Review of water supply-demand options for South East Queensland
- Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS and Cardno (Brisbane)
- Publication Type:
- 2007, pp. 1 - 146
- Issue Date:
This independent review aims to assess the Queensland Government's proposed strategy for meeting the long-term water supply-demand balance for South East Queensland, of which the Traveston Crossing scheme is a major and controversial component. The review, conducted by a team from the ISF at the UTS and Cardno, concludes that a diverse portfolio of options can ensure supply security for South East Queensland (SEQ) well into the future, certainly to 2050. Such options include: increasing water supply availability (supply-side options); decreasing the demand for water (demand-side options); and meeting water supply needs during deep droughts (drought response options). A number of the elements of such a portfolio are already being implemented as part of the current Queensland Government strategy. With the extension and addition of low unit cost demand-side options and supply-side drought response readiness options, a clear conclusion of this study is that the proposed dam at Traveston Crossing on the Mary River is neither necessary nor desirable as a part of the portfolio for ensuring supply security to 2050. The increase in supply from this proposed dam will not assist in the short-term during the current severe drought in which water (from savings and supply) is needed over the next two to three years. Planned completion of the Traveston Crossing Dam Stage 1 is in 2012. Additional time will be needed for the dam to fill, which could take an additional two years, resulting in the yield from this source only potentially being available in 2014. Neither is the Traveston Crossing scheme needed for supply-demand balance in the longer term with the suite of other more appropriate drought response measures being implemented by the Queensland Government and strategy being proposed as part of this study. The proposed dam at Traveston Crossing on the Mary River represents a high total cost, high unit cost, high risk and high environmental and social impact option.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: