Over time there have been a number of Brownhill Creek Myths that have been perpetuated by people on all sides of the various arguments. Indeed the project has been plagued by this since I first became involved.

It all began when the proponents of the no dam campaign kicked off their campaign with the first myth. We were being told that there would be a dirty great big concrete wall that would destroy the ambiance of the Brownhill Creek National Park.

I have responded to this in an earlier post this week, complete with a drawing showing what was actually proposed.

We then experienced another myth as those against hi-flow culverts in the back streets of Unley Park and Millswood, offered as an alternative, when we were being told that no-one would ever be able to drive to their home because the culvert would take up the full width of the street. of course these people could not visualise that the culvert would be enclosed under their street.

Next myth was when we started looking at a creek upgrade and we were being told that what we were proposing was concrete walls for the full length of the creek.

All of these were and are simply inaccurate.

At our last briefing we at Unley were reminded by our representatives on the steering committee of a number or other myths. Myth or truth….at the end of the day it is all about perspective and belief.

The biggest myth by the way is the promotion by the Steering committee that Option D was explored by them because this was the “preferred” option of the councils. As I have oft said this is not the case at all.

The motion moved at Unley by Cr Saies and Seconded by Cr Boisvert back in February 2014 in exploring a creek upgrade was that “the BHKC Steering Committee place priority on investigating a creek upgrade solution for the upper reaches of the Brownhill Keswick Creek (BHKC) stormwater project”.

Checking the City of Mitcham minutes they resolved the exact same motion and I believe without looking the other three councils would have voted  likewise.

Priority to investigating NOT preference for a no dam.

In the following May we also resolved our “support for the investigations taking place”, moved this time by Cr Boisvert and Seconded by Cr Sangster.

Make no mistake. Giving preference to a no dam solution was never a Council mandate.

That does not of course change the fact the the Project believes, after all that, that Option D is their preferred option which they have backed up with a lot of evidence.