What is the best Brownhill Creek solution for the environment?

Is Option D the best Brownhill Creek solution for the environment?


One of the promotions behind proponents of Option D is that it is a dam is ecologically irresponsible, that we would be destroying the environment in this area. This has been picked up and supported by many people from around the greater metropolitan area and indeed country areas.

A similar argument, raised by the creek owners, is that the same is the case for the Eco system that is the creek itself. Drowned out as it where by the intensity of those promoting the no dam case this argument has gained no traction with the public. It has with me however as a decision maker.

Their argument is that creek widening too will damage the environment. They argue that the creek widening proposal under option D will potentially decimate a much more important and a delicate Eco system, which stretches from the area of the dam all the way to the coast.

The City of Unley website I suggest backs up this view encouraging creek owners to do the opposite to what the project is promoting.

The creek owners argue that the loss of trees (including significant) is far more significant than the loss of trees in the proposed dam area. The significant number of trees earmarked for removal and I suggest this will grow when push comes to shove will remove instead of create habitat for local wildlife as noted on the website.

With respect to those who have focused on the area of the dam, the creek itself I believe and suggest as it meanders from the proposed dam site all the way down to the ocean is every bit as ecologically important.

As a builder I am concerned that the number of trees identified as being lost under option D is too ambitious. Until construction commences we cannot determine with any confidence in such a tight construction environment how many trees may be vulnerable to the construction process.

If we don’t recognise this potential and give it due credence then I fear we will have storey after storey after storey of “sorry, it was an accident, it could not be avoided”. Too late when that happens.

1 Comment

  1. George   •  

    Well said, Don. There has not been enough “noise” about the environmental damage of Option D to the residential areas. Does the worthwhile environment really stop at the caravan park. There is already a great amount of “biodiversity” in the suburban creek with its dynamic mixture of native trees and exotics. Why are Non-natives so demonised by the project office and the no dammers??
    The “Seven Pines” so much revered by the No dammers (actually 4 as 3 died) are actually non-natives as well, but this is conveniently ignored and these non-natives must be saved. If non-natives are to be demonised anywhere it is more appropriate for them to be excluded from a public park (BHC Rec Park) and not from the suburbs. The desirability of Mitcham and Unley to their residents is, in no small way, due to the contribution of the non-native trees in the suburbs. What would Unley be like without it’s non-native street trees?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *