THERE are new calls by the State Opposition for the Queensland Government to boost the existing Borumba Dam on the Mary River rather than push ahead with the controversial Traveston Dam.
Shadow Infrastructure Minister David Gibson last night backed a fresh call by Mary River farmer Ron McMah to look again at building a bigger dam at Borumba, upstream from Traveston Crossing.
Mr Gibson said if the Borumba option had been given the go-ahead in 2006 "it would be built now and delivering water right now for South-East Queensland".
Queensland Co-ordinator General Colin Jensen's recommendation that stage two of the Traveston Dam not proceed has fuelled the argument that the Borumba option is again viable.
Mr McMah says his Borumba proposal was never fully tested in 2006 and 2007 and, as a result of Mr Jensen's recommendation on Monday, should now be judged as a genuine alternative to stage one of Traveston.
A bigger Borumba Dam would be up to 80 to 90 metres deep, while Traveston is to be about five metres deep on average, and the environmental and social impact would be much lower. The land is also already owned by the State Government.
Mr McMah wrote to the Traveston Crossing Dam Senate Inquiry in March 2007 and suggested a new dam wall be built 300 metres in front of the existing dam.
Water stored in the bigger Borumba Dam would be gravity-fed - and not pumped - to the Stanley River where it would be stored in Somerset and ultimately, Wivenhoe Dam.
Raising Borumba, according to Mr McMah, has several physical advantages over Traveston Crossing:
- an existing dam is already in place, now storing 46,000 megalitres, but which engineers say can be expanded comparatively easily to two million megalitres, though costs are unknown;
- it would be 80 to 90 metres deep, while Traveston would be on average around five metres deep;
- evaporation in a deep, cold water dam would be low compared to the shallow Traveston Crossing;
- the social impact would be comparatively low;
- the environmental impact would be lower;
- the land is already owned by the State Government; and
- the land is fairly mountainous and has limited farming value.
Mr David Gibson said Borumba was never properly studied as an option to Traveston Crossing.
"All they have done is pick it to pieces, rather than trying to make it work instead of looking at raising Borumba as a viable option," Mr Gibson said.
"Interestingly, under Labor's own water strategy, stage three of their Traveston plan in 2035 is raising Borumba. So even in their own planning they conceded that raising Borumba will provide extra water for South-East Queensland.
"But what they refuse to do now - and what they have refused to do under the process - is properly consider Rob McMah's proposal."
However, a spokesperson for Mr Jensen last night said raising Borumba would cost $3.1 billion, compared to the $1.8 billion for Traveston stage one.
"The Borumba Dam option, to supply the same 70,000ML/year that Traveston stage one would supply, did not stack up on two accounts," the spokesperson said.
"A hydrological analysis identified an excessive number of supply failures when modelled against Traveston stage one for 30 years following completion.
"There were 51 out of 109 modelling sequence failures for Borumba versus six for Traveston".
Save the Mary River president Glenda Pickersgill said raising Borumba was "an option" but not their preferred option.
"We believe their are cheaper, more reliable solutions, like harvesting water where it falls that do not rely on shifting the water from Borumba to Somerset," she said.
Email a friend