The promise of billions in Federal funding to reduce future flood heights by up to a metre is shaping as the next major political battle in the Northern Rivers.
The Greens have fired the first shots in the campaign, bringing motions to local councils that are critical of the CSIRO’s shortlist of flood mitigation projects – a list focused largely on engineering solutions.
The first motion went to debate at last week’s meeting of Rous County Council, with Byron Shire delegate Cr Elia Hague moving an urgency motion backed by her Greens colleague, Mayor Sarah Ndiaye.
The motion called on the regional council to raise concerns about the consultation process and push for greater emphasis on “nature-based solutions.”
It urged consideration of projects such as wetland restoration and riparian planting, instead of engineered measures like levees, retention basins and floodgates.
But delegates from Ballina, Lismore and Richmond Valley voted the proposal down 5–2, leaving Byron isolated.
The Lennox Head-based Ballina Shire Greens Councillor Kiri Dicker has since lodged an almost-identical motion, due for debate at this Thursday’s council meeting.
The Motion
Cr Hague’s motion argued that the community had been asked to rank “complex flood mitigation options with minimal explanation” and that the consultation process was flawed.
It criticised the exclusion of nature-based options and raised concerns about the broader cultural, social and ecological impacts of “hard” engineering solutions.
The background to the motion noted that the Richmond River is one of the most environmentally degraded in NSW, warning that engineered works such as drains and levees have long-term impacts including blackwater events and fish kills.
Mayor Hits Back
Ballina Mayor and Rous Deputy Chair Sharon Cadwallader said she was disappointed by the attempt to “discredit the work of the CSIRO team” leading the $11 million Northern Rivers Resilience Initiative.
“It’s insulting to the scientists,” she said.
“This is the first time we’ve ever had proper scientific modelling of the entire catchment. After all the floods we’ve endured, finally we’re going to have real data to show what might work, what won’t, and how much water can actually be taken off the floodplain.”
Cr Cadwallader said she supported a mix of approaches.
“Nature-based solutions are already happening – $150 million has been allocated for bank stabilisation, riparian restoration and wetland projects. They’re important, but they’re not the only answer.
We also need engineering solutions that can physically hold water back and release it safely, so towns and villages aren’t repeatedly flooded.”
She pointed to proposals such as reopening Boundary Creek to allow excess floodwaters to flow to the ocean rather than through communities.
“You don’t need to be a scientist to see the benefit of that,” she said.
A Political Campaign?
Cr Cadwallader also criticised what she described as external pressure on the process.
“We’ve seen campaigns driven from Sydney urging thousands of people who’ve never set foot in Lismore or Ballina to lodge objections.
“That undermines the voices of locals who’ve lived through generations of floods. It also risks derailing what is a once-in-200-years opportunity to put real mitigation measures in place.”
While acknowledging that Byron Shire was also impacted by flooding, she noted the areas hardest hit – particularly Lismore, Ballina and the Richmond Valley – could not afford delays.
Cr Cadwallader also rejected accusations the planned engineering works would be harmful to the environment.
“Of course there will be environmental studies and safeguards before anything is built.
“Nothing can proceed without that. But we can’t keep kicking this down the road while people’s lives and livelihoods remain at risk.”
The CSIRO’s modelling report is expected later this year. A final package of measures will then undergo environmental and feasibility assessments before any works can proceed.
Ballina News Daily has contacted Cr Hague for comment.
This headline is wrong. They are asking for nature based solutions to be included in the scenarios that are modelled.
I will back Sharon Cadwallader
The politicians are in vehement agreement. All saying a mix of solutions are needed.
The articles opening paragraph is very interesting: ” promise of billions” ….can you please point out exactly where that promise has been articulated ?
As a delegate to Rous Water for 13 years & a former Chair, I know perfectly well how biased the engineering profession is towards – well – hard engineering ‘solutions’. Engineers are great at solving problems. The trouble is they often create new problems in the process.
In this case, the hydrology of the Wilson’s & Richmond River catchments is such that in a maximum probable flood event no amount of retention works can reduce flooding downstream. In fact, a water body at these times behaves like an impervious surface, & may in fact exacerbate flooding downstream. As for levees, we have seen the foolishness of relying on them to supposedly flood-proof an area. They give a false sense of security & are responsible for a lot of misery when they inevitably fail.
A standard way of detecting agendas is to ask ‘who would benefit’? The CSIRO approach just demonstrates how compromised this once-esteemed organisation has become. In this case, there would be a few eye-wateringly expensive contracts for ol’ mates (a standard National Party priority) & perhaps an opportunity for unscrupulous real estate agents.
The Notice of Motion asks to consider nature based solution as part of the solution. The catchment hydration and changes in the farming practices are a must in this package otherwise we just giving a Panadol to a cancer patient.
Flood management is done with nature based solutions: we need increase the soil capacity in the region, by doing this for every 1% increase in organic matter soil can hold an additional 3,000 to 185,000 liters of water per hectare. We treated our soils very poorly and it’s the solution that will help the most. As well with good farming practices as 40% of the Richmond catchment is grazing land.
None of the solutions consider the poor water quality and the amount of soil we are loosing due to farming practices and clogging our river.
Instead of firing polarity in our community the best approach is to bring community together.
The only answer for the Northern Rivers is dams dams and more dams – maybe some with hydro-electric. Look at China – dams everywhere for flood control and generating massive power for their booming economy. Visit any dam and you’ll notice they are a wildlife magnet and provide water during droughts and fire seasons.
Add to this cutting overflow channels to low lying areas to speed up the outflow and one or two overflow channels to the ocean.
The Greens oppose anything and everything to try and stay relevant – they are not.