Water Demand and the Proposed Traveston Dam

The proposed dam on the Mary River at Traveston is a major project that has generated a huge amount of opposition. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) into the project, while a long and detailed document, has been widely criticised as an ineffective assessment designed as a public relations exercise. For example, both Hervey Bay City Council and the Council of Mary River Mayors have released critical reviews of the EIS.

A study team from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, conducted a Review of Water Supply-Demand Options for South East Queensland and made an alternative proposal to the dam based around a set of demand management options. These include the extension of various government programs and rebates, as well as new programs such as 'smart growth' strategies, especially for new developments, whereby smart water infrastructure and ultra high efficiency appliances would be mandated.

The UTS team concluded that with these demand management options, as well as the current government supply and demand strategies, "there will be no need for a dam at Traveston Crossing on the Mary River, or other additional supply infrastructure, in order to meet the supply-demand balance over the period to 2050" ( p.ii). The team claims the potential for savings of 180GL/a by 2050 at $1.15 /kl, compared to Traveston Dam's 150 GL/a at $3.00/kl. Traveston, they claim, will also produce 1,000,000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions annually more than effective demand management. The EIS claims that these proposed measures are dependent on unrealistic goals for demand reduction, which involves an unacceptable risk. There are risks associated with the dam, however, such as the risk that it will not yield all the water it is expected to due to climate change.

There are other demand management options not discussed by the UTS team, which could help supplement the projected demand reductions and so reduce the risk of a supply-demand gap. One option with the potential for immediate significant savings is grey water use. A typical household uses thousands of litres of water per week in the bathroom and laundry which could be redirected into the garden and used for flushing toilets. Grey water cannot be used indiscriminately though (for instance generally not on food plants) and many applications require at least some plumbing work or garden infrastructure. Another option is urban agriculture. Encouraging food production through backyard and community gardens would reduce reliance on water intensive agricultural practices which currently account for 70% of global water demand.

Northey Street City Farm

Here are the first few pictures I've taken at Northey Street. As I spend more time helping out there (and get a new camera memory card) I'll add more pictures and more detailed accounts of my experiences. I'm also looking forward to posting photos of festivals held at the farm.





Despite very limited rainfall recently, the farm uses creativity and good design to maintain an impressive quantity and variety of plants and animals.




Permaculture design course in progress. Happy faces all round!




Chicken "tractors" (mobile coops) are moved around to help fertilise successive areas which are then turned back over to food production.




The farm has a wonderful playground and open areas for festivals and other events.




The "Backyard Garden" is about the size of an average suburban backyard and models permaculture principles as they can be implemented around the home.




The outer zones of the farm feature plants that require less attention such as bush tucker, a small forest for sustainable wood yields and an orchard (pictured)








Financially, Northey Street largely gets by on membership fees, donations and the sale of its produce at the weekly on-site organic market. One off city council grants from time to time allow the pursuit of specific goals, including projects relating to community service and policy development.