NAR­ROW FO­CUS

Cockburn Gazette - - OPINION -

I HAVE writ­ten a num­ber of times to WA politi­cians con­cern­ing ris­ing sea lev­els.

My let­ters pre­sented to the politi­cians con­veyed sound so­lu­tions to the fu­ture ef­fect of sea level rise to Perth Waters and the Peel Es­tu­ary.

As al­ways, I have never, never, never re­ceived a re­ply, let alone an ac­knowl­edge­ment.

Bun­bury, Peel In­let and Perth Waters are unique in that they have very nar­row out­flow points to the ocean.

Plan­ning for sea level rise is im­per­a­tive if we are to pre­vent the loss of de­vel­oped land.

We are see­ing a State Govern­ment plan­ning to up­grade and in­crease the use of Fre­man­tle Har­bour. What is the point if sea level rise af­fects the very ba­sics of the in­fra­struc­ture? The ob­vi­ous so­lu­tion is not to cause a fu­ture prob­lem with the en­try of Fre­man­tle Har­bour.

Us­ing Cock­burn Sound to build new har­bours that can adapt as the ocean rises is an ob­vi­ous for­ward plan­ning op­tion that is not to be missed.

The cost of building Row 8 and dig­ging a tun­nel should be in­stead used to es­tab­lish a Cock­burn har­bour that is pro­tected from ris­ing sea lev­els. For­ward think­ing would es­tab­lish locks or storm surge bar­ri­ers at the mouth of the Swan and the two in­lets of the Peel Es­tu­ary.

The Dutch have been em­ploy­ing this method of cop­ing with the sea for cen­turies, but our politi­cians seem not to ac­knowl­edge a so­lu­tion if they tripped over it.

It leaves me to be­lieve that they can only see for­ward to be­ing elected at the next poll.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.