DOCSLIB.ORG

Queensland's Home Waterwise Rebate Scheme

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Queensland's Home Waterwise Rebate Scheme CASE PROGRAM 2010-65.3 Queensland’s Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme (Epilogue) Would South East Queensland’s “world-class water-savers” stay true to their conservation ideals when storage dams were overflowing? This was a key question for Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and her Government as they contemplated the latest version of the 50- year strategy for the state’s water supply security. The strategy was first drafted during the record-setting “Millennium Drought” and at a time of healthy budget surplus. It was prepared by the Queensland Water Commission (QWC), the independent statutory authority established in 2006 to carry out radical reform of water supply and distribution in South East Queensland. The QWC took control of water supply systems previously owned by 18 different local governments, and committed the state to fast-tracking the $9 billion development of a new “water grid” of pipelines to link existing and new dams with plants to manufacture water by recycling and desalination. It also launched the highly successful “Target 140” which more than halved the pre-drought daily water consumption, with a combination of usage restrictions and the promotion of water-efficient and water-storage appliances through the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme (HWWRS). Water consumption continued at low levels even after the drought was declared officially over in May 2009, and above-average rainfall drenched the region. By May 2010, most of the dams in South East Queensland were full to overflowing, while the recycling and desalination plants continued to pump out product. However, the state budget was $2 billion in deficit. There were suggestions that the water grid was a “white elephant” which was loading residents with excessive costs for what had been a low-priced commodity delivered locally. The grid had been designed to ensure the state’s growing population could expect access to 230 litres per person a day, with greater restrictions a once in 25-year occurrence. One third This case was written by Janet Tyson, Australia and New Zealand School of Government, for Dr Anne Tiernan, Griffith University, as an epilogue to the case studies 2008-65.1 and 2008-65.2 which detail the policy development and implementation of the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme. Cases are not necessarily intended as a complete account of the events described. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of publication, subsequent developments may mean that certain details have since changed. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence, except for logos, trademarks, photographs and other content marked as supplied by third parties. No licence is given in relation to third party material. Version 17-05-2010. Distributed by the Case Program, The Australia and New Zealand School of Government, www.anzsog.edu.au. of all water would be supplied by recycling and desalination, with power stations and major industry routinely using recycled water.1 By 2010, over half of the planned 450 km of pipeline had been built to enable water to be transferred anywhere within the South East Queensland network. The $2.4 billion Western Corridor Recycling Project was in action, though as yet contributing little to overall supply. Only one of four originally proposed desalination plants had been built, yet the need for them had increased after the Federal Government vetoed construction of a major new dam at Traveston Crossing on the Mary River, on environmental grounds. However, the concept of desalination had become “deeply unpopular” with concerns over energy consumption and efficiency. The State Government had refused to take ownership of the $1.2 billion desalination plant at Tugun on the Gold Coast until problems including rusting pipes and faulty valves had been fixed to its satisfaction. More than a year after the plant began producing water, the contractors admitted they would not meet the June 2010 deadline for repairs to be completed: their best estimate was “before the end of 2010.” 2 The best way to delay further construction of desalination plants, residents were told, was to maintain their WaterWise ways. Water wise and water wary The Queensland Water Commission had borne the brunt of criticism about the water reform program, from difficulties with construction to concerns about the new governance of water distribution and retail. Changes to bulk distribution, now under the control of a water grid manager, were introduced from 1 July 2008, while changes that would confine the retail sale of water to three local government groups were to be introduced from July 2010 – along with further, and very unpopular, increases in the costs to users. By contrast, there was almost universal community acceptance and support for the QWC’s demand management program, “Target 140 (litres per day)”, reducing daily per person water consumption to less than half its pre-2006 levels of 300 litres or more. Residents had rushed to take advantage of subsidies available through the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme (HWWRS), to install water-efficient home appliances, and water storage tanks, sales of which had soared. The Department of Natural Resources and Water, administering the HWWRS, had been almost overwhelmed by initial demand for rebates. From March 2008, following a departmental review, the scheme was fine-tuned to restrict subsidies to plumbed- in tanks. However demand for water-saving devices remained steady while daily personal use – at times a matter of civic pride - often dipped as low as 128 litres. Consumption stayed low when the region began to get significant rain in June and July 2008, with many residents resisting the opportunity to splash out after the QWC lifted restrictions from the extreme level 6 of 140 litres per person per day to the “high level” of 150 litres per person per day. At the same time, people continued to express suspicion about the processes and quality control for water at the $2.5 billion Western Corridor Recycling Plant, due to open on 3 December 2008. Two years earlier, 62 percent of Toowoomba residents had voted to reject 1 Australian Associated Press: Main points in South East Qld Water strategy 26-03-2008, accessed Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre (ANZRC) 3-5-10 Accession no:74C1176866032 2 Ardern,L, ‘No end to desal dramas’, Gold Coast Bulletin, 24-03-2010, accessed ANZRC 28-4-2010, Accession number 20100324B007658222 2 “poo water” being added to their water supply.3 The recycling system was designed to treat sewage and waste water to levels of purity that would allow it to be used to top up dams in the region, and therefore become drinking water – although its primary purpose was to supply industry such the power generation plants at Swanbank and Tarong. Premier Anna Bligh was a very visible promoter of the development, paying “countless hard-hat visits”, while her deputy Paul Lucas, had publicly toasted the future of recycled water “like it was sweet nectar.”4 But opposition politicians and others continued to highlight concerns, helped by problems with spillage and leaks.5 In November, as the region continued to get significant rain, and dams continued to fill, Anna Bligh assured voters that plans to mix recycled water into dam supplies would only proceed if storage levels again fell below the critical 40 percent level. She rejected opposition claims that this made the pipeline a waste of money and said its use by industry vindicated the project. “$2.5 billion in our major recycled water project is money well spent,” she said. “All of that adds up to good sense, good policy.”6 On 9 December 2008, Bligh announced that the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme would end on 31 December, six months early, and despite some complaints about lack of consultation, particularly from water tank suppliers, the decision stood. In the mid-year Fiscal and Economic Review it was reasoned the scheme had run its course, and successfully achieved its outcomes. As well as the newly opened recycling plant, other supply sources such as desalinated water from the Tugun plant were about to come onstream, the government argued. Water storage tanks had been installed in 36 percent of houses in the region, and 237,000 rebates had been paid out. Few of the proud owners of new storage tanks, thanks to the HWWRS remembered that, back in the 1960’s, water tanks had often been forcibly removed as a health hazard, the breeding grounds for mosquitos carrying diseases like malaria and dengue fever. While most of today’s tanks incorporated mosquito-proof valves, there were still issues about keeping long- term water storage clean, and tanks continued to be promoted for water storage. All new houses were required to have internally plumbed storage for 70,000 litres of water. Water surplus and budget deficit Axing the HWWRS scheme early would save an estimated $18 million. This was an important consideration as the global financial crisis had already whittled down the government’s June budget surplus prediction from $809m to $54 million. By early 2009, in the wake of the global crisis, the state was looking at a deficit of $1.6 billion. It was, however, still raining, and over the catchments of South East Queensland’s dams. When Premier Bligh called an early election, after the state’s credit rating was downgraded, the opposition made much of the troubles with new water infrastructure. “This government can’t do a project without it breaking down…The water grid is in tatters: they’ve got a rusting desalination plant on the Gold Coast, and now they’ve got a leaking recycled water pipeline,” a spokesperson declared, suggesting this raised “real questions about the safety of the 3 Chambers, G ‘Mayor supports “poo water”plan’, Gold Coast Bulletin 16-12-2009, accessed from ANZRC 28/04/2010, accession number 20091216B002463127 4 Johnstone, C, ‘Costs cloud clear water enterprise’, Courier-Mail, 30-04-2010.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phillips, B 2003, Managing Fish Translocation and Stocking in The
    Managing Fish Translocation & Stocking in the Murray-Darling Basin Statement, recommendations and supporting papers Workshop held in Canberra 25-26 September 2002 Managing Fish Translocation and Stocking in the Murray-Darling Basin workshop held in Canberra, 25-26 September 2002: Statement, recommendations and supporting papers. Phillips, Bill (Compiler), February 2003 © WWF Australia 2003. All Rights Reserved. For in depth information on all our work, go on-line at www.wwf.org.au or call our toll free number 1800 032 551. Head Office WWF Australia GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW Australia Tel: +612-9281-5515 Fax: +612-9281-1060 [email protected] WWF Australia Report; 03/02 ISBN 1-875941-42-8 Compiled by Bill Phillips, MainStream Environmental Consulting designed by Printed and bound by Union Offset Printers For copies of this report or a full list of WWF Australia publications on a wide range of conservation issues, please contact us on [email protected] or call (02) 9281 5515. Managing Fish Translocation and Stocking in the Murray-Darling Basin Workshop held in Canberra 25-26 September 2002 Statement, recommendations and supporting papers Acknowledgements The Managing fish translocation and stocking in the Murray-Darling Basin workshop would not have been possible without the financial support of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, NSW Fisheries and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, and WWF Australia and the Inland Rivers Network (IRN) gratefully acknowledges this support. Many thanks to those who assisted in the organisation of the workshop, particularly Bernadette O’Leary, Bill Phillips, Mark Lintermans, John Harris, Alex McNee, Jim Barrett and Greg Williams.
    [Show full text]
  • Drinking Water Quality Management Plan Lakes Wivenhoe and Somerset, Mid-Brisbane River and Catchments
    Drinking Water Quality Management Plan Lakes Wivenhoe and Somerset, Mid-Brisbane River and Catchments April 2010 Peter Schneider, Mike Taylor, Marcus Mulholland and James Howey Acknowledgements Development of this plan benefited from guidance by the Queensland Water Commission Expert Advisory Panel (for issues associated with purified recycled water), Heather Uwins, Peter Artemieff, Anne Woolley and Lynne Dixon (Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management), Nicole Davis and Rose Crossin (SEQ Water Grid Manager) and Annalie Roux (WaterSecure). The authors thank the following Seqwater staff for their contributions to this plan: Michael Bartkow, Jonathon Burcher, Daniel Healy, Arran Canning and Peter McKinnon. The authors also thank Seqwater staff who contributed to the supporting documentation to this plan. April 2010 Q-Pulse Database Reference: PLN-00021 DRiNkiNg WateR QuALiTy MANAgeMeNT PLAN Executive Summary Obligations and Objectives 8. Contribute to safe recreational opportunities for SEQ communities; The Wivenhoe Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (WDWQMP) provides a framework to 9. Develop effective communication, sustainably manage the water quality of Lakes documentation and reporting mechanisms; Wivenhoe and Somerset, Mid-Brisbane River and and catchments (the Wivenhoe system). Seqwater has 10. Remain abreast of relevant national and an obligation to manage water quality under the international trends in public health and Queensland Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) water management policies, and be actively Act 2008. All bulk water supply and treatment involved in their development. services have been amalgamated under Seqwater as part of the recent institutional reforms for water To ensure continual improvement and compliance supply infrastructure and management in South with the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) East Queensland (SEQ).
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Calibration of a Hydrologic and Hydrodynamic Model of the Lower Brisbane River
    Joint Calibration of a Hydrologic and Hydrodynamic Model of the Lower Brisbane River TECHNICAL REPORT Version 1 24 June 2011 Joint Calibration of a Hydrologic and Hydrodynamic Model of the Lower Brisbane River TECHNICAL REPORT Version 1 24 June 2011 Sinclair Knight Merz Web: www.skmconsulting.com COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright. LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Technical Report Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Study Area and Data Availability 2 2.1. Study Area 2 2.2. Data Availability 3 3. Hydrologic Modelling 6 3.1. WT42 model 6 3.2. URBS model 8 3.3. January 2011 Rainfall Inputs 10 3.3.1. Method for deriving sub-area rainfalls 10 3.3.2. Review of rainfall data 10 3.3.3. Rainfall gauge locations 11 3.3.4. Sub-area rainfalls 12 3.4. Initial Calibration of hydrologic models to January 2011 Event 14 4.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Assessment of the Value of Recreational Angling at Queensland Dams Involved in the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme
    An economic assessment of the value of recreational angling at Queensland dams involved in the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme Daniel Gregg and John Rolfe Value of recreational angling in the Queensland SIP scheme Publication Date: 2013 Produced by: Environmental Economics Programme Centre for Environmental Management Location: CQUniversity Australia Bruce Highway North Rockhampton 4702 Contact Details: Professor John Rolfe +61 7 49232 2132 [email protected] www.cem.cqu.edu.au 1 Value of recreational angling in the Queensland SIP scheme Executive Summary Recreational fishing at Stocked Impoundment Permit (SIP) dams in Queensland generates economic impacts on regional economies and provides direct recreation benefits to users. As these benefits are not directly traded in markets, specialist non-market valuation techniques such as the Travel Cost Method are required to estimate values. Data for this study has been collected in two ways in 2012 and early 2013. First, an onsite survey has been conducted at six dams in Queensland, with 804 anglers interviewed in total on their trip and fishing experiences. Second, an online survey has been offered to all anglers purchasing a SIP licence, with 219 responses being collected. The data identifies that there are substantial visit rates across a number of dams in Queensland. For the 31 dams where data was available for this study, recreational anglers purchasing SIP licences have spent an estimated 272,305 days fishing at the dams, spending an average 2.43 days per trip on 2.15 trips per year to spend 4.36 days fishing per angler group. Within those dams there is substantial variation in total fishing effort, with Somerset, Tinaroo, Wivenhoe and North Pine Dam generating more than 20,000 visits per annum.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries (Freshwater) Management Plan 1999
    Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 Fisheries (Freshwater) Management Plan 1999 Reprinted as in force on 13 June 2008 Reprint No. 3B This reprint is prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel Warning—This reprint is not an authorised copy Information about this reprint This plan is reprinted as at 13 June 2008. The reprint shows the law as amended by all amendments that commenced on or before that day (Reprints Act 1992 s 5(c)). The reprint includes a reference to the law by which each amendment was made—see list of legislation and list of annotations in endnotes. Also see list of legislation for any uncommenced amendments. This page is specific to this reprint. See previous reprints for information about earlier changes made under the Reprints Act 1992. A table of reprints is included in the endnotes. Also see endnotes for information about— • when provisions commenced • editorial changes made in earlier reprints. Spelling The spelling of certain words or phrases may be inconsistent in this reprint due to changes made in various editions of the Macquarie Dictionary. Variations of spelling will be updated in the next authorised reprint. Dates shown on reprints Reprints dated at last amendment All reprints produced on or after 1 July 2002, authorised (that is, hard copy) and unauthorised (that is, electronic), are dated as at the last date of amendment. Previously reprints were dated as at the date of publication. If an authorised reprint is dated earlier than an unauthorised version published before 1 July 2002, it means the legislation was not further amended and the reprint date is the commencement of the last amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Eminent Queensland Engineers
    EMI ENT QUEENSLAND ENGINEERS Volume II Editor Geoffrey Cossins Eminent Queensland Engineers Volume 11 Editor Geoffrey Cossins Cover picture: Doctor J.J.C. Bradfield Photograph by courtesy of Ipswich North state School. The picture was donated by Bradfield to The Institution of the school with the caption:.. UJ.J.C. Bradfield, C.M.G., D.Sc.Eng., D.E., M.E., Engineers, Australia M.Inst.C.E. M.lnst.E.A. Was taught his Alphabet and received the whole of his Queensland Division Prilu:try }l:dueation at the N'orth Ipswich state School 1872 - 1880." 1999 I EMINENT QUEENSLAND ENGINEERS 11 Institution of Engineers, Australia Queensland Division 447 Upper Edward st BRISBANE QLD 4000 Ph: 07 3832 3749 Fax: 07 3832 2101 E-Mail: [email protected] The Institution of Engineers, Australia is not responsible, as an organisation for the facts and opinions advanced in this pUblication. The copyright for each of the sections is retained by the respective authors. ISBN 085 825 717 3 National Library ofAustralia Catalogue No 620.0092 Printed by Monoset Printers Brendale QLD 4500 a1 1 EMINENT QUEENSLAND ENGINEERS 11 EMINENT QUEENSLAND ENGINEERS 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 3 CONTRIBUTORS 6 BIOGRAPHIES 1. RBallard 10 2. Sir Charles Barton 12 3. GOBoultan 14 4. A Boyd 16 5. J J C Bradfield 18 6. H G Brameld 20 7. F H Brazier 22 8. F J Byerley 24 9. C M Calder 26 10. GFCardna 28 11. W J Doak 30 12. J W Dowrie 32 13. D Fison 34 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Stocking in Queensland a Position Paper for Use in the Development of Future Ecologically Sustainable Management Practices
    Queensland the Smart State Freshwater stocking in Queensland A position paper for use in the development of future ecologically sustainable management practices Proof version 11 (revisions to printers proof v8) Today’s date 26/09/2007 Return proof by — Job name Freshwater stocking Queensland Date created 20/12/2006 Return proof to option 1 Kathryn Montafia File name Freshwater stocking QLD.indd Date due --/09/2007 Return proof to option 2 Role Name Signature Further proof required? Approved to print? Client Stephanie Challen Editor Danielle Jones/Melanie Phillips Job Designer Kathryn Montafia Number 2598 Acc Manager Katherine Boczynski If this proof is NOT returned by the date indicated above, this job will be delayed and the deadline will NOT be met. To avoid this please ensure all dates are adhered to. This printed sample is a proof only. Please read all copy for accuracy, omissions, deletions and corrections. DPI&F Publications have taken all measures to ensure the accuracy of this proof, however we can not be held responsible for any errors not brought to our attention. Colours appearing in this laser printed sample are not colour accurate. Colours in the final, commercially printed document will vary. Any changes made to this document after being signed off and approved for printing will incur additional production and printing costs and the final deadline will be compromised. Thank you. 210mm @ 100% Freshwater stocking in Queensland A position paper for use in the development of future ecologically sustainable management practices Aimee Moore, DPI&F, August 2007 PR07–2598 The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) seeks to maximise the economic potential of Queensland’s primary industries on a sustainable basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents FFSAQ’S News Items 2019
    Table of Contents FFSAQ’S News Items 2019 FFSAQ News ..click on month January 2019 ..................................................................................... 2 March 2019 ...................................................................................... 11 April 2019 ......................................................................................... 16 May 2019 ......................................................................................... 21 July 2019 .......................................................................................... 26 August 2019 ..................................................................................... 31 June 2019 ......................................................................................... 36 September 2019 .............................................................................. 41 October 2019 ................................................................................... 45 November 2019 ............................................................................... 50 Press Home Key or Cntrl Home To return to this index FFSAQ News January 2019 Media Officer - Lloyd Willmann [email protected] Ph. 0429 614892 From the Media Officer's Desk :- Freshwater Workshop: DAF are still waiting for some delegates to complete the survey on the Warwick workshop. Your response will allow DAF and FFSAQ to tailor future workshops to your needs. Stocking Groups ... could you please ask your delegate/s to complete the survey (if they haven't done so already)
    [Show full text]
  • Seqwater Bulk Water Prices 2015 to 2018 Submission to the Queensland Competition Authority
    Seqwater Bulk Water Prices 2015 to 2018 Submission to the Queensland Competition Authority Issued: 31 July 2014 Final Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 12 PART A – INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .................................................................... 17 Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 17 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 17 1.2 Ministerial Referral Notice .................................................................................. 17 1.3 Submission Outline ............................................................................................ 18 Chapter 2 Seqwater .................................................................................................... 20 2.1 The Entity .......................................................................................................... 20 2.2 Customer Base .................................................................................................. 20 2.3 Assets ................................................................................................................ 21 2.3.1 Water Storages ........................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 Groundwater Bores....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Toowoomba Pipeline Alliance
    Toowoomba Pipeline Alliance 38km Pipeline Built to Interrupt the Evolving Trends of Drought in Toowoomba Project Need Project: Toowoomba Pipeline Alliance In 2008, Australia endured one of the worst droughts to ever come and faced water Principal: LinkWater shortage problems that came with a growing population. At one stage, Toowoomba’s dam level depleted just below 8%, exacerbating the community’s fear of a water crisis. Location: Toowoomba, The water shortage placed the Toowoomba community in a dire situation. Queensland In response to ease the pressures of the undesired drought and expanding population, Completion: 2010 the Queensland Government allocated $187 million dollars to construct a 38km pipeline in pursuit of a long-term water supply. The pipeline would pump raw water Supplied: 38km x 762OD east to west from Wivenhoe Dam to Cressbrook Dam situated near Toowoomba in Sintakote® Sintajoint® Rubber South East Queensland. Ring Joint (RRJ) Mild Steel Cement Lined Pipe The pipeline would deliver 14,200 megalitres of water per year, however this can be ramped up to 18,000 megalitres to serve the anticipated population growth. During its first year of commissioning the pipeline was planned to deliver 10,000 megalitres of water. It is currently owned and operated by LinkWater. Solution The Toowoomba Pipeline Alliance is a joint venture of LinkWater Projects, Clough, Diversified and AECOM who were responsible for the design and construction of the transmission main project. Steel Mains was requested by LinkWater Projects to manufacture and supply the entire 38km pipeline project. The pipeline would convey raw water 38km passing through challenging terrain in rural and forest areas, including a hill positioned 265 metres above sea level.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for Queensland – Version 3.3
    Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for Queensland – Version 3.3 This document outlines the Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services provided by the Commonwealth of Australia through the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology for the State of Queensland in consultation with the Queensland Flood Warning Consultative Committee Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for Queensland Published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 1289 Melbourne VIC 3001 (03) 9669 4000 www.bom.gov.au With the exception of logos, this guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Australia Attribution Licence. The terms and conditions of the licence are at www.creativecommons.org.au © Commonwealth of Australia (Bureau of Meteorology) 2021 Cover image: Aerial photo looking south over Rosslea during the Townsville February 2019 flood event. (Photograph courtesy of the Australian Defence Force). Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for Queensland Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2 2 Flood Warning Consultative Committee .......................................................................... 4 3 Bureau flood forecasting and warning services ............................................................... 5 4 Level of service and performance reporting ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Lungfish (Neoceratodus Forsteri) in the Burnett River
    Lungfish Passage through Fishways and the Impacts of Restricted Passage at Paradise Dam for Australian Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) in the Burnett River Jim Tait Senior Environmental Scientist Econcern Environmental Consultancy Report prepared for the Federal Court of Australia at Brisbane in proceedings Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No. QUD 319/08) 22 June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose of Report .............................................................................................4 1.2 Expertise ...........................................................................................................4 1.3 Duty to the Court ..............................................................................................5 2. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5 3. Background.............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Paradise Dam....................................................................................................6 3.2 Downstream Fishway......................................................................................10 3.3 Upstream Fishway..........................................................................................13 4. Lungfish Biology, Ecology and Conservation Status........................................
    [Show full text]