In this coverage of last week’s general committee meeting of Noosa Council, I’m concentrating on a major historical issue which is posing a present day threat.
Did Noosa Council scrap a stabilisation scheme which would have prevented Noosa River eroding the sand spit that keeps it on course and protects Noosa Sound from inundation? And if they abandoned the program, why? Could it have been at the behest of people who favour the ‘natural’ over the ‘sensible’?
These questions were left hanging in the air as Noosa Spit eroded and I sat in the public gallery with the metaphorical two men and a dog at the General Committee meeting of council last week.
At the meeting Cr Ingrid Jackson asked about a May report which referred to the geotextile groyne and a submerged wall constructed at Dog Beach on Noosa Spit in 2012. She said it seemed that Stage 2 of this protective measure had been only partially deployed. I did a quick calculation which told me the works had started when Noosa was part of Sunshine Coast Council and then suspended after de-amalgamation. Well, well, well.
Mayor Tony Wellington confirmed these thoughts, saying that the Sunshine Coast Council proposal was to reinforce the river mouth – dredging the area and positioning rock groynes at both ends of Dog Beach. He expounded that ‘geotech bags’ had been trialled and they lasted for a few years but are now ineffective because the river channel changed. It was not an explanation. It did not enlighten us about why the council for nearly five years has neglected a problem which is now eroding Noosa Spit by about 15 metres a year and which will eventually (perhaps within three years or sooner if there is a major storm) break through the spit putting at risk Noosa Sound property worth (back of the envelope) $250 million dollars.
Cr Jackson took the matter a bit further than the Mayor. She affirmed that 45 metres of the spit had been eroded over the last three years, saying “we haven’t been proactive; we didn’t restart remedial work”. A staff member said dredging is costly – between $350,000 and $500,000 a year – and the council also had concerns about fish and bird habitats. He said sand could be pumped back but there would still be erosion.
Cr Jackson asked if staff were concerned there could be a breakthrough to Noosa Sound from Dog Beach. Yes, said the staffer, it is a concern. Cr Wellington then made an extraordinary remark. He said “it’s more likely there will be a breakthrough” but Noosa Sound is not in peril. Cr Jackson asked about erosion triggers, does the council have a plan of what steps it will take at each stage of the progression of erosion.
Cr Brian Stockwell said there was a need for management and the river mouth has to be protected and homes on the ocean side of Noosa Sound had to be protected. He uttered some words about “Dog Beach is secondary use” and “actions need systems”, adding that “we can’t stabilise the river mouth if we want a Biosphere”. It was all very confusing.
Cr Frank Pardon said a shoreline erosion management plan should proceed with urgency as there is a real problem. He said a breakthrough would be disastrous and there need to be lots of pumping to protect Noosa Sound. He was also concerned about flooding along the Noosaville foreshore.
Cr Wellington said any action will affect the rest of the river and the council needs expert advice. (Five years after abandoning work on an existing problem which has become much worse and now poses a real threat, the penny drops.) The Mayor repeated that “channels can change” and said “we need to look at the whole river system; we need hydrological advice”.
Cr Jackson reinforced that the council is working with an unnatural not a natural system. The river mouth had always moved around, now it had to be contained and Noosa Spit and Noosa Sound had to be protected. She supported the process but said she was concerned by the risk of a possible breakthrough after a major storm.
Cr Joe Jurisevic said man can’t interfere with environment (I think he meant shouldn’t) and that Dog Beach looked okay and “we need a plan but it will be difficult” (not helpful).
Cr Pardon re-entered the discussion and said the flood lines in Noosaville were already at capacity from recent heavy rains and he was concerned about more flooding and its effect on infrastructure.
Cr Jackson placed a number of questions on notice, which were answered by staff at the subsequent ordinary meeting (and I acknowledge Cr Jackson Facebook page from which the following information is drawn, including summaries of answers by staff):
- What remedial steps were actually taken and not taken in 2012?
Answer: The area that is currently eroding was part of Stage 2 which was not completed, including the second part of the submerged closure and the intermediate groynes designed to provide protection to the face of the Dog Beach. - At the current rate of erosion, what is the likely timeframe before the river might break through to Noosa Sound?
Answer: At the narrowest point, there is approximately 45 metres of well elevated and vegetated bush land followed by 15 metres of low-lying wetland. This should therefore provide protection for 3-5 years approximately based on current rates. - What is the probability of a major storm that could cause severe erosion problems and even break-through?
Answer: Short term acceleration of erosion is expected during storms. However, given there is a suitable buffer of well-established trees at this current time the risk, at present, is relatively low. - What are the erosion trigger points for immediate remedial action to avoid break-through?
Answer: The principal outcome of the shoreline erosion plan would be to provide action-based trigger lines. At present the loss of all large trees would be considered a trigger line for emergency works if the management plan is not complete.
The council unanimously agreed to engage consultants to develop a shoreline erosion management plan and to report quarterly on the status of erosion at Noosa Spit. Whether this is enough I cannot say. Perhaps it will take one major storm to tell us the answer. It seemed so little after so many years of neglect.
I’ve focused on this issue at some length because it presents as a critical matter which tests Noosa Council’s ideology, competence, capabilities and resources. If there is any ‘let Nature look after it’ in the response, the erosion of Noosa Spit could well end in tears.
Other matters
Anyway, let me briefly touch on other matters that came before this general committee meeting.
There was considerable discussion about changing some of the staff recommendations relating to the proposed Backpackers Bounce Hostel in Mary Street (see my column of 13 November, ‘River poses imminent threat as Council splashes around’). Amendments were made but everyone ended up happy with their handiwork.
Cr Stockwell got his way on the mango tree at Cooroy (see my column of 23 October, ‘Councillors try to design a unit block on the run’). The driveway of the Cooroy unit development was moved to another location and the mango tree was saved. Let’s hope the change won’t compromise vehicle safety as the outlet is a busy road.
In passing I found it strange that there was no comment on what was a comprehensive Annual Report and no introspection when the Financial Report and Capital Works Budget Review (BR2) were tabled. But maybe it was just me.
