Read more

The documents show significant work has been done on at least four projects involving pumping water from coastal rivers over the Great Dividing Range to replenish western NSW rivers, which are in the grip of a drought.

The main focus of work in NSW has been on turning the headwaters of the Clarence inland via a network of pipes and pumps to feed it into headwaters of the Border rivers system.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A scanned map of a proposed diversion scheme to turn parts of the Clarence river inland obtained under FOI laws. Photograph: WaterNSW

But there has also been work done on diverting flows from the Manning, Macleay and Hunter rivers inland.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A scanned map of a proposed diversion scheme to turn parts of the Macleay and Manning rivers inland obtained under FOI laws. Photograph: WaterNSW

Many of the documents were withheld from the Guardian, on the grounds it would impede WaterNSW’s work on the projects, but the schedule of documents shows there has already been significant work, including hydrological studies and discussions with irrigators in western NSW.

The idea of turning the coastal rivers inland instead of letting them run “wastefully” into the sea has been floated during almost every drought. The Guardian was provided with detailed studies of projects from 1981 and 1982 as part of the request. These appear to be informing the current work inside WaterNSW.

Brief mentions of the options were also included in a public version of WaterNSW’s 20 year Infrastructure Options Study for Rural Valleys released in 2018.

But in recent months the idea has gained currency within some elements of WaterNSW and is being championed by populist politicians such as the Nationals’ Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s Mark Latham and radio announcers, such as Alan Jones.

In the past, cost and unknown environmental impacts on coastal fisheries, agriculture and tourism have weighed against such a project.

$6bn+ price tag

According to the WaterNSW documents, the capital cost of the four projects under study is well north of $6bn.

The environmental concerns are likely to be complex. The mouth of the Clarence is one of the state’s richest prawn fisheries and the impact of diverting as much as 7% to 10% of freshwater flows is unknown.

Just last month oyster farmers in the Shoalhaven expressed their concerns about a NSW government decision to begin transfers from the upper Shoalhaven to Sydney’s dams early, warning the lack of freshwater flushes could endanger their oyster crops.

The projects would be extremely unpopular in coastal communities.

Maps obtained by the Guardian dated January 2016 detail a number of options. A proposal, marked with the word “Focus”, for the Clarence involves taking water out of its northern tributaries such as Morgans creek, the Cataract river and existing reservoirs on Timbarra river and redirecting it westward into the Border rivers system through a series of tunnels, pipes and existing creeks.

The water would need to be pumped up to cross the Great Dividing Range before joining the Severn and McIntyre rivers in the west. It was costed at $975m.

Another project involves taking water out of the Aberfoyle river, which feeds into the Clarence, to send it south-west to the Gwydir river and Copeton dam. It was costed at $1.8bn.

Another network of pipes is proposed to send water from the headwaters of the Macleay river north of Armidale, west into the headwaters of the Namoi and Keepit dam. It had a price tag of $2.35bn.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The swollen Manning river in Taree in flood in 2011. Proponents argue that much of the water in coastal rivers is wasted but conservationists point to damage done from diversion schemes in the past in rivers such as the Snowy. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

The Namoi flows through Gunnedah, Narrabri, Wee Waa and Walgett, one of the major cotton-growing districts. Keepit dam is currently at less than 1% capacity and several of these towns face running out of water by June next year.

A fourth project, costed at $765m, involves sending water from the Barnard river, which flows into the Manning on the east coast over the divide to the Chaffey dam on the Peel river. The Peel flows through Tamworth, which is also in danger of running out of water.

Most documents requested by the Guardian were withheld because they would impede WaterNSW in their deliberations.

But the few documents that were released show WaterNSW was discussing the projects with irrigators in western NSW last year and commissioned hydrological analysis for some projects in 2019.

An April 2019 analysis found that around 11-44GL could be diverted to the Peel, assuming 30% of the flows were left in the Barnard. The diversion from the Macleay into the Namoi would yield about 3-18GL a year, assuming 50% take from the headwaters of the Macleay. One GL is approximately 444 Olympic swimming pools.

A spokesman for WaterNSW said the organisation had assessed “hundreds of infrastructure options, including options involving the possibility of moving some coastal river flow inland”.

“Like dozens of other infrastructure options explored, the concept of such inter-basin transfers would require further extensive, detailed study before being more seriously contemplated,” he said.

“WaterNSW has not received funding from Government to initiate or explore these options any further at this time,” he said.

‘An expensive gift to irrigators’

Jack Gough, a policy researcher at the Nature Conservation Council, said the proposal was fundamentally flawed.

“Transferring water between catchments would be an expensive gift to a handful of irrigators and mines at the expense of communities on the coast and the environment.

“It does not address the fundamental problem, which is the government has over-allocated water to irrigators and failed to include the impacts of climate change in its modelling.”

The projects are not among the NSW government’s list of projects for which it is seeking federal funding at this stage.

A second, far more ambitious project is also being touted by the private sector in Canberra.

A company, Australian Infrastructure Solutions, has proposed taking 13% of the Burdekin river in Queensland and sending it down a 2,000km inland canal which would feed into the headwaters of several inland rivers.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Proposed scheme to redirect 13% of water from the Burdekin river inland, via pipelines and canals. Photograph: Peter Rochlin/Australian Infrastructure Solutions

The project, with a ballpark costing of $9bn, is said to be capable of delivering another 1,000GL of water to inland farmers. This equates to nearly 20% of the amount of water available in the Murray-Darling river system.