The legitimacy of Local Environment Plans (LEPs) for councils in Northern NSW is under a cloud following failure of the State Government to provide a completed Far North Coast Regional Conservation Plan (RCP), a critical planning document for the LEP process.

The State Government made it clear in 2006 that the Regional Conservation Plan was essential to proper planning yet here we are in 2010 and the plan is nowhere to be seen.

It is supposed to be part of an ‘integrated package which defines development and conservation outcomes for the Far North Coast for the next 25 years’. It is critical to seeing whether a LEP is sustainable or not.

Richmond Valley Council embarked on development of its own LEP in 2005. NSW Planning gave permission recently for public comment on council’s draft LEP (see background material), but how could the Director-General give permission knowing that a critical planning document was missing? How did Council develop its Draft LEP if crucial information was not available? And how can the public make comment if the critical planning document is not there?

The missing RCP raises questions about the legitimacy of LEPs already developed in other Northern NSW councils, but more importantly raises questions about the motives of the NSW State Government.

Why has the State Government kept this important information from the public? Why is it hiding information critical to the future of the Far North Coast? And why haven’t we heard a peep from councils?

The public has every right to know what is going on as we will have to live with the consequences of the LEPs, part of the NSW Government’s defective planning process.

Further information: Dr Richard Gates, President, The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Tel 02 6682 5161 or 6682 6410 ragates@netspace.net.au.

Media_Release_EMAC_re_RCP_and_LEPs_Sept_2010

Dr Vanessa Wong takes samples at Rocky Mouth Creek after the 2009 flood.

Research solves fish-kill mystery

Coraki, November 1, 2009 – Researchers have pinpointed the cause of fish kills which often follow floods on the Richmond River floodplain.

Studies during the past 20 years have shown that a large amount of deoxygenated water flows into the Richmond estuary system as floodwaters drain away, but its source has been unclear.

Acid run-off from oxidised acid-sulfate soil also has been suspected of causing the kills. Evidence now shows this is not the case.

A two-year study, led by Southern Cross University (SCU) environmental scientist Dr Vanessa Wong, is complete and the results are due to be published soon.

Dr Wong said a team of more than 20 people including fishers, Department of Primary Industry (DPI) Fisheries staff, Richmond River County Council (RRCC) staff, NSW Sugar staff and SCU students took more than 200 water samples from across the estuary following the January 2008 flood and the one in May this year.

A major fish kill followed the 2008 flood, while there was no such event this year.

“We’ve tied down exactly where the deoxygenated water is coming from,” Dr Wong said.

“There was some concern previously that these deoxygenated waters were coming from the upper estuary.

“We found that it wasn’t the upper estuary at all. The source of the deoxygenated waters was the mid-estuary ‘back swamp’ basins and other low-lying areas.”

On site, the team members measured dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH and temperature. They then collected samples to test for trace metals, nutrients, chemical oxygen demand and dissolved organic carbon in the laboratory.

“During the flood recession in January 2008 the pH was near neutral,” Dr Wong said.

“There was very little or no acidity that was discharging at the time of the fish kills. We know now that the fish kills are not caused by acidic discharges.”

Dead fish in the Richmond River, near Ballina, after the 2008 flood.

Dr Wong said the major difference between the two floods was the temperature, which was much higher during the 2008 event.

“During the January 2008 flood, the entire river was deoxygenated all the way down to the river mouth at Ballina. Even at Ballina, there was no dissolved oxygen.

“However, recovery of the river took place in an upstream direction and this started two weeks after the flood peak. So dissolved oxygen returned to normal levels at Ballina first, and then it moved up the river. Recovery occurs when regular tidal movement re-introduces oxygenated water into the river.

“Having the two floods, one followed by a big fish kill and one without, was actually quite useful in terms of research, because we could really start to determine what is driving deoxygenation.

“Firstly, there’s the effect of temperature, which will play an important role when we start linking in climate change.

“From the 2008 flood we were able to tie down the sources of the deoxygenated water, because of this fantastic group of volunteers who went out and took samples for a month after the flood peak across the whole estuary – from Lismore, downstream all the way to Ballina including the back swamps and the main river channel.

“It was a really good spread of samples across the estuary and it was a really good spread of samples in terms of time as well.

“When we analysed these samples we found that the upper estuary waters, upstream of Coraki, remained oxygenated. The river channel remained oxygenated in the upper estuary.

“So, we were able to say that the deoxygenated waters were coming from elsewhere.

“Deoxygenation of the river channel usually happens downstream of the back-swamp basins, in the Tuckean, Rocky Mouth Creek, Bungawalbyn Creek systems. We could determine this by looking at dissolved trace metals and other indicators of deoxygenating processes. And this all starts to happen within about a week of the flood peak.”

Dr Wong said floodwaters were stored on the floodplain in sub-catchment storage areas.  These waters were held behind natural riverbank levees and could not flow out until the main river dropped, which could take six days to nine days.  When the main river dropped the stored floodwaters started to discharge with high velocity.

The 2008 flood plume at the Richmond River mouth.

In the past, back swamps in these storage areas remained inundated for about 100 days after the main floodwaters had receded. However, now drainage works connected these wetlands to the river and instead of slowly evaporating floodwaters flowed from the back swamps in a matter of weeks, which had led to wetland degradation.

“The drainage systems have also changed the vegetation on the floodplain. Native vegetation was dominated by wetland species, which were a lot more tolerant of water-logging. Now, the back swamps are a lot drier and dominated by pasture species which are intolerant of flooding.

“When these pasture species are flooded they die. Once they die, micro-organisms decompose the dead vegetation which consumes the oxygen in the floodwaters. Decomposition processes drive the oxygen down, resulting in very little oxygen in the over-lying floodwaters.

“When these floodwaters, which have no oxygen, recede they are exported into the main channel. That’s basically what causes the big fish kills.

“So there are two main drivers for deoxygenation – the change in vegetation and the extensive drainage systems on the floodplain.

“The other factor in these events is temperature. In January 2008 higher temperatures presented an ideal environment for the micro-organisms which decompose vegetation. The warmer it is, the faster these ‘bugs’ can decompose vegetation and the faster they consume oxygen.

“In May this year the water temperature was a lot lower. Water temperature at Wardell, for example, was about 17 degrees, which was about 10 degrees less than what was found in January 2008.

“So, even though the floodplain was deeply inundated, causing a lot of vegetation to die, the lower temperatures slowed down decomposition. As a result, there was a drop in dissolved oxygen but no deoxygenation event and no fish kill.”

Graphs of water temperature and dissolved oxygen at Wardell during the two floods.

Dr Wong said that now the source of the deoxygenated water had been confirmed there were management implications.

She said there would be many impacts of climate change.

“Up here they are predicting more extreme events, which suggests more frequent flood events,” she said. “That could lead to more deoxygenation and fish-kill events.

“They are predicting higher temperatures, which also drives these events. Where once it was cooler, with increase in temperature you end up with an event where you didn’t have one before.”

Dr Wong said many areas on the floodplain were already either at sea level or below it.

“The other big impact will be from sea-level rise,” she said. “If the sea level is higher, these areas are going to be inundated more often and the water will take longer to drain off the floodplain.

“So, with climate change, there are a whole lot of factors which will probably increase the frequency and severity of these events.”

The study, titled ‘Impacts of sea-level rise on surface water quality on coastal floodplain wetlands’, is supported by the RRCC, the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority and the Australian Research Council.

Australian Seabird Rescue (ASR) cofounder and president Marny Bonner is off to the Gulf of Mexico to assist with wildlife rescue in the wake of the BP Horizon oil spill.

She and ASR South Coast founder Julie Clarke will assist with training and counselling of US rescue volunteers. They also aim to arrange a partnership with an appropriate local wildlife agency and source accommodation, transport and other logistics to enable an ASR rescue team to depart for the US as soon as possible.

This blog will contain her occasional posts from the Gulf rescue frontline.

ASR has launched a fund-raising appeal to help meet the costs of its rescue efforts.

ASR projects manager Keith Williams said: “In Australia we have caught thousands of pelicans, gulls and terns that can still fly.

“Our volunteers have experience from the Tasmanian Iron Baron oil spill, are registered with the BP Horizon Response Centre, have completed post-emergency oil spill clean-up training and have passports ready.

“We can provide immediate assistance, and can train local wildlife carers for a sustainable response.”

ASR is an Australian Federal Government registered environment organisation and is endorsed as a tax deductible gift recipient, ABN 51 972 455 398.  ASR members are licensed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.  Donations can be made online at www.seabirdrescue.org.

The Local Government Act 1993 predominantly sets out what Local Government is to do, how some things are to be done, and the responsibilities of various stakeholders.

For example:

CHAPTER 2 – WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT?

CHAPTER 3 – WHAT IS A COUNCIL’S CHARTER?

CHAPTER 4 – HOW CAN THE COMMUNITY INFLUENCE WHAT A COUNCIL DOES?

Chapter 4 notes as follows from the LGA web site “Under this Chapter, meetings of the council and its committees are required, as a general rule, to be open to the public.
The Chapter provides for public access to information held by councils.
Apart from the provisions of this Chapter, members of the public may influence council decisions concerning matters such as the levels of rates and charges, the terms of community strategic plans, delivery programs and operational plans, the granting of development consents, etc (which are dealt with in later Chapters) by participating in council community engagement activities including by making submissions to the council and comments on or objections to proposals relating to those matters.
The Chapter also enables the council to ascertain the views of the local community on various matters through two types of polls which may be conducted in the area. A summary of these polls is contained in Part 3 of this Chapter”

When the flow diagram is viewed to see how the various entities relate within local government it shows a separate and direct linkage from the Local Community to the following: to Elected representatives (Councilors), to the General Manager, to the Public Officer and Staff, to the Department of Local Government and its Director General, to the Minister and to Parliament.

Good to know that anyone from the community can directly contact any or all of the above.  These entities are also connected into two smaller groupings with connections travelling from Councilors to the General Manager who connects to Staff, and another set of linkages between the Department, the Minister and Parliament.  A linkage is not shown between these two groups.

Why is community input so important?  Because Local Government as a tier of government, the real grass-roots level, it does not have an Opposition as such.   State and Federal levels do have Oppositions to provide a recognised form of check and balance. Local government needs the community to be its check and balance.

Community members need to write, or contact their respective Council about matters of concern, make submissions, and express their views on the operational matters (as deemed by staff) and on the policies from the elected representatives.

Under the Local Government Act 1993 some policies or strategies are to be presented on public display for certain periods of time, usually somewhere between 14-28 days so that the public is aware of the matter to then be able to make comment. For example each year the rates and charges for the coming year go on display for public input before going to Council for endorsement.  Community input can result in a change to what was originally proposed, but without knowing the community’s views it is likely that no changes are made.

How this feedback is treated and presented to the elected representatives so that they are informed of what the community feels or thinks on a particular matter is very important. For instance sometimes submissions are presented in full, other times a summary is made by staff or a consultant of received submissions or from verbal feedback from consultation meetings.  Direct contact with elected representatives is a good feedback mechanism.

Good governance needs to include open, clear and respectful two-way communications between the community, the elected representatives, staff, public servants and other levels of government.  If you feel strongly about a matter, whether on public display for submission, or just something that has arisen that you are concerned about, provide the feedback to those who are responsible.  Sometimes it is what is not said that can lead to an assumption that the policy or decision is accepted, when in fact such decisions may cause concern and worry within a community.

Sometimes we may feel powerless wondering what an individual can accomplish.  History has shown at times it only takes one person to speak up, others agree, and then the momentum builds, with the silent majority no longer being silent.  The vocal minority can often take over the agenda simply because they are more passionate or prepared to speak out about their views.

We live in a great democracy and by the nature of this system the majority view must be taken into account for consideration.

It is up to a council as to how open and inclusive it is with its residents as the Local Government Act  is often written in loose general terms with the degree of intent left to interpretation.  For instance, this sentence; ‘meetings of the council and its committees are required, as a general rule, to be open to the public’.  Some councils have open information sessions or workshops whilst others do not open such sessions to the public. Matters of a confidential nature are excluded from public attendance which is understood and accepted, as long as this provision is not abused to exclude the public.

Councils adopt a Meeting Code of Practice under which they operate. These codes of practice outline details of operation based upon the requirements, but councils can and do vary in this detail, albeit all councils operate under the same Local Government Act in NSW.   For example notices of meetings are to be given to the public.  This is done in basic information slots of when, where and what (ie council meeting) but some also include additional information such as providing some agenda items in the public notice of the meeting.  Both comply with the Local Government Act, but one by providing this additional information seems to invite the community to attend the meeting, pleased for their attendance to listen to discussions and decisions.   It is a small extra piece of information that can make a difference to create community inclusion or to feel that the community is not truly valued and it is only due to a legislative requirement that a notice is given.

Local Government is there to provide certain services for its community, whether from a state perspective with the Department of Local Government or locally within a council area. On either level, if there is no community participation then more likely the provision of policy and services will be mediocre compared to vibrant if community input, whether positive or critically constructive, is present.

Diagrammatically the Local Community is depicted as a part of the Local Government framework.  Whichever way you look at it, Local Government, as with all tiers of government, is there to serve the community for the betterment through their respective areas of responsibility, but this only works well when decisions and actions are accountable and transparent.  Community input is needed.

Donella Kinnish

I attended a meeting of Ballina Shire Council on Thursday, its first meeting for 2010. What a pleasure!

The venue was good with gallery seats not far from the councillor table. It was a meeting ‘in-the- round’ with some of the intimacy of a Padua theatre as the gallery seats were higher than the councillors’ table. You felt as if you were part of the meeting, not isolated in some public gallery far away from the action, as is the case with the Richmond Valley Council Chambers layout where there is, sadly, a barrier between the public and councillors, making it very much a ‘them-and-us’ arrangement.

While the public part of the meeting went from 9am until 4:30 with a 40-minute lunch break and 20 minutes for morning tea, a long day to sit and listen, it was well worth the effort. After 12 years of attendance at Richmond River Shire Council meetings and the amalgamated Richmond Valley Council it was refreshing to see a well run meeting where the level of debate was an order of magnitude better than you will ever see at Richmond Valley Council meetings.

It was very clear that most, if not all, councillors had done their homework prior to the meeting. They knew the issues and spoke directly to them. The meeting was relaxed with the Mayor, Phil Silver, allowing, nay encouraging everyone to have their say, while at the same time there was a firm hand on the reins when the discussion was not directly pertinent to the matter being considered.

The exercise of parliamentary rules was also terrific with points-of-order and procedures for the putting of motions and amendments and foreshadowed motions running appropriately and in a disciplined fashion. But most of all I enjoyed the tenor of the meeting which was devoid of snide remarks and personal inuendo, a hallmark of Richmond Valley Council meetings and something of which it should not be proud. If the discussion even looked like going into personal territory at Ballina, the mayor nipped it in the bud before it got away. What a contrast to Richmond Valley Council!

The business papers were well presented and councillors were often given options with preferred recommendation nominated by staff. The absence of personal, pejorative remarks in the written reports by the professional staff was wonderful. It was interesting to see the discussion moving backwards and forwards with significant effort made to get the right outcome. You had a sense of the councillors and staff working together to get a good pragmatic resolution.

Now, I’m sure Ballina council is not perfect. A long-term gallery member told me after the meeting that they weren’t always like that. But since they brought in recordings of meetings, which by the way are available to the public on request to take away and view at your leisure, the standard has improved tremendously.

A Boundary Change
So, why go to a Ballina Council meeting? Well it is part of the homework some of us are doing prior to making a formal application to the Minister for Local Government for a Boundary Change. The proposal is to move the coastal areas of Richmond Valley Council to Ballina Shire so that we become part of that Council.

There are many reasons for wanting to do this including a fairer rating structure so that coastal ratepayers are not penalized for living at the coast, which is very much the case now through the unfair rating structure which has been imposed on us, particularly when council had other options to make it fairer. But there are many other reasons. We have more in common from a planning perspective. We are a coastal area and Ballina is a coastal area, and so on. But probably the most important reason is that we are more likely to get a ‘fair go’ with Ballina. Ballina is a council with ridings. And my reading of the council meeting at Ballina is that we are more likely to be heard.

The present situation is one where we are dominated by a Casino-centric council which is not prepared to listen to what we are saying as a community. Certainly the current mayor did not listen to what the ratepayers and residents of the former Richmond River Shire Council had to say when more than 75% of us said no to amalgamation. He ignored us and was rewarded with a seat on the Boundaries Commission.

It would seem very little has changed since that time. Under Section 215 of the NSW Local Government Act a proposal for a boundary change may be made to the Minister for Local Government … “by an appropriate minimum number of electors”. Under Section 215(2) “An appropriate minimum number of electors is: (b) if a proposal applies only to part of an area – 250 of the enrolled electors for that part or 10 per cent of them, whichever is the lesser.”

As many of you already know, we have a petition circulating to obtain the support of electors for a boundary change to go to Ballina. We already have three times the required number but would like to reach a higher number so that we can make a clear statement to the State Government that we have strong support. And most important of all, there is no point in applying if we don’t have strong support from the community for such a move otherwise it would be the Richmond Valley Council amalgamation all over again. A well supported petition from the ratepayers is the litmus test.

If you want to go to Ballina please sign the petition which is circulating currently. If you would like a copy of the petition and will collect signatures from ratepayers and residents please contact me by email: valleywatchdog@netspace.net.au. The more hands to the pump the better.

Dr Richard Gates, 29 January 2010

VW#2

Return of the Dog

Since the demise of the Richmond River Sun last year there’s been no vehicle to put a regular ‘Valley Watchdog’ column to the people of the Richmond Valley Council area and it looks as if this is not about to change. The Sun is not about to come up tomorrow (with apologies to the philosopher David Hume).

Judging by the feedback (heavy pestering is closer to the mark!!) from a number of readers it’s time to resurrect the Valley Watchdog.

Quite apart from the pestering there is, in my view, a real need for some critical reporting on the activities of local, state and federal governments.

The popular media frequently serves up the spin-doctored or ‘sexed up’ (thank you Tony Blair) press releases of government without critical comment or review. Often the article is just a ‘cut and paste’ from the release with appropriate quotes inserted to make it look as it there has been a genuine interview when it is not so.  The quotes are in the release.  Not a word is exchanged over the phone or face-to-face.

The reasons for this lack of critical review are many but often time constraints and deadlines figure prominently.

But sometimes the advertising bottom line also figures. They’re not about to bite the hand which feeds.  As one senior journo once told me, “we are not here in the ‘public interest’.   We are here to make sure shareholders get value for money”.   Enough said.  Fortunately not everyone’s like that and there is some good journalism from time to time.   Finding the balance between profit and public interest can be difficult.

Sometimes a journo writes a critical article, a nice piece of work driven by the ideals they learned in journoschool or which took them to learn the trade in the first place.  But a big hand reaches in and says ‘no, not this time’ with an off-the-record explanation as to why which revolves around their future.   And some heavy editing follows.  And you get to see the uncritical populist pap which necessarily follows.

Journalist Paul Shaw, known to many of you because of his significant contribution to the success of the Sun, and more recently some excellent significant feature articles in the local press, has agreed to host Valley Watchdog. However responsibility for the column is mine.

The plan is for a weekly Watchdog to be published at this site on Wednesdays.   And there may be some variation to that schedule depending on what’s hot at the time and needs urgent attention because of government-imposed deadline.

So here we go again Dear Reader.   Sit back, don’t relax (there’s been far too much of that lately hence the parlous state we are in) and take the ride.   I’ll be looking to you for feedback and information to help make this an effective Valley Watchdog with both bark and bite.

Dr Richard Gates,   24 January 2010

VW#1