Condamine Gorge Petition

This article is included on behalf of residents of the Condamine Gorge.

The Condamine River Road near Killarney traverses the Condamine Gorge which is an area of high ecological and historical (and likely Indigenous cultural significance) and used to be loved by locals and visitors alike for picnicking, horse riding and swimming.

However, previous promotion of the road as a 4WD track by council, these pastimes have practically been pushed out by unsustainable numbers of vehicles who love driving through the water (and often even up and down the creek bed), particularly after wet weather.

This puts pressure not only on the fragile aquatic environment, but also council’s responsibility for public safety and road repairs.

While council displays ‘road closed’ signs when the crossings are too deep to be crossed safely, these are routinely ignored by drivers, putting their passengers and emergency services at risk.

After intensive community and stakeholder consultation and commissioning a detailed assessment by an engineering firm, the previous Council realised the significant community opposition to any engineering solutions (a petition in 2019 to keep the crossings natural attracted more than 1800 signatures) and instead agreed to trial a permit system.

However, the current council claims a permit system is not possible and within a few months of coming into power has undone all previous consultation to push ahead with its plans to install the cheapest version of engineered solutions being bedlevel crossings. Constantly submerged concrete crossings are known to fail, which can be seen right around the region and the Council has not provided any plans as to how it will source funding to expensive repairs of such infrastructure in future. While providing uniform depth, bedlevel crossings do not provide flood immunity and we argue that without additional measures to curb numbers, the likely increase in traffic volumes will negate any beneficial effects on reduced sedimentation and public safety. Any obstruction to river connectivity is proven to have negative effects on aquatic life to migrate and may lead to stagnant water and growth of toxic algae during low flows.

We still have healthy populations of platypus living in the Upper Condamine while they seem to have disappeared out of the other tributaries.

We have launched a paper petition to SDRC council (forms are due back on March 6) to respect the communities views that the river and the natural beauty of this area should be preserved and stop its plans to concrete the 13 remaining river crossings.

There are win-win solutions (and state funding) to be had looking at alternative and more sustainable uses for this area using a slower form of tourism.

We are also petitioning the QLD government (closing on March 26) to assist SDRC in these endeavours. This petition can be electronically signed by all QLD residents.

Barbara and Peter George, Killarney

Update from Barbara and Peter George Killarney, 24 February 2023

We would like to respond to the media statement by SDRC (17 Feb 2023) that the current decision to go ahead with the cementing of the river crossings in the Cambanoora gorge was decided by a consultative working group.

We were part of this working group after an invitation by council in April 2021 to form a working group with various stakeholders to “work through options for opening and closing of the road, looking at each crossing and the velocity of depth of water as a safety consideration”

In its media release the Council now states a different purpose for this working group: “The purpose of the group was to consider the information that had been collected, review studies and explore any common ground between the parties who were attending meetings to talk passionately about the potential solutions.”

The media release also states: “The CRRWG held several open meetings with the last being in July 2021. Council records show that at the final meeting of the CRRWG the group identified and agreed upon the four crossings to be progressed for engineering design, funding application and government approval.

How did we go from April 2021 looking at a road closure policy (we are still waiting for that one) to a decision in July 2021 to pursue cement crossings, despite huge community opposition and the previous council coming to a resolution in September 2020 to steer clear of engineering solutions? Well, that was only possibly by the Mayor completely railroading the discussion during that meeting towards a cement solution. The Mayor even threatened to have one of the participants of the working group removed who was speaking out against this sudden turn around. In a far cry from being consultative and making careful decisions, the Mayor eventually asked the group which four were the most problematic crossings during a high river. The group mentioned a few without too much deliberation. The Mayor gave the impression that the council would go away to gather some more information such as costs and potential funding and would come back to the group at a later meeting. After some pressure by the group, he also reluctantly agreed to consult with the Premier to make sure all avenues for a permit system to deal with the complex issues around the road, was fully explored before going down the path of engineering solutions to deal with the traffic. To this day, the working group is waiting for a response on that, as we are waiting on most of the other points that were brought up in this so-called consultative meeting. The working group has not been invited back since and instead the council took the decision to go ahead with cementing the four mentioned crossings to a council meeting on … and informed the members of the working group via a media statement on 15 December 2021 of this decision.

If this is indeed how the council consults with the people it is supposed to serve, we feel we have utterly wasted our time being on this group. Below are some of the points the group raised (and mentioned in the notes taken by council) and an update on progress that we can see.

Our big question is: why did the Council pursue the one thing most of us wanted to avoid, but then never followed up on any of the other issues the group raised?

Points raised by CRR working group and not addressed by council

From the notes taken by the council during the last CRR working group meeting on 21 July 2021: 

i. A Strategic plan is required for the Gorge – To this date, there is no strategic plan for the Gorge.

ii. Feedback through the Town Planning Scheme is encouraged. – To our knowledge there has been no mention of the Gorge in the Town Planning scheme.

iii. Blackfellow Gully needs immediate attention – Nothing has been done to repair Blackfellow gully which washed away in a flood in ???

iv. Consider permanent signage at the eastern end – Without consulting anyone, council has now installed an electronic warning signal that blinks all night and further diminishes the natural beauty of the Gorge. People who escape the city to come camping in a natural setting are looking at this ugly blinking light now. Further proof that this council does not hear the message that the SDRC residents want to save the last few natural spaces in our region.

v. Don’t want to see any concrete crossings – This message was also given to council loud and clear through a petition in 2018 that attracted 1800 signatures, but this Council chooses to ignore this with its plans to go ahead with concrete crossings.

vi. Council needs to seriously look at its brochures which encourage the CRR as a 4WD park. Change the picture from car to horse or bike or persons. – After much lobbying council has now changed this

vii. A permit system would sort out the issues. – Vic Pennisi promised he would contact the premier to make sure this avenue has been fully explored and would get back to the working group – we are still waiting for this.

viii. More information on speed limit setting. – To this day council can’t explain why they have speed limits on other gravel roads in the shire, such as o’Dea’s Rd near Cherrabah, but insist they are not able to have speed limits on Condamine River Road

ix. Responsibility for condition of road is with SDRC. – council have practically not maintained Condamine River Rd since that meeting and the road has been closed for the best part of two years

x. I have a bad pothole in front of my place. – that pothole is likely still there among many others across the shire

xi. When are you going to revise your road closure policy? – Road closure policy has not been revised to date

xii. An overall management plan is needed. – no plan has been developed to date

xiii. It’s a unique area and like to keep it that way. – here we are still trying to get the council to take this message on board

xiv. What will be the objectives. – Despite multiple attempts to get the council to state clear objectives for the cementing of the crossings and how their construction designs will meet these objectives, they have not been able to do this. Either there is a hidden agenda that they are not sharing with us, or they realise that their current plans to not meet the objectives that they are alluding to in their so-called “balanced plan” (media release 15 December 2021).

xv. Traffic volumes are contributing to the deterioration of the road and ambience. – Council has no plans whatsoever to curb traffic and they also refuse to undertake an traffic volume modelling as a result of the cementing of the crossings.

xvi. Lets maintain the river in a beautiful way. – Again, Council is not hearing the message of its residents.

xvii. 200mm in crossings sounds good (normal flow). Doesn’t necessarily mean concrete crossings. – Participants of the working group again, trying to say that we don’t want concrete crossings. To no avail.

xviii. Picnicing in the gorge is beautiful. – Not when hundreds of 4WDs without any speed limits bash past.

xix. Need to be mindful of costs to maintain it now and into the future. – Council has not presented a plan how they will meet maintenance costs of cement crossings in case they get damaged in a flood. If they don’t have enough money for potentially expensive repairs in future, residents in the Gorge could be locked in even longer than they already have been. 

xx. Change the advertising of the road as a 4WD park. – Council has finally heard this message and has changed its brochures. Social media posts of 4WDs bashing through the water quickly make the rounds though, so this is somewhat irrelevant.

xxi. Lots of good discussion in this group. Well, what for we ask!

xxii. Need a solution that appeases all of us. The Mayor stated right at the start of the meeting that “some folk will not be happy” with the outcome.

xxiii. Long term solutions are needed. – again we are still fighting for this as we don’t believe cement crossings will be a long-term solution. The next good flood will either damage some of the crossings or even wash them away and then the residents or tourists in the gorge will really be locked in long-term. 

xxiv. The road closure policy needs to be sorted out. – This has not been done.

xxv. Shifting the road closure from Watsons crossing to Long Crossing as water drops off Watsons but still too deep at Long crossing. – This was done at one point, but road is currently again closed from before Watson’s Crossing.

xxvi. Make sure your Media statements reflect the current condition of the crossings, including the signs on the ground. – The road has been closed for the best part of last two years which was communicated through SDRC facebook page.

xxvii. Thank you for everybodies feedback as this is leading to providing an optimized result. – This sounds very sarcastic when we think that council has pretty much either not followed up on anything the group suggested or gone the complete opposite way.

xxviii. Please keep in mind Council staff are doing their best for the community within the constraints given. – We appreciate that council staff must have a very difficult job. If their input and views are respected as little as ours, we do feel for them. The current council staff attrition rate seems to indicate that.

Peter and Barbara George