house prices down, page-15

I guess I'm an old cynic, gyro.

Billy


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16370702,00.html

Franklin my dear, I don't give a dam
Bernard Salt
25aug05

AUSTRALIAN environmentalists won an important victory in 1982. As a consequence of protests by the fledgling green movement, the proposal to dam Tasmania's Franklin River was withdrawn.

Not only did this action save the Franklin, it also set the political agenda for the next two, and possibly up to five, decades.
And the reason for this extraordinary impact from one green campaign is this: no political leader since that event has proposed the building of a major new dam to service metropolitan Australia.

The last new dam added to the water reserves of metropolitan Australia was Sydney's Tallowa, completed in 1977.

State politicians believe that the surest way to be voted out of office is to propose the building of a new dam, so they avoid the subject altogether. State premiers don't like using the d-word.

The political response is to find a solution, any solution, rather than build a new dam, and indeed to remove the whole dam concept from political debate: Out damned dams!

The environmental lobby has skilfully manoeuvred middle Australia to a no-dams policy without having to go through the tedium of public debate.

To suggest that it might be appropriate to build one new dam for Sydney every half-century or so is to risk being labelled a redneck by environmentalists. Well I think it is now time to have that debate.

The sometimes scrambled logic of the green movement is spreading by osmosis.

In the bathrooms of Sydney's Westin Hotel a green card explains that in order to "help the environment" guests staying more than one night are encouraged to reuse towels. No further explanation is provided.

All this hotel needs to do is invoke the spirit of "the environment" and guests respond.

I don't mind reusing towels, but at least explain the link to the environment.

For example, washing towels uses precious water. But if the water is recycled then what does it matter?

Washing towels releases detergents into the storm-water system; so use bio-degradable detergent. Washing towels consumes electricity from coal-fired power stations that contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Oh, please!. Me using a fresh towel each day heats up the planet!

The real reason why the Westin and other hotels want guests to reuse towels is to reduce costs. This is a cost-saving exercise dressed up as concern for the environment.

In today's world of transparency and accountability, I say come clean and state upfront that the reuse of towels would be appreciated to reduce costs.

This approach of using "the environment" as an excuse for other, usually financial, objectives seems to have been behind Sydney's water strategy, released in October last year. This strategy, announced by the then NSW premier Bob Carr, outlined how the city's water needs would be met over the next 25 years.

Water would be pumped from lower down in the Warragamba Dam.

Water would be siphoned from the Shoalhaven River (although this is being met with local resistance).

A desalination plant would be investigated, and water conservation and education measures would continue to be promoted.

Mr Carr dismissed the idea of a new dam in one paragraph in the foreword to the strategy: it would cost too much (more than $2 billion, apparently); it would take many years to fill (about 10 years); and it would harm the environment.

A new dam has not been added to Sydney's reserves for 27 years and is now off the agenda for another 25 years.

I think there are two reasons why Sydney's water strategy did not include a new dam.

The first politician to suggest a new dam gets dumped at the next election by an electorate driven by populist environmental views, even though it can be argued that a new dam is precisely what is required to meet the water needs of Sydney.

But the other reason why the d-word isn't an option is because it requires the allocation of at least $2 billion from the state budget.

This no-dam green option neatly side-steps a tough political choice.

If you were premier, which interest group would you rip $2 billion from in order to shore up the water needs of non-voting future generations?

My query regarding Sydney's water strategy is: is raising $2 billion really beyond the means of the most powerful state government in Australia?

Of course it isn't. What about a public-private partnership response. This works for other pieces of major infrastructure.

Taking 10 years to fill a dam just doesn't make sense. So we wait 10 years before water restrictions can be lifted. A dam is forever. What does it matter how long it takes to fill?

Then there is the view that the dam would "harm the environment".

The building of the proposed Welcome Reef dam outside Sydney would drown a river valley; flora and fauna would be lost; there would be down-stream consequences for the environment by restricting water flow.

But do environmental impact studies ever consider positive impacts, or do they only document negative impacts?

If positive effects can be identified, then there is an argument to say that we should consider the concept of a "net environmental impact".

This concept is already in use in town-planning matters, where the economic impact of projects is assessed in net terms.

An adjudicator weighs the merits of each argument and then comes down on the side that offers the greatest net community benefit.

Applied to the Welcome Reef dam, such an assessment would consider the impact on Sydney residents over 50 years of a strategy with the dam but no water restrictions, and without the dam but with water restrictions.

Without the dam, four, and eventually five, million residents of Sydney must daily adjust their lives to accommodate water shortages so as to preserve the bushland and the downstream environment outside the city.

With the dam and no water restrictions this generation of Sydney residents and the next are freed from the daily grind of preserving "every single guilty drop of water".

No water restrictions means that Sydney's 2000sqkm of suburbia becomes greener as residents develop lush foliage around dwellings. Flora and fauna (especially birdlife) flourish in well-watered green suburbs.

The argument is that a greener suburban expanse offsets, at least partially, the footprint of the new dam.

But there are positive social impacts, too.

Water restrictions are socially divisive: they can set neighbour against neighbour watching to ensure there are no breaches.

Water restrictions also raise issues of social equity. The owners of separate houses on separate blocks of land bear the greatest burden of restrictions because they cannot water gardens as efficiently as the body corporate can manage the landscaping around an apartment building.

What I am suggesting is an extension of the "net community benefit" concept, that already applies in town planning disputes, to environmental impact studies.

The development of the Welcome Reef dam will destroy native bushland and will diminish the quality of the environment downstream.

But these negative effects should be balanced against positive effects to determine an overall net community benefit or disbenefit.

This test may well show that the environmental cost of this dam still far outweighs any perceived benefits.

But my point is this: Including positives as well as negatives in consideration of an environmental argument is fairer and, in some cases, might even lead to an alternative conclusion.

By understanding the margin of the net effect (as opposed to the margin of the gross effect) politicians may even be encouraged to take a long-term view and do what is best for the next generation, rather than simply crystallise a short-term opportunity to get themselves across the line at the next election.

Bernard Salt is a Partner with KPMG, [email protected]



privacy terms © The Australian