The NSW Government today announced significant changes to the way the NSW coast will be managed, giving more freedom to landowners to protect their properties from erosion and dropping Labor’s onerous statewide sea level rise planning benchmarks.
Special Minister of State, Chris Hartcher said the changes mean councils will have the freedom to consider local conditions when determining future hazards.
The first stage of the NSW Government’s comprehensive coastal reforms will:
[1] Make it easier for coastal landholders to install temporary works to reduce the impacts of erosion on their properties;
[2] Remove the compulsory application of sea level rise benchmarks;
[3] Deliver clarity to councils on the preparation of section 149 notices by focusing on current known hazards; and
[4] Support local councils by providing information and expert advice on sea level rise relevant to their local area.
Mr Hartcher said the changes strike the right balance between protecting property and managing the State’s vast coastline.
The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer has identified uncertainty in the projected rate of future sea level rise given that the scientific knowledge in the field was continually evolving.
I am amazed that in all this blather and taxpayer spending about this or that model of future sea level rise – nobody is telling us – what is the evidence from coastal survey marks of the last 150 years ? Funny that.
There must be hundreds of survey marks near the coast from which evidence could be assembled to demonstrate the sea level rise of the last 150 years.
Suggest that the sea level will only rise as far as the front door step of Flannery’s house?
I’m afraid that common sense has no place in this debate. Just because the sea hasn’t risen by much, if anything, in the last 150 years isn’t proof against wild claims of coming disaster. Immediately the press puts this rubbish in, the pollies appoint a committee of public servants to work out how bad the situation will be. Following the Minister grandstanding at the press conference about “taking action” the public servants face 2 problems;
1. If they say it is all a beat-up they embarrass the Minister (stifling their future prospects)
2. They would cause people to wonder why they are still necessary and not becoming a cost cutting.
So they go along with the lark, while the sensible ones distance themselves from the committee. Their replacements are usually those whom the Section Head wishes to see much less of, but can’t actually dump. The new comers think that this is, at last!, their chance to make a mark. The now permanent committee now gets its information from those who claim their is a problem (think environmental activists), rather than going down to the nearest beach and asking the oldest fisherman about the tide level. So on the grounds that something might happen, they issue guidelines based on what the activists dream up, without wondering why, if the sea is rising so fast, are those activists buying sea side houses.
Warwick, you can get data on sea levels here agencysearch.australia.gov.au/search/search.cgi?query=sea+level&collection=agencies&form=simple&profile=bom&scope_disable=off&Submit=Search The latest from the National Tidal centre is here www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60201/IDO60201.201206.pdf Figure 13 does not show any significant change in the last 20 years
This site maybe better reg.bom.gov.au/oceanography/tides/monthly/index.shtml . It gives the monthly figures in a table (which you can copy and paste into Excel) and a plot. There are some interesting patterns of rise and falls which could be linked to the position of the moon and planets. Obviously, air pressure has an affect so there will be a link to SOI at least in the northern stations. Sydney (Fort Denison) data goes back to 1914. I can not observe by eye any increase in the mean since about 1950. It is well known that the Sydney basin is sinking from increased sediments from run-off. That maybe why there has been a slight increase from 1914.
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level shows little if any increases in a hundred years.