Kurnell as a unit

From the outset it may appear that the various case studies and components of this blog are distinct, unconnected elements that are connected only by spatial proximity. Indeed, this is how industry most often portrays its presence in the Kurnell Peninsula. However it is far more than this. Each of these various elements- the oil refinery, sand mining, the desalination plant, the community, the Indigenous population, the environment- must be considered as parts of the same unit as there are numerous links between them (some of which have been made apparent in the articles on this blog). Industrial presence at Kurnell has a cumulative impact on the Kurnell Peninsula. We must not consider the environmental impacts of one industry in isolation from its neighbours. For example, the run off pollution associated with an increase in the extent of impervious surfaces (roads, buildings, etc) has increased as each new industry is built on the Peninsula, and the run off from each of these sites cumulatively affect Towra Point, introducing toxins, chemicals and waste solids. What may be a small amount of pollution from each individual industry adds up to be a large degree of pollution from industry in general. We must begin to consider Kurnell as a unit, and deal with it as such, if there is to be any chance of preserving what few historical and ecological features remain.

Here are just some examples of the numerous links between these elements:

• Industry presence has destroyed and damaged much of the Indigenous heritage in the area, which today demands protection and conservation
• Industry presence threatens the endangered ecological communities of Kurnell through habitat clearing and replacement with impervious surfaces
• Kurnell's historical character as a "fishing village" is threatened by industrial and municipal pollution which is affecting Towra Point and other ecosystems
• Efforts to revive Indigenous connection to their land (to reverse the dissociation from industrial development and white settlement) through projects such as "Towra Team" in turn focus on conservation of Kurnell's ecosystems 
• The community is today threatened by industrial activity both from the toxic pollutants associated with its presence, and the fact that long term sand mining is threatening the stability of the Peninsula, increasing the chance that climate change and strong storms could see the Peninsula become an island
• The community is at the same time also dependent on industry for economic growth and employment

Change is occuring in the Kurnell region. The community is increasingly resistant to further industrial presence- as has been indicated by protests against the Australand development and desalination plant- and are challenging the continued perception of the Peninsula as a site for noxious industry. However this voice struggles to be heard outside of local papers and seldom is presented to officials (even their own). At the same time there is a degree of dependence on industry for economic growth, as indicated by the concern surrounding the loss of jobs associated with the closing of the Caltex Lubricating Oil Factory. There needs to be alternative investment in the area, a movement towards light industry, in order that heavy industry can be removed without further detriment to the community.
 

Kurnell paradoxically contains some of Sydney’s most ecologically diverse and threatened ecosystems alongside heavy industry. Despite its significance as “the birthplace of modern Australia” (as labelled by Salt) it is still today considered “Sydney’s Back Door”. Efforts must continue to be made to change this perception of this important historical and ecological site, if there is to be any hope of preserving the remaining character of Kurnell.

To think about: Productivity for whom?

Botany Bay and the Kurnell Peninsula are areas of natural abundance. Fish, oysters, mullet, snapper and rays, possum and wallaby, berries, ochre, timber and roots, saltwater and freshwater can all be found there. The area provided a diverse and reliable source of bush foods, medicines and materials that sustained the physical and spiritual life of the Aboriginal people of Botany Bay for thousands of years.

The population supported by these food sources was significant, with Governor Arthur Phillip writing in 1788 that “These natives are far more numerous than expected, I reckon from fourteen to sixteen hundred in this Harbour, Broken Bay and Botany Bay”. 

With the commencement of settlement of the peninsula in 1815, land was cleared for farming and grazing, and industries such as oyster farming, seaweed harvesting and later sandmining developed with the aim of extracting resources to feed the Sydney’s growing demands for food and building materials. Les Bursill argues that “the degradation of the industrial sites means (the land) would be useless for traditional purposes now. The water is polluted, the native species have been taken out. It is just scrubland, it’s pretty but it’s just a place. It’s not productive land any more.”

Such statements raise questions about the nature of ‘productivity’. Although Kurnell is one of Sydney’s most productive industrial areas, with the Caltex oil refinery processing and manufacturing 130,000 barrels (20,670,000 litres) of oil per day and sandmining companies extracting millions of tones of sand annually, an understanding of the natural abundance that once existed on the peninsula raises the questions “productivity for whom, for what purpose and at what cost?”

Today the La Perouse Aboriginal community and Dharawal peoples living around Southern Sydney are working to restore the natural integrity of bushland at Kurnell and around Botany Bay, however large areas of land are now privately owned and irreversibly changed. The following two pages were put together by the Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation for a bush tucker track at La Perouse on the north side of the Bay. They show just some of the many fruits, berries and useful materials that still grow around Botany Bay.

Source

Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation, 2009, Guriwal Bush Tucker Track: Carving our culture, planting our future, Sydney: Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation 

Case Study: Desalination Plant- Environmental Impacts and Alternatives

The Kurnell desalination plant was approved in 2005 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 part 3A (critical infrastructure) and subsequently opened in 2009, costing 1.9 billion dollars, despite the fact that it was only meant to be constructed if dam levels fell below 30%, which they never reached. The plant produces “up to 250 million litres a day or 15 per cent of Sydney's water needs” (Tobin, 2009) the desalination plant will run for two years and then will likely be switched off unless dam levels are below 70% (Tobin, 2009).  

Part 3A decision making 

Part 3A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) was introduced in 2005 as a section that would allow ‘major projects’ and critical infrastructure’ to be assessed and processed in a different manner, compared to other developments. Part 3A put an emphasis the role of the minister of planning and diminishes the role of the public and other stakeholders, while reducing the consideration of negative environmental impacts, compared to developments approved under part 4 or 5 of the EPA Act.
 

It is clear that in the part 3A decision making process the minister of planning plays an integral role, it is ultimately the ministers decision if a proposal should be approved. Once the project has been declared by the minister to be under part 3A there isn’t much that anyone (public authorities or the public) can do to prevent a project from going ahead, for example certain environmental approvals are either exempt or cannot be refused. Therefore it can be considered that the minister has the power to take over the entire approval process for any project he or she wishes to and may have already made this decision before the formal decision making process is carried out. 

Environmental Impacts of Desalination 

There are many negative environmental impacts of desalination plants below is a description of the main ones in relation to Kurnell. 

Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Generation
The approximate energy consumption of the Kurnell desalination plant is 906 gigawatt-hours per annum and will generate 950,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum (Department of Planning 2006, p23). Although the plant is run on renewable energy sourced from Bungendore to offset the greenhouse gases to neutral, the Governments use of “greenpower to power this project... is a regressive step to use greenpower on an unnecessary project, which would be better used to reduce our present greenhouse emissions” (NCC,n.d). 

Impacts on Aquatic Ecology 

The intake pipes have potential for marine biota to be trapped and die, as shown by Cooley et al, (2006, p59) “large marine organisms, such as adult fish, invertebrates, birds, and even mammals, are killed on the intake screen (impingement); organisms small enough to pass through the intake screens, such as plankton, eggs, larvae, and some fish, are killed during processing of the salt water (entrainment)”. It has been estimated that about 2% of the total fish larvae population in the immediate area will be impinged or entrained from the Kurnell desalination plant (DPI,2006, p33). 

Impacts on Terrestial Ecology  

The Kurnell desalination plant also had effects on terrestrial flora and fauna with areas of flora destroyed and impacts on  threatened species such as “the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), the Nankeen Kestrel (Falco cenchroides) and Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) [which had once] been identified in associated with the desalination plant site in the past” (DPI, 2006,p36). 

Water Quality- Discharge  

There are several substances that are released from the Kurnell desalination plant that have negative impacts on the environment, where “anything in the source waters can be expected to show up in a more concentrated form in the discharges from water manufacturing plants” (Dickie, 2007, p13), including “high salt levels… concentrations of constituents typically found in seawater, such as manganese, lead, and iodine” (Cooley et al, 2006, p60) as well as any chemicals used in the process and corrosion of equipment. And also the dead sea life that was impinged and entrained in the input pipes, which through their subsequent decomposition will “reduce the oxygen content of the water near the discharge point, creating additional stress on the marine environment” (Cooley et al, 2006, p59). 

The brine also has an effect on the surrounding environment in that it is “negatively buoyant in seawater, giving… a tendency to sink and spread along the sea bottom, displacing normally saline water from hollows… (having) a devastating effect on sea bottom life which impacts more broadly on the entire bay or shallows ecosystems” (Dickie, 2007, p17). 

Also the ‘water’ that is discharged can also impact the surrounding thermal qualities of the water (Dickie, 2007, p13) near the outlet pipe causing impacts on the flora and fauna present. 

Impacts on Seagrasses 

The pipeline construction across Botany Bay, as shown the Nature Conservation Councils submission (2007), had great potential to adversely impact on the ecological characteristics of the Bay, where trench digging would cause significant loss of important areas of the seagrass posidonia australis, which was already a threatened ecosystem, which many benthic communities rely on for their habitat, and is extremely difficult to rehabilitate. The dredging of the pipeline can also mean that noxious weeds are broken up and spread, which may further impact on seagrasses in the area. Also many animals that rely on the seagrasses will be affected “such as sea dragons, sea horses, pipe fish and a range of fish and benthic life... (which) will have serious ramifications on the ecosystem of the Bay which relies on these sea grasses... (and) areas such as the adjoining internationally renowned Towra Point Nature Reserve will be impacted by this loss” (NCC, n.d). 

Impacts on Towra Point 

According to the Nature Conservation Councils (2007) submission the pipeline construction for the desalination plant will have impacts on the Towra point wetlands area, “the wetlands are threatened by impacts in the Bay that will reduce the marine life that the birds rely on for food through the reduction of seagrass or introduction of invasive marine weeds. There is also potential for turbidity to be increased within the bay” 

Waste 

The construction of the desalination plant and associated infrastructure such as pipelines produced a massive amount of waste, which as well as the environmental impacts of having to put this somewhere, also created problems with transport increasing traffic and the greenhouse emissions resulting from the heavy use of trucks.  

So was the desalination plant worth it/or necessary? 

There are various alternatives that could have been implemented using the 1.9 billion dollars it cost to construct the desalination plant, and that would have saved a lot of resources and prevented many environmental, and social impacts at Kurnell and the surrounding areas of Towra Point and Botany Bay.  

Alternatives to Desalination 

Recycled Water 

Recycled water is the main alternative of the desalination plant, the city of Sydney estimates that 70% of the water used in Sydney is taken to sewage plants, poorly treated, and then feed into the ocean, with only 2% of water being re-used. The reason Sydney water gives for not implementing a water recycling system is financial, claiming that it would cost $800 million more than the desalination plant. However others such as former Nationals Leader and water spokesman Andrew Stoner claimed that water recycling would indeed be cheaper and more efficient than desalination stating it is expensive and too energy hungry. Additionally water recycling has worked well in other countries such as California and Singapore (UTS, 2005).

A main reason why water recycling is not given as much weight is because of the social acceptance of drinking recycled water, or the ‘yuck factor’, for example a survey showed that 68% of Sydney residents would not be comfortable drinking recycled sewage. However this is not the case, but recycled water would in fact be cleaner than the water we are drinking today, therefore, some say with education the public will come to see this and become content with drinking the recycled water (UTS 2005). 

Stormwater Reclamation/ Rainwater Harvesting 

This would be mainly by the use of household water tanks that would catch rainwater runoff, and reduce the amount of stormwater lost by up to 90%, and would mean that, unlike now the majority of rainfall, which can be reused, by uses such as irrigation, would not be lost into stormwater (UTS 2005). 

Greywater Recycling 

Water from washing machines and bathrooms can be reused. This would require a significant investment but over the long run would save money and be more sustainable than a desalination plant. 

New Practices for Agriculture and Industry 

Agriculture an industry are the biggest users of water in Sydney using 90% of the water supply per year, according to the greens there needs to be low net water usage industrial processes, for example ending inefficient irrigation practices ie using below ground irrigation rather than open irrigation, developing low water demand crops, research into planting and watering techniques to minimise water consumption, and plans to force industry to recycle its waste water (Pip, 2007).

Sources

Cooley, H, Gleick, P & Wolff, G 2006 , Desalination with a grain of salt, a California perspective, accesed 9 October 2010, <http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/desalination_report.pdf> 

Department of Planning 2006 Major project assessment, Kurnell Desalination Plant and Associated Infrastructure: Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report Section 75I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, NSW Government 

Dickie, P 2007, ‘making water Desalination: option or distraction for a thirsty world?’, accesed 9 October 2010 <assets.panda.org/downloads/desalinationreportjune2007.pdf>  

Nature Conservation Council of NSW, n.d, Desalination protest Action, NCC, accessed 9 October 2010, <http://www.nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1755&Itemid=890> 

Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 2007, Submission desalinated water delivery system, NCC, accessed 9 October 2010, <http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1920&Itemid=946>  

Pip 2007, Alternatives to desalinated water, accessed 8 October 2010, <http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37063>  

Tobin, M 2009, Desalination plant a monument to stupidity, ABC, accessed 6 October 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/21/2777867.htm?site=news> 

 University of Technology Sydney,  2005, Alternatives to desalination, UTS, accessed 9 October 2010, <http://studentwork.hss.uts.edu.au/oj1/swerve05/ryan_water/alternatives.htm>

 

Case Study: Desalination Plant- Community action and impacts

The development of a desalination plant on the Kurnell Peninsula represents the latest industrial development in the area and a continuing trend to view and treat Kurnell as “industrial land” rather than as the ecological, historical treasure that it is. This industrial development was marked by heavy opposition from the community, environmental groups and the State Opposition with protests beginning immediately after its proposal. This universal opposition from the environmental movement stemmed from concerns about the ecological impacts of its presence and construction, as well as the massive power consumption that would be needed to run it. There is also significant economic concern associated with this plant as the $1.9 billion construction fee and operational costs are likely to raise Sydney water prices. Despite this opposition the plant was constructed and is currently operating and producing up to 250 million litres of water each day which is being pumped to Erskineville and contributing to Sydney’s main water supply. 

The impetus for such a project was NSW’s extended period of drought since 2001 which had led to water levels being deemed as critical and substantial water restrictions enforced. The decision was also influenced by similar developments in Perth (complete in 2006) and Victoria (due to be completed in 2012). Initial feasibility studies for this project began in 2005 with Kurnell ultimately selected as the preferred location (out of fourteen possible sites) based on the criteria that there was sufficient land space available, which was already zoned for industrial land and that its construction was in keeping with other industrial activity in the area. Additionally it was deemed a site that would keep construction costs and timing at a minimum and one “away from homes and schools”. Approval for this development was given in November 2006 with construction beginning in 2007 and the plant became operational in January 2010. 

The desalination plant has been constructed in a pre-existing industrial zone which was already largely cleared of its natural vegetation prior to construction. However this site also contained 15 hectares of habitat containing endangered ecological communities which although being retained on the site will undoubtedly be affected by their proximity to the plant. These include the endangered Grey-headed Flying Fox colony, Green and Golden Bell Frog, Wallum Froglet and Large Footed Myotis, and important biodiverse landscapes that will be affected by noise pollution and any further clearing. Although Sydney Water has agreed to monitor and manage these concerns it is yet to be seen what the long term consequences of the plant’s construction will be on these species breeding patterns and life cycle. 

In total the desalination plant occupies approximately 30ha of land, with 20ha of this being covered in impervious surfaces (such as buildings and roads) which will significantly increase the amount of run-off from the land and in turn affect nearby ecosystems (see http://kurnell.blogspot.com/2010/10/case-study-towra-point-in-focus.html). Despite the site being declared as “away from homes and schools” the plant is actually located on 750m away from Kurnell village and the local primary school is only 1km away. These details appear at odds with the conclusion that the site would have minimal impact on the community. Although during the post-construction period there are minimal noise, dust and traffic concerns these were a significant burden during its construction as was the giant sound barrier and construction walls established. There is also continuing visual pollution despite claims that the design of the buildings would integrate with the local landscape. These daily impacts on the community affect not only those in Kurnell but also the community at Bungendore where the Capital Wind Farm was developed to power the desalination plant. While this initiative is to be supported for addressing environmental concern about the increase in energy use that would have been associated with the plant, it has led to its own community protests and questions of injustice. 

However it is predominantly the construction impacts that were of prime concern to scientists and environmentalists, including the impacts of constructing the undersea pipeline. Such concerns were expressed in a Sydney Morning Herald article in September 2007 at the time when construction had been underway for a few months:

“Construction and operation of the plant would threaten smaller creatures such as sponges, giant cuttlefish and weedy seadragons. The noise might force migrating whales further out to sea...’People think of Botany Bay as a bit of a wasteland but it really isn't,’ Dr Williamson said. ‘Juvenile nurseries of fish and associated fauna live in remnant patches of seagrass’, she said. ‘Two types of seagrass occur around there - one that recovers quickly and one that takes a long time to recover. This will be fairly impacted.’ Dr Williamson said the area around the plant's outlet tunnel, which would be used to deposit waste water after the desalination process, could also be affected. ‘There is a rocky reef with a really diverse range of invertebrates such as weedy seadragons. Effluent would be dispersed at this site that will have warm saline water that will be highly turbid with increased nutrients. A number of sea urchin species could be wiped out’, she said. ‘The other problem is the dredging associated with attaching the pipeline to the sea floor. It could resuspend sediments, stir them all up. There could be historic industrial waste that could cause transient pollution events.’ (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/water-plant-we-might-not-need/2007/09/01/1188067429776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1) 

There were also a number of concerns about the necessity of such a plant since by September 2007 dam levels had returned to almost 60% (well above the 30% level which was to be the impetus for construction). Indeed dam levels had never reached the 30% which the State Government would be required before the plant would be constructed. This drew further criticism about the real motive and necessity of its construction. More recently there have been criticisms from the fact that the minimum running time of the plant has been increased from the two year period indicated to the regulatory tribunal to at least four years at maximum capacity, producing 75 billion litres in 2010, 85 billion the next year and 90 million for the following two years. Also from the fact that Sydney Water has stated the plant will only operate when dam levels fell below 70-80%--a level which has not been reached in NSW since 2001. Thus by all indications this plant will be used nearly all the time, without proof it is needed, increasing water costs indefinitely. 

Protests against this plant have occurred ever since it was first proposed back in 2005. Residents have throughout this time been concerned about the expense associated with the plant (which would raise water prices), the potential disruption of marine life from dredging in the bay to build pipelines, and their opinion that the plant is an unnecessary intrusion since dam levels were not near “emergency” levels. There was also significant concern about the associated increase in industrial presence in the area, with one resident stating that the area is “turning into an industrial quagmire” (Alan Shorton “‘Stop the Desal’ Protest”) and resentment that they had not been able to bring their concerns directly to Premier Iemma. A web page was set up by Kurnell residents during the campaign which demonstrates some of these concerns: http://www.kurnell.com/desalfacts.htm 

Source: "Desalination protesters demand attention", ABC News

A large public meeting was held in September 2007 with attendance from community members as well as opposition leader Barry O’Farrell, Greens MP John Kaye, and other councillors and politicians also against the proposed plant. Community members were addressed by Nathan Rees—then the Water Utilities Minister—who outlined the government’s reasons for this project, namely concern over rainfall variability, increased water demand from population growth, and the financial benefits of acting early. However the community was not satisfied by these explanations. A large community protest was then organised by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW on Thursday October 18th 2007 at NSW Parliament House. 

Source: Desalination Protest Meeting, Nature Conservation Council of NSW

It should be noted that Sydney Water did engage with stakeholders during the preparation of its Environmental Impact Statement, particularly with the various government departments concerned (including Department of Environment and Heritage, Department of Environment and Conservation, and Department of Primary Industry) and with local councils (the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council and Sutherland Shire Council). It also sought to inform the community through television advertisements, distribution of community briefings to Kurnell residents and public presentations about desalination. The public was also invited to forward submissions in relation to the Environmental Assessment during the 71 days following its release on the 24th February 2005. However these consultation efforts predominantly focused on informing the community of the government’s decision rather than engaging with the community on whether the plant should be built in Kurnell. This lack of public consultation and participation reflects the continued promotion of industrial interests over communities and is further to blame for the unhappiness surrounding the proposal. 

The long term ecological impacts of this project have not yet been reported as the plant is only in the early stages of its operation, however its economic costs have been noted. It was recently reported that the water produced by this plant costs approximately $2.24 per thousand litres compared to dam water which costs about 15 cents per thousand litres. It also consumes a significant amount of energy—on average between 3.5 and 4.3 kWh compared to dam water which uses 0.2 kWh—and although much of this is provided by a wind farm it is still a significant energy use. Put in perspective this means Sydney households will pay at least an extra $103 a year in water bills to pay for its construction. 

Overall, the Kurnell Desalination Plant represents a project that received no support from residents or from green groups, was labelled as unnecessary considering that dam levels never reached the critical 30% and appears to be a purely political decision, in reaction to a perceived threat that did not eventuate, and which may possible undermine future water saving and recycling initiatives. Whilst the extent of environmental damage associated with this plant has not been fully reported it has certainly had an impact on the community through increased industrial presence and economic costs. It also reflects the continued opinion that community consultation of the viability of a plant and suitability of a site is unnecessary but can be wholly determined by government officials. Furthermore it shows a persisting belief that Kurnell is merely an industrial site not a place of historical, ecological, community and Indigenous significance, and the continuation of industrial development and imposition that has characterised the Peninsula since the Caltex Oil Refinery was constructed in the 1950s.

Sources

Bita, N 2010 "Water's quick fix a long term drain", The Australian, January 23, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/waters-quick-fix-a-long-term-drain/story-e6frg6z6-1225822734703>

Bita, N 2010 "Desal plants fuel hikes", The Australian, July 22, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/desal-plants-fuel-hikes/story-e6frg6nf-1225895299244>

Edwards, H 2007 "Scorched earth for water plant we might not need", Sydney Morning Herald, September 2, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/water-plant-we-might-not-need/2007/09/01/1188067429776.html>

Jopson, D 2010 "Tilting at windmills: why failies are at war", Sydney Morning Herald, April 2, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/energy-smart/tilting-at-windmills-why-families-are-at-war-20100401-ri4p.html>
 
Nature Conservation Council of NSW 2010, Desalination Protest Meeting, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, accessed 27 September 2010 <http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?Itemid=890&id=1755&option=com_content&task=view>

Papadakis, M 2008 "Desal leads to a Great Wall of Kurnell", The Leader, February 21, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/desal-leads-to-a-great-wall-of-kurnell/501497.aspx>

Robins, B 2009 "Water plan rubs salt into ratepayers' wounds", Sydney Morning Herald, October 12, accessed 25 September 2010 <http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-plan-rubs-salt-into-ratepayers-wounds-20091011-gsdo.html>

Sydney Water 2005, Ch11: Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement, Planning NSW, accessed 27 September 2010 <http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/pdf/chapter11.pdf>

Sydney Water 2005, Ch4: Construction of the plant at Kurnell, Planning NSW, accessed 27 September 2010 <http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/pdf/05_0082_preferred_project_report_4_construction.pdf>

Sydney Water 2008, Annual Report 2008, Sydney Water, accesed 27 September 2010 <http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Publications/Reports/AnnualReport/2008/Performancereview/Water_efficiency.cfm>


Welch, D 2007 "Stop the desal protest", Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/stop-the-desal-protest/2007/07/03/1183351162581.html>


2007 "Desalination protesters demand attention", ABC News, July 3, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/03/1968206.htm>

2010 "Sydney gets its first taste of desalinated water", ABC News, January 28, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/28/2803186.htm>

Case Study: Activism, Industry and Community Interactions in Kurnell

While the main focus of this article is on the theme of activism and the way in which the values held by society, authority and residents can lead to conflict, I have attempted to approach this in an interdisciplinary matter such that the development of industry and community at Kurnell is examined in relation to dominant social movements, legal and scientific developments. In this way the events which occur on the peninsula can be examined in an interdisciplinary fashion which allows more extensive meaning to be drawn than from the simple examination of history or legal or industrial development. This article will proceed chronologically through the history of Kurnell attempting to draw in multiple factors surrounding major events such that we may examine the way in which these factors may influence the future of the peninsula. How different industries have developed in kurnell, and the presence and levels of activism in the community are closely related, but the perceptions and values held about the environment are also a significant part of this complex relationship. The level of success of activism in achieving positive outcomes in Kurnell and potential factors which increase or decrease the perception of success of activism will also be examined. Industry may promote resident activism when the values of the community or certain groups are infringed upon. It is also the influence of changes in the values held by society relating to industry and the environment, and the extent to which these views are concurrent which influences the level to which certain groups may feel that activism is needed to make a difference or have their views incorporated into official discourse.

Kurnell has had a long history of both being valued for its environmental and aesthetic values as well as its economic potential. Prior to the arrival of European colonists, there has been much evidence which supports the theory of extensive use of the area by Indigenous peoples. Following the European settlement at Sydney Bay, the area was considered too wild for human habitation and as such the area began to be considered primarily in terms of its value to the establishment of the colony. 

One of the key things which could influence the way in which the community responds to industry depends on how the way in which the ways in which the area is valued is affected by the development. For example, there was little protest when the original farming of the area began, in 1815, as this use of the land was consistent with the values which were held by both the colonial government at the time, and the majority of the European born population. This was a result of the dominant way in which the environment was valued at the time, as a resource through which human progress can be encouraged. While farming of the area was relatively unsuccessful, the area became valued instead for the wood and sand which it could provide as building materials for the colony. The establishment of a ferry established Kurnell peninsula as a recreational area was really one of the first ways in which area was valued in terms of its natural environment. This aesthetic valuing of the area has continued to the present day, with many of the current residents choosing the area for its natural views and the feeling of remoteness from the city. 

The toxic industry zoning of part of the Kurnell peninsula occurred in the 1950s at a period of time in which the development of the chemical industry was given many benefits as the increased development of pesticides and fertilizers were seen to be the way forward for developed societies. This was prior to the birth of the environmental or sustainability movement. In this way the use of the peninsula reflected the economic priorities of the government at the time. It was also this faith in scientific, particularly chemical, industries which prompted the state government of the time to approve the Kurnell oil refinery. This approval essentially forced the Cumberland County Council, which had already denied the application, to rezone 174 hectares which was then purchased for the oil refinery. It is interesting to consider that this action continued despite community outcry. While it is generally considered that a key benefit of industry is in providing jobs to the local community, most of the workers in the oil refinery were initially Dutch migrants housed separate from the community. So while the refinery did not initially provide employment to locals, the presence of these Dutch workers and their families ultimately changed the character of the local community. 

As with many other areas in Sydney, there was a distinct increase in resident activism in the 1980s and 1990s. This was a reaction, in part to the increased contact between high density residential areas and industry, especially toxic industry. As the city expanded, Kurnell became increasingly identifiable as a part of the Sydney metropolitan area. This subtly influenced the way in which the area was valued as there became an increased idea of a community identity distinct from that of the city proper. This feeling developed despite the increase in population being partially due to the decreased distance between the community and metropolitan facilities. However, the former fishing village identity of the community is still a significant part of the way in which the community is viewed by both residents and outsiders. 

In September 1985, one of the most significant conflicts between industry and residents began. It was at this time that land clearing began for the first development associated with the 4c4 toxic industry zoning which had been given to the area. Despite the fact that this change in zoning had significant ramifications for the Kurnell Peninsula in terms of effects on both the community and environment, there was no community consultation. The inquiry into the effects of the zoning change was discontinued before it was complete and no findings were published before the zoning was changed. 

In response to the huge public outcry, and the consolidation of all concerned citizens and action groups into the Kurnell Action Group a public committee was conducted in 1987 before the AGL petrochemical plant was approved. While this hearing mainly confirmed that the content of an environmental impact statement and “soft” promises can be made to manipulate public approval, it was useful for the group to gain experience. While the AGL plant was approved, the Bayer application for a pesticide plant was approved with much stricter conditons based on a similar hearing in which the Kurnell Action Group took a much harder stance. Through insisting that the environmental and community promises made by Bayer would be kept, and pursuing multiple other cases to ensure compliance, the German chemical company abandoned its already sizable investment as uneconomic in 1988. 

In the most recent decade there have been two significant events which have changed the way in which development can take place and the public can participate which have had significant impacts on the area and the extent to which residents have felt the need to protest. The first of these changes was the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cth) 1999, which changed the way in which environmental responsibilities are handled at both a state and federal level. While in many ways this act did not actually change the approval or building of any particular development, it meant that the perception of the law was that more was being done to protect the environment. While this did not affect the local area, overall perception was that more was being done to protect the environment. This in turn influenced both the prevalence of and amount of participation in activist groups. While in some cases the act may seem ineffectual, it did give a greater emphasis on protection of the environment, especially in circumstances under which international treaties applied, such as the case of Towra point. 

The second major change in legislation was the introduction of Part 3A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 in 2008, which allowed the removal of public participation for any development deemed to be a “major project”. One of the key developments to which this applied in Kurnell was the desalination plant, which was approved under the 3A amendment by the New South Wales government in 2008 despite both resident and general community disapproval. There was also further ineffectual protest regarding drilling and construction of the desalination pipeline. In this case it is the values held about both the value of the community identity, as well as the ecological and aesthetic value of the natural environment which caused protest of these developments. Since these recent losses, and since the period of increased activism in the late 80s, many of the resident action groups in Kurnell have decreased in activity and participation levels. This is most likely due to a combination of both the perception that both there is no part of Kurnell’s natural environment which remains truly uncorrupted, and the perception that activism has recently had no effect on the outcome of the decision making process. The future outcomes of environmental and community developments likely hinge on whether these perceptions change in the future. 

Sources

Butler, C., Risser, C. & Khavarpour, F., 1999. Factors associated with participation in resident action groups in metropolitan Sydney: a cross-sectional survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(6), pp.634-38.

Costello, L. & Dunn, K., 1994. Resident action groups in Sydney: People power or rat-bags. Australian Geographer, 25(1), pp.61-76.

Smith, G.J., 1990. A case study: Kurnell. In Toxic Cities and the fight to save the Kurnell Peninsula. Sydney: New South Wales University Press. pp.117-63.

Sutherland Shire Environment Council, 2008. Industry Intrudes. [Online] Available at:http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/our_bioregion/kurnell/history/industries/index.htm [Accessed 3 October 2010].

Sydney Morning Herald, 2010. Sydney desalination plant opens. [Online] Available at: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-desalination-plant-opens-20100128-n0jq.html [Accessed 4 October 2010] 

Case Study: Sand Mining- "Mining Sydney's Giants"

Since European settlement, the historic and picturesque Kurnell has been turned into an industrial wasteland, with a large part of this destruction attributed to sandmining, which has destroyed the iconic landscape that was once viewed by those aboard the Endeavour. Kurnell also holds historical claim as the landing site of Lieutenant James Cook, the first meeting between Indigenous Australians and white settlers, the site of discovery of Australia’s unique flora, among other important historical markers. 

The destruction of the dunes first began when they were used as grazing land for sheep and cattle, with the removal of the stabilising vegetation the sand hills began to move at a rate of 8m per year (SSEC 2008). As Sydney’s industrial sector began to boom the area turned into a mining hot bed. Since the 1930’s in excess of 170 million tonnes of sand has been extracted from the Peninsula, with the rate of excavation peaking in the 1960’s (SSEC 2008). Sandmining has not only changed the aesthetics of the Kurnell area, but has also lead to issues such as ground instability, destruction of various ecosystems and destruction of many of the area’s historical and cultural places, many of which are significant to indigenous peoples. 

These once enormous sand dunes characterized the Bay, covering over 405 hectares (SSEC 2008). “I can remember the dunes being so high you would think you could never reach the top. It was something that's unusual in the middle of a major city in the world, a towering sand dune. So it was fantastic place to grow up.” (Annette Hogan - 7.30 report). 

Now just one remains with scars of fresh water pools indicating where these giants once stood. To add insult to injury, the pools have been used as a dumping ground for local industrial waste that has contaminated the area’s aquifer, which runs underneath the protected RAMSAR wetlands at Towra Point. 

A number of companies/landholders have undertaken sand mining on the Peninsula, including Holt Group, Breen and Hookers. In 2001, 2004 and 2005 Rocla Pty. Ltd put forward proposals to mine a largely untouched portion of land on the Peninsula that would then be ‘rehabilitated’ to form the base for a light industrial park. The project aimed to mine a further 4-5 million tonnes of sand from the area, entrenching already existing problems and creating new ones in the process. Issues associated with such a proposal include, the destruction of the last remaining, and relatively untouched, sand dune, increases in key threatening processes to species such as the Golden Bell Frog (a highly endangered species in the area), inevitable further contamination of the aforementioned aquifer and the continued expansion of industry in the area. 

However, one of the biggest problems with the proposal is the further destruction of aboriginal campsites and their middens, which have already been largely destroyed by sandmining and development in the area. Shell middens are able to give us a great deal of information about Aboriginal activities in the past, as the types of shells, bones and rocks in a midden indicate the type of marine environment that was used, and the time of year when Aboriginal people used it (DECC 2008). The range of species and the rocks present are useful in studying the movements of groups within areas and possible trading between mobs. 

The introduction of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 has made it illegal to disturb, damage, deface or destroy any relic; a relic being defined as any deposit, object or material evidence relating to indigenous & non European habitation of New South Wales. While most of the destruction to Indigenous places and objects of significance occurred prior to this law, there has still be a general disregard for this Act, highlighted by the Rocla proposal. A large part of this destruction is attributed to the ignorance of these sites. Current management by government bodies is still along the same lines, limiting education about the locations of such sites is believed to overcome the difficulties that are faced in the managerial process. In Aboriginal law only a select few are permitted to maintain an area, referred to as their country, when these select people are unable to be found, or there are no survivors from a particular tribe, no one else is allowed access to the art in question. 

It is known that the proposed site contains at least one midden, which the company has vowed to protect. Rocla has designated the midden to have its own lot (3), which will be protected with mining and development going on around it. But what significance will this site have to Indigenous peoples when it is surrounded by a ‘light industrial park’? Surely it will lose its integrity and true meaning to Indigenous peoples. This incredibly important historical and cultural landmark has once again come up against ignorance about its integral value for both indigenous people and their relations with white Australians. 

Protecting these precious cultural sites are not only important to Australia’s Indigenous peoples but also aids in strengthening the relationship between White Australians and Indigenous peoples. For too long these significant places have been destroyed by industry and development in the areas around Kurnell. 

Les Bursill grew up in the area surrounding Kurnell, during this time he has seen the destruction first hand. Describing the mining as ‘sucking up the land’ and destroying the camp sites in the area, displacing charcoal and animal remains. The degradation of the sites means it would be useless for traditional purposes now. The water is polluted; the native species have been taken out. It is just scrubland, it’s pretty but it’s just a place. It’s not productive land any more” (Les Bursill 2010 in interview with Else Kennedy). 

For many years calls have been made to prohibit the renewal or granting of any new leases to mining in the area. With the election of the previous council in September 1999 moves were made, due to community pressure, for councillors to establish a committee to investigate the legalities of the current sand mining activities on the peninsula (SSEC 2008). In May 2001, Sutherland Shire Council gave notification to the Holt group (the largest sandminer on the Peninsula) that it intended to issue an order to halt some of their sandmining operations. The order was reportedly based on the fact that according to Council, the company has been removing sand from areas for which they did not have consent to do so (SSEC 2008). The fact that this had been going on for so long, unbeknownst to the council (or if it had been known the fact that such little concern was given to the issue) clearly indicates the disregard for the area. 

Evidently these hills have been ignored for too long, the time has come for effective and strong moves to be made in protecting what is left and rehabilitating what has been destroyed. Sandmining on the peninsula is highly unsustainable and if the precautionary principle were being implemented there would already be effective action. With the threat of climate change and associated increases in storm surges and higher tides there are fears that the peninsula will be separated due to the already present instability. There is the possibility that the operation could be moved offshore if it met the environmental impact assessments and was shown to have no significant impacts upon the habitats within the area affected. 

In September 2002 Dr Andrew Refshauge, State Planning minister at the time, announced a major study of the "entire Botany Bay catchment including the sensitive Kurnell Peninsula"(SSEC 2008), prompted by the reactions to the Rocla proposal. At the conclusion of the study a moratorium was placed on new developments until a future plan for the Peninsula had been made. However, there are currently no hard copies of this strategy plan, with it still only residing in draft form. 

The national trust has been incredibly vocal on the issues at Kurnell since 1952, calling for changes to be made to the handling of the area. In August 2002, the Trust commented on the Rocla proposal for sand extraction on Lot 8 DP 586986 at Kurnell:

“The National Trust has campaigned vigorously for the conservation of the Kurnell Peninsula, its landforms, flora and for the better recognition of its national historic significance since our organisation’s earliest days in the 1950s….The Kurnell Peninsula is equivalent in importance for the Australian Nation to Plymouth Rock and its surroundings for the people of the United States. The Trust has consistently opposed the industrialization of the Peninsula including the original establishment of the oil refinery. We look forward to the day when the refinery will be relocated, the land rehabilitated and added to the adjoining Botany Bay National Park. The treatment of the Kurnell Peninsula should be exemplary in presenting this area’s unique sense of place in its natural setting for Australians and overseas visitors. It is currently a disgrace.”

Numerous calls have been made by Indigenous peoples, community groups, the national trust and by member for Miranda Mr Barry Collier, to put a stop to sand mining in the area because Kurnell has already given enough; “We believe this assault on the birthplace of Australia, on our heritage, on our culture and on our history cannot continue. Sandmining, we believe, must come to an end on the Kurnell peninsula” (Barry Collier. Legislative Assembly, 23 February 2005). 

Kurnell’s sand dunes do not lie in the Miranda electorate but are in the state electorate of Cronulla represented by the same sitting member for the past 20 years. It is also in the Federal electorate of Cook, which has been held by the Liberal Party for 30 years consecutively and is presently held by the Hon. Bruce Baird. Mr Collier has extended offers of bipartisanship to Mr Baird however this has been rejected, limiting the outcomes that are able to come out of state and federal governments working together on the issues. 

As nothing has yet to be locked down, in the meantime, Rocla resubmitted its 2004 proposal in 2005 for further sand extraction to the tune of 4.5 million tonnes. 

There is no definite answer as to whether sandmining will again continue on the Peninsula. Community petitions have indicated a strong opposition to the project, which will hopefully be listened to and reflected in legislation. 

To read more about Mr Barry Collier’s fight for Kurnell Peninsula and against Sand Extraction Proposals refer to the following address. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20050223022

Sources

DECC 2008- Environment Climate and Water, 25/02/2008 ‘Shell Middens’, last viewed 10/10/2010, <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/ShellMiddens.htm> 

Kirstin Murrary-7:30 Report, 26/01/2009, Residents fight to preserve historic land, , last viewed 8/10/2010, <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2474453.htm>  

Collier, Barry, Kurnell Peninsula Sand Extraction Proposal, Legislative Assembly, 23 February 2005, Last Updated, 05/12/2007, Last viewed 30/9/2010 <http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20050223022 >

SECC, Southerland Shire Environment Centre, ‘Issues of Concern- Kunrell Peninsula’, last updated 31/10/2008, Last viewed 10/10/2010,<http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/issues_campaigns/kurnell/issues_of_concern.htm> 

Kurnell in the news

A recent Sydney Morning Herald article on Towra Point and Migratory Birds

"Habitat replacement keeps visitors posted" 

Jennie Curtin March 31, 2010

See: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/habitat-replacement-keeps-visitors-posted-20100330-rbli.html

IF you're about to fly from Sydney to the Arctic Circle to find a mate, it helps to have a place to rest and conserve your energy. Which is why the NSW Environment Department has installed artificial roosting posts at the Towra Point wetlands near Kurnell, where many migrating shorebirds come to escape the bitter northern hemisphere winter.

The birds, including bar-tailed godwits, eastern curlews and whimbrels, are following ancient migration patterns which can involve an incredible 17,500-kilometre round trip each year. The godwits have been tracked via satellite leaving the east coast in the autumn, stopping in the Yellow Sea between China and Korea to refuel, then flying another 6000 kilometres to Alaska to breed. On the return trip in August, some have been known to fly back non-stop - nine days without eating, drinking or sleeping.

The Towra Point Nature Reserve, under the flight path of some bigger birds in the form of 747s, is an important sanctuary and feeding ground for the visitors and one of the few remaining wetlands in the city which have not been lost to development.

The birds have for years perched on the local oyster leases, jetties and barges but in high tides these disappear. A local National Parks ranger, Jason Bishop, said many of the structures were also in bad repair. "We were concerned that without a planned replacement of roosting habitat, the birds coming to Towra Point in the future would not have enough roosting spots to support them,'' he said. The new structures, made up of 48 hardwood posts and 22 hardwood rails, stand four metres tall, well above the waterline in even the highest of tides.

But the new roosts will take some getting used to. Yesterday they were ignored by all but a few seagulls. A natural heritage officer with the department, Deb Andrew, said this was probably because they looked ''a bit too strange and new''. ''It's probably quite sensible to be wary of new things - it could be a trap - but we're sure that as they weather and the birds get used to them, they will use them.''