The thirst keeps growing in NSW

The drought hasn’t yet descended on Macquarie Street where food continues to be served, wine spilleth over and the taps flow. But not so for the 82 per cent of our New South Wales which is officially in drought.

Do our elected representatives and public officials engage in table talk about us (the civilians) from time to time, with each sip of champers, each nibble of butterscotch terrine? Or are we an afterthought, irritating interruptions of personal and party agendas, jotted phone messages on the back of white serviettes?

Well knock, knock Premier Kristina Keneally, the civilians are at the door and they’ve worked up quite a thirst!

And the thirst keeps growing as we hear daily reports of rivers and bores running dry. From the Belubula River to the Lachlan River and through to the Murray Darling Basin, Australia’s dire water situation is shaping up to have all the hallmarks of a geography for the next Geoff Mack “I’ve been everywhere man” re-mix.

Late last year the Senate Environment, Communications, and the Arts References Committee released its report The effects of Mining on the Murray Darling Basin (PDF 287KB). It recommends:

1. That all governments support the Namoi Catchment Water Study and not take further decisions in relation to the licensing of mining and extractive industries in the Namoi catchment until that study is completed and publicly released.
2. As a matter of priority and preferably prior to the release of future Mineral Exploration Licences, state governments establish regional water plans in areas potentially subject to mining or extractive industry operations.
3. That the Commonwealth Government investigate the scope of Section 255A of the Water Act 2007 to determine whether it applies to groundwater resources located in ridge country. If this is not the case, the committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government amend Section 255A to include groundwater resources on all land types and that it work with the states to ensure the prohibition of the licensing of mining or extractive industries in the event that a study conducted under Section 255A indicates that the development would have adverse impacts on groundwater resources and the environment.
4. All governments maximise use of information and data gleaned from planning and research activities to ensure that co-ordinated analysis of regional water plans takes place, so as to better understand the cumulative impacts of mining in the Murray-Darling Basin.
5. Commonwealth Government works to ensure the prevention of new mines or extractive industries in the Murray Darling Basin if their impacts on water resources are inconsistent with the Basin Plan.

The Namoi Catchment Water Study into surface and groundwater resources in the Namoi is intended to provide high quality information to help identify risks associated with mining on water resources in the region, and to inform the NSW Government’s decision making processes. Incidentally this study has been endorsed by mining companies, industry peak bodies and local community groups with funding jointly by the Commonwealth and industry. (For the purposes of this article I will avoid any discussion about industry funding and potential perceived conflicts of interest.)

Water, not coal, gold or any other mineral, is our most precious resource of all, and with global food, oil and water shortages coming home to roost one would have thought the NSW Government would jump at the chance to co-fund the study. Not so: instead, their response has been juvenile. It was reported that in an answer to a question without notice in the New South Wales Legislative Council, former minister Ian MacDonald stated:

I am not writing out any cheque in relation to this matter. The Government has decided, following discussions with Mr Peters and the department on this matter, that it would not be matching the funds provided by the Commonwealth. Just because the Commonwealth has put up $1.5 million for this or any other project does not mean that we should have to follow suit. However, my understanding from discussions in the committee is that adequate funds will be available for that water study.

What a disgrace.

Surely drawing on international experience - such as the findings of the 2009 UK-based Working Group on Mining in the Philippines report, Philippines: Mining or Food? or recent reports from the US about the effects of mountaintop removal mining or even the recent findings of the UN Economic and Social Council contained in the Report of the Fourth Regional Implementation Meeting on Sustainable Development - should generate sufficient concern by the NSW Government to at least satisfy itself that “international best practice” is being followed.

As John P Williams described in his paper "International best practice" in mining: who decides and how and how does it impact law development published in the Georgetown Journal of International Law in 2008:

… The concept of international best practice represents a kind of prevailing global or regional consensus (or compromise) among representatives of government, industry and international development finance institutions as to what constitute appropriate ground rules and protections for the achievement of the private objectives of industry and the public goals of government. This concept rests, of course, upon the optimistic assumption that the primary private goals of industry and the primary public goals of governments are or can be compatible ...

And the Feds are just as bad: the Federal Government won’t put the extra $1.5 million on the table (or the full amount required to conduct the study) unless it is matched by the notoriously broke NSW State Government, yet it shovelled how much into the failed Fuel and Grocery Watch schemes? Is this attitude consistent with the declared aims of a Federal Government that set up the Murray Darling Basin Authority as legally obliged to place the health of the river system ahead of all other considerations?

As for industry funding, it seems that the industry contributors to the proposed Namoi Catchment Study want a cost-benefit analysis done first.

The end result - zippo.

Even more distasteful is the suggestion made in the NSW Government’s submission to the Senate Committee that the State Government ownership of minerals confers exclusive rights to allocate resources and collect royalties resulting from their exploitation, making the people of NSW direct stakeholders in the continued success of mining in NSW.

Or the NSW Minerals Council statement that:

We [the coal industry] do[es] not own the resources; the people of New South Wales own the coal and other mineral resources. We are merely acting on behalf of them in developing those resources and we return our payments back to the government by way of royalties - that is, over $1.4 billion alone for this year. That is a lot of money that the people of New South Wales get back in consolidated revenue ...

None of this, of course, could have been achieved without water. Could it be that the NSW government doesn’t want to face study findings that might curtail water use by miners, and hence the flow of revenue into its coffers? Perhaps the people of NSW will have to do their own cost-benefit analyses to determine whether or not the “development” of mineral resources at the expense of huge consumption of natural resources like water is ultimately beneficial, and exactly what approach will provide them with the most sustained prosperity.

Thankfully this year and the next are election years, so there has never been a better time for anyone who is concerned about dwindling water resources or their contamination to lobby for government action. Start by getting onto your local member now!