Pindari Dam Enlargement

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.15]: The Government seems hellbent on proceeding with an eightfold enlargement of Pindari Dam to increase cotton production in spite of the disastrous condition of the Barwon and Darling rivers and frequent assertions that cottongrowing may be a major contributor to that problem. Given that neither of the two environmental impact statements for this proposal assessed explicitly the impact of the proposed enlargement on the water quality of the Barwon and Darling rivers, how can the Government claim that the proposal will not exacerbate the problems? The Government may be committing far more money to make the Darling River more toxic than to controlling the causes of the algal blooms. Construction of the enlargement has not commenced and should be delayed until any possible impacts on people and ecosystems downstream of the border rivers cottongrowing area has been assessed. Apparently the Minister for Natural Resources intends to announce the successful construction tenderer at a ceremony to commence the construction this Saturday, 7th December. I urge the Minister to postpone the ceremony, lest it be regarded by people along the Darling River as their death blow. They have cause for concern.

The supplementary environmental impact statement states that the average area of cotton irrigation between Boggabilla and Mungindi is expected to increase by 14,000 hectares, or more than 50 per cent, thereby taking an additional 75,000 megalitres per annum from the Macintyre-Barwon-Darling river system and decreasing the average flow at Mungindi by 9 per cent. This could bring total extraction from the river at Mungindi to an average of 370,000 megalitres, or 44 per cent of its average flow. How much worse will it be in a dry year when the dams trap all storm runoff from half the catchment and irrigators are allowed to pump into their massive on-farm storages all but a few thousand megalitres from any rise in the river level following storms in undammed tributaries? The Department of Water Resources intends, apparently, to allow the construction of such on-farm storages to continue unchecked until their combined capacity in the Macintyre Valley alone is five times the present capacity of Pindari Dam. Already the frequency of freshes in the Barwon River at Brewarrina, sufficient to allow fish to migrate over weirs and to flush the river, has been reduced by 35 per cent. No wonder the water quality has become foul. The Pindari proposal will make this a 40 per cent reduction in the frequency of flushing. But the proposed enlargement will not prevent the severe floods that wash nutrient-enriched soil from cotton and other farms into the river.

The supplementary environmental impact statement states that there will be a $1.7 million reduction in the value of cotton production by farmers along the Darling River, but there is no proposal to compensate them. There is no estimate of the cost of lost production from pastures in the flood plains that will be flooded less extensively or less often. I understand that the Mid-Darling Water Users Association heard of the exhibition of the supplementary environmental impact statement only one day before the exhibition closed and that its request for a late submission to be considered was refused. The Government is proceeding to ignore the plight of people dependent on the Barwon and Darling rivers by proceeding with this scheme to subsidise the cottongrowers in the electorate of the Deputy Premier without even pausing to assess the possibility of exacerbating water quality problems in the Darling. The environmental impact statements
Page 5490
concede that the proposal will increase salinity in the Murray River and that groundwater under the irrigation area is extremely saline and could already be starting to rise. However, the proposed groundwater monitoring is grossly inadequate; there is only one monitoring bore every 20 kilometres. The irrigators will pay only $37.5 million, 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the capital and interest cost, leaving taxpayers to find about $120 million. Whatever happened to the Government's user-pays policy? The Government of the United States of America virtually stopped subsidising new irrigation dams many years ago. This Government should do the same. The money would be far better spent, if we can afford it, on improved catchment and river management so that existing rural production can be maintained.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The honourable member has exhausted her time for speaking.

Motion agreed to.