August 14, 2008

Saving the Coorong By Restoring its Native State

The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is in Adelaide today for a community cabinet meeting. Various media reports suggest there will be pressure on the government to "save" the lower lakes with a special water allocation from upstream.

As part of the meeting the federal cabinet will be briefed by the Murray Darling Basin Commission on following this advice, Mr Rudd has said, "Cabinet will then look at what further measures will be possible to reduce the pressure on the system."

Online Opinion published a piece by me this morning suggesting the solution for the lower lakes lies in opening the barrages, but saving the Murray River is a potentially more difficult proposition.

Read the piece, entitled 'Saving the Coorong by restoring its native state' by clicking here.

Posted by jennifer at 11:25 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

August 07, 2008

Wong is Right: Not Enough Water in the Murray-Darling for the Lower Lakes

The Australian government is currently in the process of finalising the purchase of just 35 gigalitres (billion litres) of water from the public tender process announced on 26 February 2008 whereby $50 million was allocated in the 2007-08 budget to buy back water in the Murray Darling Basin.

This is a very small amount of water at least relative to the 500 to 3,500 gigalitres that politicians from the different sides of politics promised over recent federal elections.

Nevertheless I applaud the government for releasing the figures and maybe through the process there has been a realization that water is expensive and also that purchasing a water licence doesn’t necessarily guarantee water. Indeed a licence only means an allocation when there is some water in storage.

Yesterday, Water Minister Penny Wong announced that there is not enough water currently in the Murray Darling system to fill South Australia's Lower Lakes.

"Even if we did make a decision to not give any allocation, there is insufficient water currently in storage, less the critical human needs issue, for us to viably manage the lower lakes with the amount of water we have.”

At last the Water Minister is speaking sense.

----------------------
The $50 million is part of $3.1 billion in the National Action Plan first announced by then Prime Minister John Howard as an emergency measure to save the Murray River in early 2007.

Interestingly, according to Farm Online: "The departmental report shows the Government paid an average of $2124/ML for high security water and $1131/ML for NSW general security and Victorian low reliability licences."

You can watch the ABC Online video clip in which the Water Minister states there is not enough water for the lower lakes here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/08/06/2326382.htm.

The commentary from the ABC journalist, Josie Taylor, is full of errors including the claim that building a weir "would flood the lower lakes with salt water." Of course the lower lakes should be flooded with sea water now. A weir would simply limit the upstream movement of seawater. Furthermore the announcement by Minister Wong to not send more water down to the lakes is not the "kiss of death", as suggested by Ms Taylor, there are alternatives including opening the barrages as discussed at earlier blog posts including Stop Complaining About the Lower Murray And Open the Barrages posted on June 18, 2008.

Posted by jennifer at 10:02 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

August 01, 2008

A New Plan for The Red Gums of Northern Victoria

Yesterday I was at the Victorian Parliament in Melbourne to launch a new plan for the management of the River Red Gum Forests of the mid-Murray in northern Victoria.

The comprehensive plan is contained within a 150 page report by the Rivers and Red Gum Environmental Alliance; a group of 25 community and environmental NGOs representing over 100,000 people.

This is what I said:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What a privilege it is to be here today to launch a comprehensive plan for the river red gum forests along the Murray River; a plan put together with the aim of not only looking after the forests but also the communities who live, work and play in them.

There are some who argue that the only way to look after a forest is to exclude people. But they are wrong and particularly when it comes to river red gum forests.

Red gums are fire sensitive and the large forests along the Murray, including the Barmah Forest, have always been tended by people. The Barmah forest, the largest river red gum forest in the world, is only about 6,000 years old as it came about following a geological uplifting that changed the course of the Murray River.

The wood cutters and cattlemen who now live and work in the region have gone to great lengths to keep fuel-loads in red gum forests low through controlled grazing and the collection of firewood. This, combined with a network of rural fire fighting brigades, has made it possible to stomp out fires started from lightning strikes or camp fires.

And this may explain why some aboriginal elders call river red gums ‘white fella weed’ and why areas which were described by the early explorers as open woodland are now covered in trees including part of Barmah.

Whether open woodland from burning, or dense forest from fire exclusion, bush users, both indigenous and non-indigenous, know that the beauty of what many regard as wilderness is often the consequence of a particular approach to land management.

Indeed the idea of a forest without people is a Romantic European notion of wilderness.

In 1820 English poet and Oxford graduate Percy Shelley wrote,

"Away, away, from men and towns,
To the wild wood and downs,
To the silent wilderness,
Where the soul need not repress
Its music."

For Shelley, wilderness was a place far away.

The late American writer J.B. Jackson has suggested that once upon a time wilderness was the domain of the nobility, an environment where they alone could develop and display a number of aristocratic qualities and that friction arose between the “peasants” and the “nobles” and persisted as long as the peasants felt excluded from that portion of the landscape they believed their right by heritage.

There are more contemporary notions of wilderness that include ordinary people.

A fellow who comments at my weblog under the pen name Travis has written,

“Wilderness has no gods or one almighty. All is equal in life and death and just simply being. The rich tapestry of a wilderness includes the naked ape – but does not sustain those that want to dominate it. It then becomes something else."

And so the beautiful river red gums forests along the Murray can sustain the communities that currently harvest them, and graze them, and camp in them, as long as no one group dominates.

This is the big difference between the VEAC plan and the community plan; The Community Plan for the Multiple use of Public Lands in the River Red Gum Forests.

VEAC is the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council. The council is comprised of a small group of people without a mandate from the local community and without any particular expertise, who have decided, a little like the English Aristocrat of the 1800s, that the forest is best protected through the exclusion of people. Thus, their plan focuses on changes to land tenure, management and use.

But the problem right now for the forests is water, not ordinary people.

Indeed many of the problems facing the red gum forests along the Murray stem from a chronic lack of water from the protracted drought.

But VEAC, with their outdated European notion of wilderness, seem to think that by excluding people they can somehow make things better; that they can somehow save the forests.

But they can’t. Furthermore the people who know how to practically and efficiently deliver water to the forest are the very people who live and work in the forests and who understand how the forest floods.

Some of the locals know how to piggyback environmental flows on to managed flows for irrigation, they know how to push water down creeks when the Ovens River floods. They know where the on-river regulators are, and they know how the on-river regulators, in conjunction with the distribution works located on flood runners through the forests, can deliver small quantities of water efficiently to the most stressed parts of the forest.

There is a rich oral history within not only the indigenous, but also the white-fella communities along the Murray.

But this potential for ‘within forest’ water management, to efficiently distribute this increasingly precious resource is largely untapped. This is partly because organisations, including VEAC with their outdated European notion of wilderness, falsely assume they can save the environment “naturally” and want overbank delivery of water which is neither practical nor efficient – at least not in these dry times.

In November last year, I stayed with friends on the Murray River. I saw a lot of river red gums – I saw some beautiful old habitat trees, many thickets of young saplings, some healthy forests, some water-stressed forests, some bushfire-damaged forests, some trees ready to be made into railway sleepers, others into veneer.

Some of the forests were suffering from the drought and some of these forests really needed thinning.

Commercial timber production is currently permitted within less than 45,000 hectares of state forest which represents just 16 percent of the total area of public land in the VEAC investigation area.

Environmental flows require a water allocation and the possibility for this are limited until the drought breaks. In the meantime, there is evidence that some forests can be at least temporarily 'drought proofed' through thinning.

While VEAC proposes an 80 percent reduction in the area of state forest there is no scientific basis for such a proposal and the benefits of thinning to reduce competition between trees for the limited available water – the benefits of active management - have been ignored.

An Ecological Grazing Strategy was undertaken by the Department of Sustainability & Environment concluding in June 2005 – just two months after the VEAC investigation started – and determined that grazing could be managed to minimise impacts on native flora and fauna while controlling introduced weeds.

A key recommendation in the new community plan is the establishment of Ramsar reserves along the Murray River to provide for sustainable multiple use and bio-diversity protection under the ‘wise use’ principles of the internationally accepted Ramsar Convention.

Ramsar is a term for ‘Wetlands of International Significance’ following an international conference, held in 1971 in Ramsar in Iran. Ramsar provides a practical and internationally recognised mechanism for protecting forest and wetlands. The Ramsar convention endorsed ‘wise-use’ as a key plank in conservation whereby the use of wild, living resources, if sustainable, is an important conservation tool because the social and economic benefits derived from such use provides incentives for people to conserve them.

The recommendation by the Rivers and Red Gum Environmental Alliance, if adopted by government, would create the largest Ramsar reserve in the world; the largest Ramsar Reserve in the world – an area of 104,000 hectares.

In short the Conservation and Community Plan is a well researched and referenced document that provides a credible alternative for government to consider; particularly as it provides a strong focus on bio-diversity conservation and also community well being. In short, the plan is contemporary and practical and rejects outdated notions of wilderness where people are excluded.

The new plan assumes a concept of wilderness which includes people recognising we are a part of the landscape and we can live in harmony with the red gum forests.

So without further ado, let me declare

“A Community Plan for the Multiple Use Management of Public Lands in VEAC’s River Red Gum Forests Investigation Area” launched.

Thank you.

Members of the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance Outside the Victorian Parliament House, Melbourne, Thursday July 31, 2008. Photographed by Jennifer Marohasy. Members of the Alliance in the photograph from left to right are: Jodie O’Dwyer, Paul Madden, Rod Drew, Max Rheese, Barrie Dexter, Ian Lobban, Sandy Atkinson, Marie Dunn, Colin Wood, Peter Newman, Shelley Gough. In the background you can see members of the Rheese family from Benalla - Kyra, Michael and Samuel - cheering.

Posted by jennifer at 01:00 PM | Comments (65)

July 28, 2008

History can be undone - Remove the Barrages and Save the Coorong: A note from Peter Martin

The installation of the barrages across the bottom of the Murray River is the greatest single change that has adversely affected the health of the Coorong.

Prior to 1940 Lake Alexandrina, at the bottom of the Murray River, was a mix of seawater and freshwater, and was under tidal influence through the Murray mouth, and fully connected to a much healthier Coorong.

The Murray River barrages were completed by 1941 and separated the Coorong from Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert.

Before the barrages, fish could move between the lakes and the Coorong. Lake Alexandrina was an important fish nursery for replenishing the Coorong. After the installation of the barrages the Coorong was cut off.

The barrages have shut off 90 percent of the tidal effect, and as a result have made the Murray mouth much more prone to closing over.

The barrages have caused much greater deposition of silt above and below the barrages, and have caused a sand island called Bird Island to form directly in front of the Murray mouth on the landward side.

The barrages were designed to hold Lake Alexandrina up to a maximum of 75cm above previous levels, and as a result shoreline erosion has accelerated. The higher level of Lake Alexandrina has prevented an enormous quantity of fresh water reaching the Murray mouth.

But now, because of the drought, sea level is 45cm above the level of the lake with plenty of sea water leaking into the lake despite the barrages.

The salinity at Goolwa is currently around 20,000 EC units. This is very high. The sea is about 45,000 EC units and the upper limit for drinking water is just 800 EC units.

In short, the barrages were designed to turn a saltwater lake into a freshwater lake, but they weren’t successful.

At best Lake Alexandrina remains brackish, with current salinity at Milang which is about the centre of Lake Alexandrina is about 4,000 EC units.

Furthermore, the barrages that were meant to hold Lake Alexandrina at a higher water level, have resulted in a requirement of up to 1,000,000 megalitres annually just to cover the evaporation loss. This loss has to be supplied from Hume and Dartmouth Dams and at times from Lake Menindee. If the barrages were to be opened, this quantity of water would be immediately saved annually.

Whether our climate scientists are correct or not, the need for this quantity of water to cover evaporation is simply unsustainable.

The value of that water to irrigation at the end of last season was in the order of $400 million.

The South Australian government should now open the barrages, particularly the Goolwa barrage, which is responsible for regulating 70 percent of the Murray River flows, and the Mundoo barrage which is responsible for 10 percent, as these two barrages would have the greatest impact on keeping the Murray mouth open, and improving the health of the Coorong.

In summary, just because the barrages were put in does not mean they have to stay there. It is wrong for South Australians to keep demanding the upper states of Victoria and New South Wales empty their dams to unsuccessfully keep a saltwater lake fresh.

Peter Martin
Finley, NSW

Posted by jennifer at 11:19 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

July 07, 2008

Reforming Water Policy Won't End The Drought: Jennifer Marohasy Speaks with Michael Duffy on Counterpoint

Last week the Council of Australian Governments signed an Intergovernmental Agreement for reform of the Murray-Darling Basin. The new plan involves spending $3.7 billion on water projects across the basin. Is this money well spent and how effective will it be ?

Michael Duffy invited me onto his ABC Radio National program 'Counterpoint' to discuss the issue this afternoon. You can listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2296327.htm.

Sheep near Junee, Murray Darling Basin, Photograph by Jennifer Marohasy, July 4, 2008

Posted by jennifer at 10:56 PM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

Virtual Science for Australian Drought Policy Review

Australia could experience drought twice as often and the events will be twice as severe within 20 to 30 years, according to a new Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke yesterday released the report commissioned by the Rudd Government as part of a review of national drought policy.

According to the media release:

"The overall review, announced in April, will help prepare farmers, rural communities and Australia’s primary industries for the challenges of climate change.

The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO climatic report on future drought events – the first of its kind in Australia – will be considered as part of the drought policy review.

Key findings of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report include:

Under a high scenario, droughts could occur twice as often, cover twice the area and be more severe in key agricultural production areas;

The current definition of ‘Exceptional Circumstances’, which defines areas eligible to apply for Federal Government drought assistance, is out-of-date;

Temperatures currently defined as ‘exceptional’ are likely to occur, on average, once in every two years in many key agricultural production areas within the next 20 to 30 years;

We need better ways of getting information about climate change preparedness to farmers."

So it seems the government is reverting to scenario-modelling to determine its drought policy and will focus on a worst case scenario by way of a high emissions scenario.

There is really nothing new in this approach, indeed in November 2004 then NSW Premier Bob Carr released a report by CSIRO entitled 'Climate Change in New South Wales' alerting us to the possiblity of more frequent droughts. Given this report was also based on scenario-modelling I suggested at the time in my The Land column that the CSIRO could have spiced the report up even more by scenario-modelling a war and a volcanic eruption into it.

------------------
The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report ‘An assessment of the impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climatic events’ is available at www.daff.gov.au/droughtpolicyreview.

Posted by jennifer at 08:24 AM | Comments (32)

June 30, 2008

More on the Barrages Blocking the River Murray

Let’s be honest: a dry river is not necessarily an environmental catastrophe.

Two weeks ago Australians were warned that a leaked government report claims there is only six months to save the Murray-Darling Basin.

In response, the Federal Opposition leader, Brendan Nelson, called on the Prime Minister, Kelvin Rudd, to make a joint tour of the River Murray's lower lakes region.

Mr Nelson said he thought it was “very important that the leaders of this nation have a first-hand look at the environmental, economic and human catastrophe which is unfolding in the Lower Murray lakes."

The leaked report focused on the lower lakes, and as I have previously written (Acid Sulfate Blame Floating Upstream, The Land, May 15, pg 30), a solution to many of the environmental problems at the Murray’s mouth is to simply open the barrages and let the area flood with saltwater.

The barrages were built from the 1920s to keep the Southern Ocean out and to raise the lake level, including for boating.

These same barrages also facilitated the development of irrigated farming in this area, but they are unnatural.

If the barrages were now opened, irrigators dependent on freshwater from the lower lakes would need to be compensated.

But the alternative, continuing to send large quantities of water from the drought-drained reserves in the Hume and Dartmouth dams during this protracted big dry, is less viable.

Some argue that if a permanent weir was constructed just upstream of the lakes at Wellington and the barrages used under “an adaptive management regime”, there could be water savings in the order of 750,000 megalitres a year.

Opening the barrages would take some pressure off the system, because less water would need to be allocated to South Australia, but the river could still run dry.

Indeed, it doesn’t matter how many leaked government reports call for more water for environmental flows, if there’s ongoing drought and the upstream dams runs dry, there will be simply no water for the river.

It would be an economic and human catastrophe for the many towns now dependent on the river for their water supply, but it would not necessarily be a catastrophe for the environment.

The River Murray in its natural state could be reduced to a chain of saline ponds.
Indeed, the idea that a river should be always brimming with freshwater is a very European concept – in reality, alien to a land of drought and flooding rains.

So, let’s be honest, many South Australians want to keep the barrages shut to the Southern Ocean and many Victorians and New South Welshmen want to keep the river full of water – not to save the environment, but to avoid what Mr Nelson has described as a potential economic and social catastrophe.

-------------
This is an edited version of my column published in The Land on Thursday June 26 entitled 'Barrages Block Sense'.
You can read many of my The Land columns here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/articles.php

Posted by jennifer at 01:59 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

June 19, 2008

Stop Complaining About the Lower Murray And Open the Barrages

The South Australian Government's claim, as reported by ABC Online, that it cannot save the Lower Lakes and Coorong on its own and is reliant on support from the other Murray-Darling states is simply untrue.

As I wrote in The Land on May 15, the main problem in the lower Murray is developing acidity from the drying of the lower lakes, and the simple solution is to open the barrages at the bottom of Lake Alexandrina and let the area reflood with seawater.

Potential acid sulphate soils (ASS) are common along much of the Australian coastline. These soils formed after the last major sea level rise, which began about 10,000 years ago. The soils are harmless as long as they remain waterlogged. But, if the water table is lowered the sulphide in the soils will react with oxygen forming sulphuric acid.

In the case of the lower lakes near the mouth of the Murray River in South Australia, the barrages built 80 years ago are stopping inundation from seawater; in the same way the dykes in Holland are used to reclaim land. Indeed the Dutch have been managing associated acid sulphate soil problems for more than four centuries.

The drought continues in the Murray Darling Basin and so the barrages should be opened to flood the lower lakes. If a temporary weir was constructed at Wellington, the salt water would not go any futher upstream.

Despite the drought, South Australians have so far been receiving fully 76 percent of their annual entitlement when many NSW and Victorian irrigators have had no water allocation.

It is time the South Australians stopped blaming upstream irrigators for a drought beyond everyone's control.

Acid Sulfate Soils have been associated with fish kills in coastal Queensland and New South Wales when land was inappropriately drained. For example, about 700 hectares of land near Cairns was drained in 1976, and since then it has been estimated that 72,000 tonnes of acid has flowed into Trinity Inlet.

Approximately 50 percent of the NSW cane land is underlain with potential ASS and inappropriate drainage of these soils caused a major fish kill in the Tweed River in 1987.

NSW farmers have since solved the problem through the implementation of less intrusive drainage and liming.
The can-do NSW farmers got on and fixed their problem, but the South Australians have instead provided money to CSIRO Land and Water to undertake a study, including to, establish the severity and spatial extent of the problem.

In the interim there will be lots of media releases and whinging, including about how they should be receiving more stored irrigation water from the Hume Dam in the Upper Murray or else their lake turns to acid.

There is in fact a simple solution to the problem in the lower Murray, open the barrages and let seawater re-flood the area.

Posted by jennifer at 12:50 PM | Comments (53) | TrackBack

May 29, 2008

Lower Murray Less Sustainable Than Middle Murray

There is a blog at www.fairwateruse.com.au with an article entitled 'Dr Jennifer Marohasy: what is her precise agenda?' suggesting my recent columns in The Land on the River Murray, in particular the situation in South Australia, are agenda driven. The fair-water blog doesn't explain what my agenda is, and doesn't allow comments, so I thought I might respond here.

Farmers along the lower reaches of the River Murray are doing it tough. There have been very low inflows for some years now and even with all the water sent down from the Hume and Darmouth Dam the lower lakes are starting to dry up creating significant salinity and acid sulfate soil problems.

The acid sulfate soil problem could be easily overcome by opening the barrages at the very bottom of the lake system and letting in some sea water.

But as the article at the fair-water blog explains the South Australian want to keep their system fresh:

"Blanchetown, some 270 kilometres from the Murray mouth, is currently around 500mm below sea level. If the Goolwa barrages were opened as she suggests, water would certainly flow, but in the opposite direction to that expected by Dr Marohasy, turning the entire length of Murray from Blanchetown to the mouth into an inlet of the Southern Ocean.

Fair Water Use (Australia) doubts whether many Australians would view this as a “good news” story.

We are not sure how Dr Marohasy is able to engage in finger-pointing whilst her head is so deeply embedded in the sand (or should that be acidic mud). The plight of the Murray-Darling is a result of over-exploitation of the entire basin; the solution must therefore involve bold decisions being taken which will have long-term consequences for all users of the river system, from the cotton plantations in the north to the dairy farms and wineries of the south."

I actually think it would be a good news story in metropolitan Australia if the barrages were opened and salt water flooded in all the way to Blanchetown and a bit beyond. It would be good new for the environment which hasn't experienced seawater in that stretch of the river for perhaps 120 years.

The South Australians like to pretend that the lower lakes were always fresh, but they weren't. The freshwater allocations enabling farming in the region could never be guaranteed.

Right now through the National Water Initiative there is a focus on buying back water allocations from the central Murray Valley. But the focus should perhaps be on the lower Murray.

The lower Murray has less fertile soils, and is part of a much less sustainable system - a system which under natural conditions would be periodically estaurine and unsuitable for conventional farming.

But the South Australians often have politics on their side, most recently in the form of federal environment Water and Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong.

Posted by jennifer at 05:45 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

April 21, 2008

Water Purchased for Bird Breeding at Narran Lakes

"Four weeks into a six-week Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) watering at the Narran Lakes system has already resulted in a huge boost to the environmental health of the system's plants and animals, particularly its birdlife.

"The MDBC bought 11,000 megalitres of water over the Easter weekend to supplement the natural watering occurring at the internationally important Ramsar wetland site in north central New South Wales.

"MDBC chief executive, Dr Wendy Craik, said today that expert ground surveys were showing that about 75pc of the 30,000 pairs of straw-necked ibis attracted to the lakes since January were now expected to successfully produce healthy, full-fledged offspring...

Read more at Farm Online: http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/article/85135.aspx

Posted by jennifer at 08:43 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 17, 2008

No Balance in Water Negotiations

Some years ago an irrigator in the Macquarie Valley explained to me that they had been giving back water for years as part of negotiated and then renegotiated water sharing plans.

He then asked me how much more water I thought the environmentalists would be asking for, before they had enough water for the environment.

My considered reply was that as long as irrigators took any water from the river they would be a target. I believed it did not matter how much or how little water he took, it was that he took any water at all that was the issue.

When a level of two percent water extraction from the Fitzroy River in Western Australia was proposed a few years ago, this was considered too high.

In Far North Queensland it is accepted that no water at all be harvested from rivers because they are known as ‘wild rivers’.

In southern Australia water must be given back to the environment because levels of extraction are generally considered too high whether this represents five or 35 percent of stream flow.

In short, there is little or no community support for irrigation.

Yet, combined with the use of the best crop varieties and appropriate fertiliser and pesticide inputs, irrigated agriculture is an efficient, reliable and sustainable way to produce food.

Globally world food reserves are at their lowest in 25 years and the prices of most food crops are at a record high.

Meanwhile, the Australian government is hell-bent on entering the water market and purchasing water from irrigators on the Murray River or its tributaries to send to South Australia.

New federal Water Minister, Penny Wong, has been claiming the water is for the river, but water levels in the main channel of the Murray River have remained high despite the drought all the way to the lower lakes.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claims more water is needed for the Murray’s mouth, but if it was really concerned about the river’s mouth it would insist the barrages be opened to let the water run from the lower lakes out to sea.

In short, the Australian taxpayer is about to spend billions of dollars to buy back water, mostly because many environment groups don’t like irrigated agriculture.

This article was first published by The Land.

-------------------
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Tolstoy via Jim.

Posted by jennifer at 11:27 AM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

November 21, 2007

Some Time by the Murray River

I have enjoyed spending the last couple of weeks living on a bank of the Murray River just upstream of Barham.

The bird life is especially amazing with wood ducks in the river, white ibis, sulphur-crested cockatoos and galahs on the lawn, superb blue wrens in the bush outside my office window, swift parrots in the red gums and very black ravens drinking out of the bird bath.

I saw a lot of black swans when I visited the salt evaporation ponds at Wakool. I saw a shag in the Gunbower Forest. There were two pelicans at the Toorrumbarry Weir.

Just downstream of the Toorumbarry Weir, November 6, 2007

I have started most days with a large glass of Murray River water and on the best days finish with a swim in the river.

While many of the forests, tributaries and anabranches in this Murray Valley section of the long Murray River are suffering from a lack of water, the river itself is running strongly with releases from Hume Dam at the top of the system destined for South Australia at the other end.

Anyway, tomorrow morning I’m off to Sydney.

Thanks Faye and Ken for your hospitality! And Daryl, I took photographs at Riverdale this morning which I will post at this blog in the next week or two with comment from the MDBC report.

Posted by jennifer at 03:29 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

November 16, 2007

Murray River Tributary Reduced to Billabongs

While the Murray River is flowing strongly despite the drought, many of its tributaries are drying up.

Yesterday I visited the Wakool River with Wakool Landholders Association Chairman John Lolicato.

He showed me a spot downstream of Gee Gee bridge where there is still water in deep holes. A bit upstream the river has been reduced to billabongs and further upstream in Possum forest some of the billabongs have dried up.

Downstream of Gee Gee bridge

A billabong that was Wakool river

John has moved some Murray Cod from drying billabongs to larger water holes.

John looking for some water and stranded fish

Also yesterday, the NSW Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water Phil Koperberg announced that a pulse of water would be released into the Wakool River to provide stock and domestic water and environmental benefits.

Mr Koperberg acknowledged that the Wakool River had not had flows for months due to the severe and extended drought.

“The diversion of water into these systems will provide landholders with access to stock and domestic water for the first time in months, help improve water quality and provide significant environmental benefits to stressed populations of native fish and other aquatic species,” he said.

“The water cannot be used for irrigation and additional deliveries for irrigation are not viable as they would exacerbate additional water losses that cannot be supported.”

Posted by jennifer at 07:10 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

November 10, 2007

After the ‘Top Island’ Fire in the Barmah Red Gum Forest

Aborigines managed much of the Australian landscape with fire. This management strategy favoured fire tolerant and fire resistant species – perhaps why gum trees dominate so much of the Australian landscape. But river red gums, Eucalyptus camaldulensis ssp., unlike most gum trees, are not particularly fire tolerant.

A boat on the Murray River in the Barmah Forest. Photograph taken last Tuesday.*

The timber cutters and cattlemen who live and work along the middle Murray (river) have gone to great lengths to keep fuel-loads in red gum forests low through controlled grazing and the collection of firewood. This, combined with a network of rural fire fighting brigades, has made it possible to stomp out fires started from lightening strikes or camp fires.

This may explain why some foresters and aboriginal elders call river red gums ‘white fellas’ weed’ and why areas which were once open woodland are now covered in dense red gum forests including at Barmah.

This area in Barmah Forest was once known as Duck Hole Plains

But the situation is changing. The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) wants more wood and grass on the forest floor apparently to increase biodiversity. This means higher fuel loads and according to some white fellas** the forests will ultimately be severely degraded by uncontrolled and uncontrollable feral fires.

A wildfire in the Barmah Forest, in an area known as Top Island, burnt out 800 hectares last October.

Burnt forest at Top Island in October 2006, photograph taken Tuesday November 6, 2007.

Old habitat trees are apparently the first to go when a hot wildfire burns through red gum forest. Last week the Barmah woodcutters showed me how the old trees ‘burnt like chimneys’ from the inside – out.

Parts of ‘Top Island’ look like they are regenerating. But I’m told that the green coppice growth will eventually fall off – that these fire-damaged trees will never develop as habitat trees. Habitat trees have hollows for wildlife.

Coppice and a burnt-out old habitat tree.

Where the forest has been completely burnt, for example after the sand-spit fire of the late 1960s, and where there has been no management, the red gum regrowth can be very dense.

Regrowth from the 1968 Sand-spit fire, Photograph taken November 6, 2007.

-------------------
* All the photographs in this blog post were taken in Barmah forest last Tuesday - on Melbourne cup day.
** I use the term 'white fellas' to refer to the guardians of traditional European knowledge in the Barmah forest.

Posted by jennifer at 03:14 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

November 09, 2007

Thinning Red Gum Forests at Koondrook

I've been staying with friends who live on the Murray River in western New South Wales and I've seen a lot of river red gums - beautiful old habitat trees, thickets of young saplings, healthy forests, water-stressed forests, bushfire- damaged forests, trees ready to be made into railway sleepers, others into veneer.

Many of the forests are suffering from the drought. While some activists claim the solution is more environmental flow water allocation, this is unlikely until the drought breaks. In the meantime some believe some forests can be 'drought proofed' through thinning.

In the following picture the density of red gums has been reduced through a thinning operation on private land. On the other side of the fenceline the trees have not been thinned.

Koondrook Forest, 3rd November 2007

Habitat tree clearly marked for saving.

A recent Victorian Environmental Advisory Council (VEAC) report proposes that more red gum forest along the Murray River be converted to national park – this time about 100,000 hectares.

The report states that many forests are severely stressed and that there is evidence that without improved environmental flows many of these forests may be lost over time.

But locking them up as national parks may only exacerbate the situation. Indeed what many forests appear to need now is thinning, to reduce competition for water between trees.

Some of the forests along the Murray River in the best condition right now are the more actively managed forests – with lower tree densities from thinning as well as forests that received environmental flow allocations in the last few years.

Posted by jennifer at 09:10 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

November 04, 2007

Still Water in the Murray River

Last week I drove from Brisbane (south eastern Queensland) to Barham on the Murray River.

Listening to the news in Brisbane I was getting the impression the Murray River was nearly empty of water.

In fact there is still a lot of water in the river but the Hume and Dartmouth dams are very low. Also, some of the tributories of the river are being shut-off with cod dying in the 'shrinking' billabongs. And many river red gums on the flood plains are looking very stressed from the drought.

But as this picture shows, the river itself is still magnificent and the red gums along the river beautiful.

Posted by jennifer at 11:55 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 22, 2007

Remove the Barrages for the Coorong: A Note from Rojo

Hello Jennifer,

I have been a reader and minor contributor at your blog over the last few months.

A few weeks ago I was discussing the Coorong with another commentator in relation to the Prime Minister's new $10 billion National Water Security Plan in particular the hyper-salinity aspect.

With all the talk of the Murray "dying" I had thought the hyper-salinity was due to lower flow from the Murray River, the direct implication being less dilution of the Coorong as well as not being able to keep the mouth open.

As an irrigation farmer it is not pleasant to be accused of being partially responsible for destroying the Coorong.

Having been across the barrages and seeing the Coorong first hand late last year, meeting affected stakeholders and talking to South Australian government officials, I couldn’t help but feel it is the right thing to send the Coorong more water and thus that I should support the $10billion plan in its aim to buy back water for the river.

However, if my interpretation of this report ‘A Paleaecological Assessment of Water Quality Changes in the Coorong, South Australia’ is correct, the actual water from the Murray River has had no noticeable influence on the Coorong.

In fact, according to the report:

“Before European settlement the northern lagoon of the Coorong was dominated by tidal input of marine water. Marine flushing also strongly influenced the southern lagoon but less
frequently or to a lesser extent.

At no time in the 300 years before European settlement has the Coorong been noticeably influenced by flows from the River Murray.

The northern end of the southern lagoon occasionally experienced hypersaline conditions in the 300 years before European settlement. Elsewhere in the Coorong, the salinity was typically at, or below, 35,000 mg/L. In the southern lagoon the presence of diatom and ostracod taxa preferring salinity levels ~ 5000 mg/L suggests regular freshwater input. This source is likely to have been from the south-east.” [end of quote]

The report also states that "the extended presence of marine diatom taxa in Lake Alexandrina suggests the tidal prism regularly extended into Lake Alexandrina throughout the last 6000 years", which I take to mean long periods of low flow where the mouth evidently did not close but rather was flushed by the sea.

What few people now realize is that there are barrages, construction completed in 1940, across each of the five channels connecting the lakes with the Coorong. These barrages restrict tidal flow into the lakes and stop freshwater flowing out of the Murray River’s mouth.

So effectively we might spend billions taking water from upstream irrigators and in the process displace jobs/communities and achieve nothing for the Coorong.

I do realise there are other "iconic" sites on the Murray that will benefit from more water, but they benefit already from the environmental nature of water deliveries prior to extraction, and don't require 1000GL of fresh water evaporation from the lakes in low availability scenarios.

I now wonder if the most natural thing we can do for the Coorong is to remove the barrages and allow tidal action to do it's business in particular flushing the Coorong. If this study by Adelaide University is correct the fresh water from the Murray River is not what the Coorong needs. It needs to be flushed by the ocean and this would be facilitated by the removal of the barrages.

Using stored fresh water from upstream to keep the mouth of the Murray River open, as currently advocated by various environment groups and the federal government shouldn’t really be an option.

There is currently a proposal to build a weir on the river at Wellington which is upstream of the lakes.

Irrigators currently dependent on the Lakes would have to be supplied from water upstream of this proposed new weir, much to their benefit by getting better quality water. Funding under the new $10 billion water plan could allow this to happen.

If we don't get significant inflows the weir at Wellington will be built, the lake levels will fall and the irrigators won't be irrigating anyway. But the situation at the Coorong will not improve unless the barrages are removed or opened.

If we do get substantial inflows, what was the problem again?

Cheers
Rojo

Posted by jennifer at 09:06 AM | Comments (46) | TrackBack

March 21, 2007

WWF Report on World's Worst Rivers: Wrong Way Round on the Murray-Darling

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has just released a report entitled ‘World’s Top 10 River’s at Risk’.

Australia’s Murray-Darling is included in the top 10. But it's two rivers, so maybe the title should be 'World's Top 11 River's at Risk'?

The report goes onto state that, “The Murray and Darling Rivers have great variability in year to year flows, and their ecology is driven by large floods covering their extensive flood plains and intervening dry periods.”

This may be the case for stretches of the Darling River, but the Murray is now a completely regulated system which, has even during this worst drought, been mostly full of water.

Anyway, this new report which has generated much publicity for WWF has identified the “key threat” to the Murray-Darling as “invasive species, especially from aquarium trade”.

But, interestingly, key invasive fish species identified in the report were not introduced recently or from the aquarium trade.

According to the new WWF report, native fish species such as the Silver Perch, Freshwater Catfish and the large Murray Cod are all “in rapid decline” while numbers of invasive species have significantly increased.

The report cites a government report, Barrett 2004, and a World Resource Institute website, WRI 2003, to support the contention that numbers of native fish are in decline and another government report, but also on the native fish strategy, MDBC 2005, as evidence numbers of invasive species are on the increase.

But none of these reports included good credible data on changes in numbers of invasive or native fish species.

The government's native fish strategy was written by ecologist Jim Barrett. I contacted Mr Barrett when I was writing ‘Myth & the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment’ back in 2003.

Based in part on information provided by Mr Barrett, I wrote in that report that, “Since the 1980s, carp numbers [a key invasive species in the Murray River] have been observed to decline and downstream of Yarrawonga, numbers are thought to be about half what they were in 1997 and are now estimated to represent 21 per cent of total fish numbers. According to the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) a likely explanation for the decline in carp numbers is that the initial population boom resulted in an overutilization of available resources and subsequent reduction to equilibrium carrying capacity for this species. In contrast, local fishermen attribute the observed reduction in carp numbers to predation from an increasing Murray cod population."

The WWF report acknowledges that, “since 1996 A$2 billion has been allocated to recover water to increase environmental flows and restore fish passage for the lower 1,800 km of Murray River.”

But in the next paragraph, without providing any data, falsely concludes that “despite these worthy initiatives, the ecological health of the rivers continues to decline.”

But even the typically pessimistic head of the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) Dr Wendy Craik recently described the “visionary Native Fish Strategy” as a success with “solid evidence” that native fish are using the new innovative fishways built as a part of the sea to Hume Dam fish passage program. Furthermore, Dr Craik claimed another success in the “resnagging” project in which large tree stumps, or snags, are placed strategically into rivers. The snags provide refuge from fast-flowing water and help to recreate original river habitats for native fish.”

But when is the MDBC, or WWF, or someone else, going to start collecting some good credible data on fish numbers?

In summary, the WWF report ‘World’s Top 10 River’s at Risk’ which is making news today, is about 20 years out of date at least with respect to the Murray River. Indeed while numbers of native fish have on average, probably declined since European settlement, with a crash in Murray Cod populations in the early 1960s, there is evidence to suggest numbers of native fish, including the Murray Cod, are now on the increase while invasive species are on the decline. So the WWF has got it all the wrong way around. Then again, they are perhaps more interested in 'hand-waving' than river ecology.

Posted by jennifer at 10:13 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

January 27, 2007

'Snow Job on the Snowy' by Ian Mott

As the Murray Basin gets another “summit” for it's troubles it is timely to take a good hard look at the facts behind the last river to get the “can do” swagger from our politicians and environmental saviours. In October 2000 the Feds, NSW and Victorian governments gave us another “milestone” in the great pantheon of environmental achievements. They agreed to return 21 per cent of the Snowy River’s water that has hitherto been captured in the dam system and sent down to the Murray irrigators.

The hype merchants and word molesters were out in force. They had “saved an Aussie icon” and “restored the mighty river to its former glory”. There was no room at all for the fact that these custodians of the public good had just seriously impaired the contributive value and efficiency of a public asset, the dam system and related power generating capacity.

But that is only small beer compared to the character, scale and extent of the gross misrepresentation of facts that had been introduced into the policy process, without any apparent challenge by the professional officers involved, leading up to this decision.

A good grasp of the kind of arguments put by the self-appointed saviours of the Snowy River, prepared by East Gippsland Independent State MLA, Craig Ingram, can be seen here. If this MP has made similar representations to the Victorian Parliament then there are grounds to investigate whether he has engaged in grossly misleading and deceptive conduct.

He informed us that:

"The value of the Snowy River to the Australian people is beyond calculation. Right now, this national icon lies at death's door. The once mighty Snowy River has been reduced to a series of small, stagnant pools, choked with weeds and sand. Seawater is intruding upstream and native fish are fast disappearing".

Note the clear implication that river flow is negligible and that this condition is present over the entire length of the river system. This perception was reinforced under the heading “a matter of equity” with the claim that “Australians are asking for 28 per cent of the original flow to be returned to the Snowy River”. And who, one may ask, could possibly argue against an apparent restoration of a river from 0 per cent to 28 per cent of its former flow?

But let’s put this into perspective. This 28 per cent amounts to about 330,000 megalitres or 1.3 times the total volume used each year by the 1.5 million residents of greater Brisbane. It was followed by the claim that, “the water needed for the Snowy can come from efficiency savings in irrigation”.

They quoted Professor John Lovering, former Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, as saying, “just a 10 per cent improvement in irrigation and farm management practices could deliver one million megalitres of extra water to irrigators”. And then implied that a simple, unstated, back-door, tax-in-kind, of 33 per cent of the farmer's gross, hard won, efficiency gains, on top of all their existing tax obligations, was all that was needed to fix this “matter of equity”.

No one asked if any other segment of the broader community was being asked to hand over a full third of their gross efficiency gains over more than the next decade. Per capita productivity gains in Australia are generally in the order of 1per cent per annum and those gains are already taxed at between 30 and 45 per cent. But the parties to this water agreement, both Liberal and Labor, thought nothing of taking the first 33 per cent as water tax, oblivious to the fact that the farmers would subsequently be taxed another 30 to 45 per cent on the remainder. The effective tax on these farmers productivity gains would be 55 to 60 per cent.

In blissful ignorance, it was such a simple, seductive concept that it was easily taken up by otherwise intelligent departmental officers, who lacked either the time or inclination to think the matter through.

The Alliance lists as references:

1994 scoping report commissioned by NSW and Victorian Governments. Recognises 28 per cent of the Snowy's original flow is needed to reinstate the ecological function of the river;

1996 expert panel of scientists conclude that insufficient water is released from Jindabyne Dam to maintain a healthy ecosystem. They recommended 28 per cent;

1998 Scientific Reference Panel of the Snowy Water Inquiry conducted by NSW and Victorian Governments supports a minimum of 28 per cent.

The ACT Environment Commission also gets into the act with the narrow perspective of the Snowy River Shire when it claims, “The scheme diverted close to 99 per cent, or 520 gigalitres each year, of the Snowy River flow into the Murrumbidgee and Murray River system. This left the Snowy River with only 1 per cent, or nine gigalitres, of its average annual flow. A decision in 2002 saw this environmental flow increased to 38 gigalitres each year, or 6 per cent of the total flow.”

But it then includes a very important rider, stating, “No estimate of the volume of water that escapes the Shire in the various river systems, where that water is not captured by the scheme, is available”.

You see, all the claims about absent flows, and so on, have been in relation to the minor portion of the river system immediately below the dams. And both the public, and the policy process, has been encouraged to assume that this applies to the entire river system. But as each additional tributary joins the river on its way to the sea the more “healthy” the river becomes.

Indeed, the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority provides the first glimmer of evidence that the Snowy system is not quite as bad as it has been made out to be. It has a map showing entirely unmodified tributaries (listed for their heritage values) and a photo of what looks like a very healthy river.

It is not until we go to the Australian Natural Resource Atlas that we get closer to the real story on the Snowy River.

Total catchment area = 1,589,600 hectares

NSW catchment area = 894,000 ha

Victoria catchment area = 685,600 ha

NSW mean annual runoff = 1,317,000 megalitres of which 513,000Ml is captured in dams.

Victoria mean annual runoff = 863,000Ml plus 804,000Ml from NSW.

And this tells us that about 1,664,000 megalitres out of total catchment runoff of 2.18 million still makes it to the sea at Marlo. So we have a river system which has numerous tributaries that still exhibit zero disturbance in normal flows and allow the lower river to still deliver 76.3 per cent of total runoff into the sea.

The claimed requirement for another 330,000Ml, deemed by the above mentioned “expert panels” as the minimum required to restore the ecological function of the river, would send 91.5 per cent (1.99 million Ml) of total runoff into the sea.

Note that there is some discrepancy in the Alliance's maths. If 330,000Ml is 28 per cent of flow then total flow would only be 1.18 million Ml not the 1.317 million Ml reported by ANRA as the NSW share of the runoff. What we do know with absolute certainty is that no mandate would have been given by the public to undermine the efficiency of expensive infrastructure for the dubious benefits of lifting river flow from 76.3 per cent to 91.5 per cent.

But wait, there is more. The Victorian part of the catchment is still largely timbered so we can assume that the runoff volumes from the Victorian portion are close to the original pre-settlement volumes. The same cannot be said about the NSW portion where, outside of the National Parks and reserves, extensive clearing has increased the runoff volume from pre-settlement volumes.

The Australian Natural Resource Atlas has good, but apparently limited access, data on the extent and type of original vegetation and the extent of subsequent clearing. An exact area is not available but by visual estimate about 66 per cent of this part of the catchment has been cleared. And from this we can make a reasonable "guestimate" at the change in runoff volumes since settlement.

We also know the mean annual rainfall at Bombala is 645mm which is quite evenly distributed throughout the year. This even distribution is also present at Nimmitabel with mean annual rainfall of 690mm. And from the work on 21 Victorian catchments by Holmes and Sinclair in 1986, as reported in Vertessy et al, 1998, “Predicting water yield from Mountain Ash catchments”, we can determine the changes in yield with some accuracy.

Where there is an annual rainfall of 700mm a forest will use 650mm while 50mm is runoff. If you clear that forest to pasture and, assuming it is not overgrazed, it will use 545mm of rain with 155mm of runoff, an increase in yield of 210 per cent.

So when we look at the catchment below the dams and above the state border we find 1/3rd uncleared land that produces 100 per cent of presettlement water yield and 2/3rds cleared land that produces 310 per cent of pre-settlement water yield. And this means that the current runoff of 804,000Ml represents (1x 0.333 + 3.1 x 0.666 = 2.4) 2.4 times the original pre-settlement flows.

Hence, the total pre-settlement flow from both cleared and uncleared land was 335,000Ml while the cleared land now delivers an additional 469,000Ml to the Victorian part of the river.

This tells us that the original pre-settlement flows at the mouth of the Snowy River consisted of;

863,000Ml from the Victorian portion;

335,000Ml from the NSW portion below the dams; and

513,000Ml from above the dams,

for a total flow of 1.711 million Ml.

And that means that the current mean annual flow of 1.644 million Ml is actually 96 per cent of the pre-settlement flow. In effect, all but 44,000Ml of the 513,000Ml that is diverted from the Snowy to the Murray is already compensated for by the increased runoff from clearing in the NSW portion.

But the downstream observers in Victoria only have visual and anecdotal references to river flows that have occurred after the upstream clearing activity has increased flows. And it is this man-made increase in river flows that they are now seeking to convert to some sort of baseline for an environmental duty of care to minimise harm. But if they succeed in getting the existing agreement implemented they will lock in an entirely unwarranted ecological surplus at the expense of the Murray system and the communities that depend on it.

The facts are that the current 4 per cent reduction in river flows is almost statistically irrelevant in terms of the normal range of variation in rainfall and runoff. For example, the 1st decile event for Bombala is only 457mm (71% of mean) and the 9th decile event is 866mm (134% of mean) for a natural range of 66 per cent of mean.

This is not to say that the 30 to 40km of river below the dam is not significantly diminished, it obviously is. But pouring $50 million worth of valuable water into the ocean is a very silly, indeed, incompetent way of fixing the problem. There is a much better way - based on the fact that the one type of water use that is most suited to recycling is water used for environmental flows.

The Snowy River itself does a great deal to assist in the recycling of its environmental flows. It traces a large, 95km, bend in the section concerned that ends only 27km away from where it starts. So the construction of a short pipeline and pumping system would enable the release of just a single day’s worth of environmental flow which could then be pumped back to the starting point (recycled) to do the same job each day for the next 364 days each year.

This would take place before the steep drop onto the Victorian lowlands and the countryside that the pipeline would need to cross is already cleared with comparatively mild undulation that is well suited to pumping and syphoning.

The key to the feasibility of this sort of recycling of environmental flows is; can we pump a megalitre of water along a 27km pipe with modest head for less than the price that a farmer would pay for the same megalitre? Clearly, the answer is an unambiguous “Yes”.

Adelaide pumps its water 170km from the Murray River, and over a hill, presumably at an acceptable wholesale price.

Farmers in the Brisbane Valley are eager to pay for recycled Brisbane sewerage that will be pumped more than 60km.

The plan to reintroduce recycled water into Wivenhoe Dam will involve a lift of more than 100 metres and more than 40km of pipeline and be reintroduced to the urban water system at a profitable margin on a wholesale price of $170 per Ml.

So even if there was a sound case for restoring flows to the Snowy River then taking good water out of the dams is not the best option. The Greens’ target of 330,000Ml in water savings could be ploughed back into more production that will inject $132 million into towns on the Murray each year. A modest pumping load of 100Ml a day would deliver 36,500Ml of river flow to the actual section of river that needs it while leaving 36,400Ml for farmers to add $15 million worth of crop value to the remainder.

For the moment, the most inefficient water users, and those most reluctant to adopt new ideas, technology and innovations, are the Green movement and their captive departmental minions. Unlike sewerage or storm water recycling, water that is released for environmental flows needs no expensive processing to enable it to be used again, and again. And this capacity for multiple recycling gives it an entire order of magnitude greater priority than all other water efficiency options. We all need to get a lot smarter with our use of water but our self appointed environmental guardians have a lot further to go than anyone else.

More importantly, neither the federal government, nor any of the state governments would be complying with our well defined principles of "proper exercise of power" if they continue to try to develop catchment wide water allocation policies without taking the highly relevant factors of clearing induced changes in water yield, and the potential for recycling environmental flows, into account.

To continue to do so in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence would not only be grossly negligent but may also constitute criminal conspiracy. It has to stop.

Ian Mott,
Byron Hinterland
Australia

-----------------------
Ian Mott is a third generation native forest owner, miller and regenerator from the Byron hinterland.

A former Sydney and Brisbane Executive Recruiter with his own agency, his interest in the family property has seen him evolve, over the past decade, into a property rights activist and consultant. He is secretary of the Landholders Institute Inc and has held a number of positions on national, state and regional level policy and planning bodies.

A version of this article was first published at On Line Opinion on 23rd November 2006.

Posted by jennifer at 02:36 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

January 21, 2007

Give the Sheep a Drink Now

There has been heavy rain and even flooding in northern South Australia and parts of western Victoria. But irrigators upstream in the New South Wales Murray Valley are running out of water and what little remains is stagnant and becoming contaminated.

Right now about 1,000 farmers in this region are out of water and sheep are dying as farm dams empty.

This is the first year since the late 1930s, when the irrigation channels were first dug, that there has been no water for stock. Photograph taken by John Lolicato, Wakool, Murray Valley, January 2007.

These farmers began the season with a zero water allocation. This means they knew they would get no water from the licenses they held; from the entitlements they owned.

Many were hoping to get through the season with water saved from the year before, while others purchased water at considerable expense as a temporary trade to keep their stock alive.

Then just before Christmas they had 52 percent of this carry-over or newly purchased water taken off them by the New South Wales government.

Most farms within the Murray Irrigation boundaries are now facing the prospect of no ‘stock and domestic’ water for the first time since the beginning of irrigation in the region in the late 1930s.

Many irrigators in the Murray Valley claim the decision to take their water was unjustified as there is still water in the dams at the top of the catchment, in the Snowy scheme, but governments have been saving this for electricity generation and for Adelaide.

Instead of providing the farmers with stock and dometic water, the New South Wales government has in effect offered them $20 million dollars in compensation with any single farmer eligible for up to $50,000. Government has said that the water it has taken will be re-credited as soon as there is sufficient rainfall and that the $20 million is not compensation, but rather “extraordinary assistance”.

Why didn’t government buy the water, rather than just taking it, in the first place?

Perhaps because State governments are used to just taking water. Indeed across Australia a majority of irrigators often pay for water they never receive as they are locked into a system whereby 60 percent of their water entitlement is as a fixed charge, payable whether or not the water is provided.

Governments justify this arrangement on the basis they have to manage the water infrastructure whether or not there is a drought. In effect, state run water monopolies are saying, farmers should plan for drought, while we, government, are incapable of the same.

The $20 million payment smacks to me of a bribe in advance of the upcoming New South Wales state election.

ABC Online has suggested the $20 million was promised to avert the possibility of legal action by irrigators.

Normally state governments decide at the beginning of the season how much water they have in dams, likely inflows, and how much they can allocate for irrigation and other uses.

The decision by the New South Wales government to take water from irrigators during the season is unprecedented.

The $20 million Extraordinary Assistance Program for Murray and Murrumbidgee irrigators has been welcomed by the NSW Irrigators Council while the Council has noted that irrigators actually lost $57million in water late last year.

Many farmers would just like some water and all the New South Wales government needs to do is let it out of the Snowy Scheme. This would reduce the amount of water in reserve, but why deny farmers access to stock and domestic water now? There is an immediate need, and now is the time to act.

Photograph taken by John Lolicato, Wakool, Murray Valley, January 2007.

Where is Peta on this one? Photograph taken by John Lolicato, Wakool, Murray Valley, January 2007.

Posted by jennifer at 11:26 PM | Comments (21)

November 09, 2006

Possums Killing River Red Gums: A Note from Michael O'Brien

Dear Jennifer,

I was reading your blogs criticising the misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the Murray river floodplains and death of river red gums. I own a property on the Murray river floodplains, downstream of Echuca. My property has river red gum wetlands that have quite naturally not recieved any flooding since 1995.

For the last 15 years my red gum wetland and many other red gum wetlands in the region have suffered massive decline in tree health and in some instances all of the trees have been killed. It is changing the look of the landscape and is quite obviously a regional catastrophe.

But what is the cause? Ask any of the experts and they insist it is "drought", but in my district the average rain for the past 15 years has only been slightly below the long term average and in reality the redgums have probably had as much flooding as they ever did in dry periods.

The actual cause of the tree death is something much more cute and cuddly, common brush-tailed possum's. Brush-tailed possums are abundant in these hollow redgums. At times I have spotted up to 15 mature possums in one tree. Each summer the trees grow a few leaves and then for the remainder of the year the possums strip them clean. The trees can only take about three years of this kind of constant bombardment before they die. From the 200 large trees within my wetland at least 75% have died in the last 10 years, and the remainder are in poor health.

Prior to European settlement in the area, the local Aboriginals heavilly utilized brush-tailed possums for food, clothing etcetera. So much so that one of the early pastoralists in the area referred to them as the "possum-eaters".

As an experiment I possum guarded a number of random trees last November.

The following photograph I took this morning of one of the possum- guarded trees. The trees in the photograph were all in similar health at the time of guarding last November.

Possum attack is a widespread problem in the Murray flood plains now that possums are unable to be utilized and managed, and probably explains a lot of the premature death of red gums that people are witnessing in this natural dry period.

Regards,
Michael O'Brien

Posted by jennifer at 04:12 PM | Comments (21)

Who's "Utterly Wrong" on The Murray?

In the December 2004 issue of Quadrant magazine I had an article published entitled ‘Why Save the Murray’. It began:

"I WAS SURPRISED when I learned that the Australian [newspaper] was running a "Saving the Murray" campaign. I realised that journalists often fail in their quest for the truth, but I assumed that they at least subscribed to the ideal. Campaigning - organised action to achieve a particular end - is the antithesis of honest reporting.

Environmentalism is now big business and big politics. It would therefore seem important that journalists at our national daily newspaper scrutinise the actions and the media releases from politicians, environmental activists and the growing industry and research lobby, particularly on an issue as important as the Murray River. Yet they were running a campaign."

In the piece I went on to document the campaign, and how much of what the newspaper writes on the River is propaganda rather than news or considered opinion.

I knew it was a bad career move, so to speak, taking on the nation's daily newspaper. But gee their editorial today, entitled 'Weighing up Water' is a bit mean:

"IN 2001, The Australian launched a campaign to save the ailing Murray River. In daily reports during a 2200km journey along the nation's mightiest waterway from Albury to its mouth at the Coorong, this newspaper's Amanda Hodge catalogued its precarious plight as a result of salination, over-irrigation, and pollution… The Australian's Murray campaign was challenged by the conservative Institute of Public Affairs, which released a report showing the river's condition had not deteriorated in 15 years. They were utterly wrong. Five years after Hodge's journey and faced with the looming reality that the present drought may see the Murray run dry, John Howard and the premiers of the four southeastern states have finally agreed on a plan to overhaul the nation's water management by fast-tracking both a system of interstate trading of water entitlements and water conservation projects."

No. My report ' Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment' was factually correct. Furthermore, it didn’t show "no deterioration". It actually documented improvement!

In the report I also explained that while it is generally believed that irrigation diversions leave too little water in the river. In reality, as a consequence of the building of dams and weirs, the water level in the river is unnaturally high for much of the length of the river, most of the time.

Now in 2006 with record low inflows into the Murray, there is much hand wringing because the river might run dry. If this happens, the consequences will be devastating for many industries. But it won’t necessarily be devastating for the ecology of the river. Australian rivers naturally run dry during drought. What is most unnatural is to continue to push large quantities of water downstream during drought.

We’ll see if the Australian publishes the letter to the editor which I've just drafted and sent off now.

---------------------------
Update 10th November, 2006

My letter was published today in The Australian and is available online:

Facts, not exaggeration

YOUR editorial ("Weighing up water”, 9/11) claims that a report by the Institute of Public Affairs was “utterly wrong” to conclude that the condition of the Murray River had not deteriorated in 15 years. Actually, all the evidence does support the IPA’s findings.

Our 2003 report showed that salt levels had halved at key sites, Murray cod and sliver perch numbers were on the increase and that while there were many stressed red gums in South Australia, forests in NSW and Victoria were generally healthy and supported large populations of water birds.

The report also explained that it’s generally believed that irrigation diversions leave too little water in the river. In reality, as a consequence of the building of dams and weirs, the water level in the river was unnaturally high for much of the length of the river, most of the time.

Now, in 2006, with record low inflows into the Murray, there is much hand-wringing because the river might run dry. If this happens, the consequences will be devastating for many industries. But it won’t necessarily be devastating for the ecology of the river. Australian rivers naturally run dry during drought. What is most unnatural is to continue to push large quantities of water downstream during drought.

Sensible water policy needs to be based on facts, not exaggeration.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Senior fellow, Institute of Public Affairs
Melbourne

Posted by jennifer at 12:29 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

November 07, 2006

Key Outcomes: Summit on the Southern Murray Darling Basin

The Commonwealth and Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland agreed or noted at this morning's water summit on the Southern Murray Darling Basin (MDB):

1. The need for a shared understanding of the likely water availability over the next year and a half.

2. The need for an informed whole of Basin approach to be developed collaboratively, not by jurisdictions acting without regard to the consequences for other States.

3. Establish a group of high-level officials drawn from First Ministers' Departments and the MDB Commission to examine contingency planning to secure urban and town supplies during 2007-08. This group will report to First Ministers by 15 December 2006.

4. Accelerate the implementation of key aspects of the NWI, especially on water trading, overallocation, water accounting and data sharing. Ensure that permanent interstate trading will commence in the southern MDB States by 1 January 2007 as recommended by the National Water Commission. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland also agreed in substance to accept the advice from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on exit fees.

5. Not intervene in Snowy Hydro Ltd commercial arrangements this year.

6. Commission the CSIRO to report progressively by the end of 2007 on sustainable yields of surface and groundwater systems within the MDB, including an examination of assumptions about sustainable yield in light of changes in climate and other issues.

7. The Commonwealth will process speedily its response to major projects under the Australian Government Water Fund.

8. The Commonwealth indicated it was providing over $2.3 billion for a wide range of drought assistance in EC-affected areas, and announced a new initiative (costing approximately $210 million over two years) to extend income support and interest rate subsidies to the owners of small businesses that receive 70 per cent of their income from farm businesses.

9. The States have agreed to pay 10 per cent of interest costs under the Commonwealth's small business announcement. The States have also agreed to consider a Commonwealth proposal that they follow the lead of Victoria in providing a 50 per cent rebate for municipal and shire rates to eligible recipients, and also to waive or rebate water charges (or equivalents thereof) in EC declared areas where water allocations have been substantially reduced.

10. It has already been agreed that water and climate change would be items for consideration at the next COAG meeting.

-----------------------------------
I wrote a blog piece earlier today entitled 'Murray River: Last Year Biggest Environmental Flow, This Year Water Crisis' on the water shortage issue.

Posted by jennifer at 03:14 PM | Comments (34) | TrackBack

Murray River: Last Year Biggest Environmental Flow, This Year Water Crisis

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has called a summit to discuss the water crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The meeting, being held as I write this blog, was apparently triggered by the NSW government decision to suspend water trading on the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers and the low state of the dams in New South Wales and Victoria.

According to Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, the big dams on the river will be just about empty by Autumn if it doesn't rain.

Leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown is claiming there has been a problem for years, the government has done nothing, and "seventy per cent of the river red gums along the Murray are either dead or dying."

There are a few dead red gums along the Murray. But anyone who lives along the river, regularly visits the river, or saw the recent ABC series 'Two Men in a Tinnie' would know most of the river red gums along both the Darling and Murray Rivers are very much alive. Another huge porkie from Mr Brown! Another piece of misleading, probably originally from the MDBC.

What seems to have been forgotten in all the recent hand wringing is that just last October the NSW and Victorian governments – the same governments who this year are complaining their dams are empty – made the world’s largest delivery of environmental water letting the equivalent of a Sydney Harbor of water flood the Barmah-Millewa red gum forest which straddles the Murray River upstream of Echuca.

According to a Victorian government report on water operations: "The joint release saw 513 gigalitres of water delivered to the forest and the inundation of over half of the forest floodplain, resulting in greatly improved condition for wetland vegetation and breeding activity for key wetland fauna. Wetland vegetation, including moira grass and the threatened wavy marshwort, responded with significantly improved condition and the flooding waters provided for new growth and canopy regeneration in stressed river red gums. The release also triggered large reproductive events in important native fish species such as golden perch and the threatened silver perch as well as in many water bird species, including the great egret, darters, spoonbills, grebes, ibis and cormorants, and the critically endangered intermediate egret."

All this during one of the worst droughts on record!

Then there is the water being sucked up from regrowth following the January 2003 bushfires in the upper catchment, new plantations, groundwater licences being activated by farmers who can now trade that water, improved on-farm water use efficiency and recycling some of this in place because of a past fear of rising groundwater tables*, water being evaporated by the Murray Darling Basin Commission's salt interception schemes and low rainfall ...and it is not that surprising that the region has a chronic water shortage.

But rather than do a proper water audit and work out the relative contribution of these factors which have probably all contributed to the current problem, governments and many key commentators keep blaming climate change. Yet the rainfall record for the MDB doesn’t show an abnormal decline.**

Rainfall record for the Murray Darling Basin from 1900 to the end of 2005.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann said he would use today's summit to ensure water reached the bottom of the Murray-Darling basin. Yeah, many South Australians see the river as nothing more than an channel for getting water from the Hume and Dartmouth dams to Adelaide and their wine grape growers.

But sorry Mr Rann, noone can ensure that their will be water for South Australia if the dams run dry.

In advance of the summit, the National Farmers Federation Executive Director, Ben Fargher, put out a media release saying, “As a first priority, we need to ensure that towns which support regional communities have certainty over water supply. "There must also be a clear strategy to effectively manage core breeding stock, permanent plantings and other production issues in order to protect Australia's agricultural base through this unprecedented drought."

But that’s also impossible Mr Fargher if there is no water.

If the Murray runs dry next year it would be devastating for farmers and rural communities that draw their water from the river, but it would not be a disaster for the environment. Australian rivers run dry. Water levels in the Murray River have been artificially high so far this drought, because of the dams and weirs.


The Murray River at Riversdale in 1914.

The Murray River at Riversdale early this year.

Here's some really ridiculous commentary from an article in last week's The Age to illustrate the extent to which our politicians and environmentalists seem to not really care or understand the issue. They don't seem to understand that if you don't have any water, there will be none to save, and none for the environment. The article follows an announcement by Mr Turnbull inviting farmers and irrigators to participate in an "excess water scheme".

"The scheme will provide an incentive for those with water entitlements in the southern Murray-Darling Basin to cut their water use.

Farmers could switch from flood-irrigating an orchard to using water drippers, for example, and sell the water they saved from their entitlements to the Federal Government.

... Peter Cosier, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, slammed the tender, claiming it was "too complex" and "too bureaucratic".

Mr Cosier said Australia was "way behind" its target to return 500 billion litres to the Murray River by 2009. "We don't have time to muck around with inefficient grant schemes because they are not delivering water for the environment."

... Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said that while Labor supported buying water, the Murray needed water now, not in 2009.

... Meanwhile, the Murray-Darling Water Crisis Management Council warned that the Hume Dam - a source of water to many towns and now at only 11 per cent capacity - would run dry in 24 weeks unless all environmental flows down the Murray were suspended."

No Mr Albanese, the river doesn't need water now, it's all the industries that have grown up along the river that need water now. Without the dams and weirs built for these same industries the river would have already run dry.

-----------------------
* I explain how past policies driven by a fear of rising groundwater and spreading salinity may have artificially dehydrated the landscape in a piece I recently wrote for OLO: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5076 .

** I have recently explained that blaming the current drought on climate change is indeed drawing a long bow in a piece for the Courier Mail: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20678328-27197,00.html

Posted by jennifer at 09:20 AM | Comments (60)

September 10, 2006

Photographs Suggest Still Water in the Murray River: ABC Wrong Yet Again

I’ve already complained about ABC Online incorrectly reporting that water levels in the Murray River are at historic lows. The article, published on 17th August, confused low water inflows with low water levels, the journalist apparently unaware that the Murray River ran dry in 1914.

Instead of correcting the story, journalist Sarah Clark has now repeated the misinformation with some quotes from WWF activist Alison Colyer. In a piece entitled 'Fish at risk as rivers run dry' published on 7th September, it is suggested that the record low water levels are going to result in the extinction of Murray Cod.

I asked a farmer, Daryl McDonald, who lives near the river to take some photographs for me. He went back to the spot at Riversdale where the river ran dry in 1914 so we could see how the river looks today, relative to 1914 when water levels were really low. This is what he emailed just yesterday:

And he included the following note:

Hi Jen, Pics from Riversdale as near as we can figure to the site of the original photo of the buggy.
River is flowing nicely today at around 4120 ML/day @ 80 EC. Quite amazing considering we have had the lowest inflows on record. It should be noted that South Australia still expects its guaranteed 1850 GL/p.a., while N.S.W irrigators have a zero allocation, and the Vics are on ~50% of their average 160% Water Right. Cheers, Daryl McD.

Remember that 1914 photograph from Riversdale:

I've previously disputed claims that the Murray Cod is in trouble, including in my monograph 'Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment' published by the IPA in December 2003.

Posted by jennifer at 08:49 AM | Comments (12)

August 20, 2006

Water in Murray River Not At Record Low

I spilt my tea over a story at ABC News Online last Thursday.

Entitled ‘Murray River flows at record low', without quoting a specific source, it stated:

“The water level in the Murray River is at its lowest since records began more than 100 years ago.”

I rang a couple of friends that live beside the River last Friday and they said it still has lots of water in it.

Yet less than 100 years ago, in 1914, it ran dry.

Indeed the ABC News Online piece goes on to explain that South Australian irrigators are still receiving 80 percent of their water entitlements so there must be a bit of water still in the river.

I contacted the ABC and they replied that it may take up to four weeks for a detailed response.

I contacted the Murray Darling Basin Commission and they explained that despite record low inflow:

"Because of the weirs and the provision of regulated flows downstream of dams, water levels are higher than historical minimums.”

It would appear that the ABC has confused record low inflows with record low water levels – a significant error in the scheme of things.

The story then goes on to quote water expert Peter Cullen and South Australia’s Minister for the Murray, Karlene Maywald, lamenting the catastrophe.

But there is no catastrophe because despite the dry weather, the dams and weirs that everyone loves to hate, have served their purpose so far – they stored water when it did rain, so the river can keep flowing during this extended drought.

Picture taken of the dry Murray River bed at Riversdale on 1st January 1914 – courtesy of Daryl McDonald.

Posted by jennifer at 10:45 PM | Comments (16)

June 05, 2006

Reflections on World Environment Day 2006

It's World Environment Day and I woke to hear Australia's MInister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer talking up the possibility of the Australian Government building a nuclear power station to run a wat