What is it? 

NEMA and CSIRO are spending $11 million of taxpayer money to model engineered water projects for the Northern Rivers. They are only modelling hydrology - ignoring possibly devastating social, environmental, and economic impacts. Many of these ideas are unworkable, threatening agriculture and fisheries, worsening mass fish kills, and turning the Baluun/Richmond River into an acidic dead zone.  

Last week the agencies held face-to-face consultation sessions, and an online public consultation process is now open until 5pm, Friday 15th August. 

Why is it a problem for nature? 

One particularly damaging proposal is to drain the Tuckean Swamp, once called the “Kakadu of the South”. Past drainage has already made its waters more acidic than lemon juice, causing repeated mass fish kills, including earlier this year. Further drainage would worsen these past mistakes, exposing highly acidic soils that could poison the entire catchment. It would also require a new manmade channel opening the Baluun/Richmond River Richmond River to the sea, causing untold further damage.  
 
These plans contradict current NSW Government restoration programs, and risk wasting substantial previous investment. It is unfortunate that NEMA and CSIRO are considering sinking public money into these projects that could destroy one of our largest coastal river systems beyond repair. 

Better alternatives for flood mitigation 

Nature-based solutions (NbS) use the natural processes of wetlands, riverbanks, forests, and floodplains, to slow, absorb, and safely redirect floodwaters, while also improving water quality, supporting wildlife, and benefiting local communities and economies. 

Examples include:  

• Restoring riparian zones in the upper catchment with ‘big scrub’ trees. 

• Restoring the Tuckean Swamp. 

• River and floodplain restoration throughout the catchment. 

• Combining NbS with targeted engineered (‘hybrid solutions’). 

In fact, Richmond Landcare is already working on a local NEMA-funded NbS project, which you can view here. 

Evidence shows that nature-based and hybrid solutions can deliver effective flood mitigation while also improving drought resilience, reducing storm damage and erosion, purifying water, increasing fisheries output, boosting biodiversity, and more. When non-hydrological factors are given fair weight, these approaches are often more realistic and beneficial than the destructive engineered options now on offer, particularly known harmful processes like draining acid swamps.  

NEMA itself has already invested in NbS - denying the community the ability to vote for them represents a highly flawed and biased process, undermining the scientific integrity and independence of the agencies involved.