LETTER: Objection a dam shame
THE editorial (NM, 02/07) about to flood mitigation centred in objection around dams on the Burnett.
It drew a comparison with the failed Mary River Traveston Crossing fiasco of the past.
It is unfair and incorrect to draw this comparison.
The proposals in our case are to prevent or partially prevent the flood water from actually reaching Bundaberg city, which would alleviate massive problems here in the city and help a far greater number of people in the surrounding areas.
As a by-product this would also relegate to the rubbish bin the title of "flood prone" which with it the insurance premiums would reduce substantially.
The wording "dams" can be misleading in this case as it also encompasses the creation of diversionary channels so that the flood water is dispersed rather than left in the Burnett.
A by-product of this action is to put nature's gift of water to better use rather than waste it into the ocean as we presently do creating millions of dollars infrastructure damage on the way let alone the mental anguish that goes with the damage it causes to individuals' personal property.
This gift of water can be of great use to the farming community in that allows irrigation to land areas that previously did not have the resource allowing more farming crops which in turn produces more jobs and money into the community.
Agriculture is a resource that never expires or evaporates like mining etc as the world needs to eat and to eat you need food.
Eventually this industry will be the back bone of our economy.
So, to compare this project with the other is an injustice as the new proposal is entirely different and should be treated that way.
While the editor was correct in his views, they were based on previous experience but in this case it is like comparing a pineapple with an egg.