August 20, 2008

WWF Spills 'Virtual Water'

WWF used to be the World Wildlife Fund, but these days it has a rather different agenda at the forefront of climate alarmism. In their latest 'report,' WWF have used the concepts of a 'Water Footprint' and 'Virtual Water.' The UK Telegraph reports that, "The average person in the UK uses over 1000 gallons of water a day, making the country one of the biggest water importers in the world." If you haven't drowned, and have nothing better to do, read more here.

Posted by Paul at 05:22 PM | Comments (48) | 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

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

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

February 26, 2008

Beyond Media Headlines: The Key Issues for the Macquarie Marshes

Media reports yesterday** correctly drew attention to the fact that there are levy banks within the Macquarie Marshes and that they are depriving key wetland areas of water.

But the stories went on to lump upstream legal and planned irrigation development that makes allocations for environmental flows with legal and illegal levies on grazing land within the marshes. Some levies within the marshes are currently blocking designated environmental flow water from reaching the northern nature reserve.

Some of the media reports suggest a need for more studies, but the solution may simply be to bulldoze levies so that environmental flow can get through to the nature reserve.

Other issues within the marshes that require action, rather than more studies include:
1. Preventing the trampling of bird nesting sites by cattle, and
2. Addressing the general issues of overgrazing.

The Macquarie Marshes is a large non-termial wetland in central western New South Wales covering about 200,000 hectares. Most of this area (88 percent) is privately owned and grazed. There are two publicly-owned nature reserves where cattle are excluded and which are Ramsar-listed, meaning they are considered of international importance for migratory bird species.

The most definitive recent publication on the ecology of the Macquarie Marshes is:

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History
by Gillian Hogendyk
IPA Occasional Papers
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=683

You can see pictures of overgrazing at this blog post:

Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000949.html

There are pictures of the illegal levies here:

More Water Won't Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001282.html

And for more discussion read:

Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001481.html

-----------------------------
** Yesterday’s stories include:

Report reveals illegal Murray-Darling irrigation. By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
Scientists say the flood plains are being sucked dry and there is no legislation in place to stop further development.
A new report has exposed major flaws in the management of key rivers and flood plains along the Murray Darling Basin. Satellite images of a key wetland in north-western New South Wales reveal more than 2,000 kilometres of earthworks have carved up the waterway. While some of the channels and levees may have been authorised, others are considered illegal and are diverting water into irrigation and farming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171517.htm

NSW vows crackdown on Murray-Darling earthworks
The New South Wales Government says it will crack down on unauthorised earthworks in the Macquarie Marshes in the state's north-west. A report by the University of NSW found that more than 2,000 kilometres of channels, levees and dams are carving up the Macquarie Marshes and diverting water into irrigation and grazing areas.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171663.htm

Wetlands in a flap after the rains
February 25, 2008
Birds are winning the battle of the marshes, writes Daniel Lewis.
Wading through Monkeygar Swamp, with magpie geese honking in the sky above, even a vicious bite from the odd leech can't wipe the smile off Ray Jones's face.
There's enough water for significant bird breeding in his beloved Macquarie Marshes for the first time since 2000, and the National Parks field officer is on a high after depressingly dry years.
"When you see these geese taking off you can't help but smile," Jones says. A fellow parks employee recently told him: "This is the first time I have seen you smiling for years."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/wetlands-in-a-flap-after-the-rains/2008/02/24/1203788147733.html

'Water theft' threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON - Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A MAZE of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from the state's flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
The report says inappropriate development has continued for decades…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/river-rescue-under-threat/2008/02/24/1203788147679.html

Flood plain development 'stealing water'
February 25, 2008 - 6:35AM
Levee banks, channels and dams are stealing water from NSW flood plains and threatening to undermine the $10-billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
The authors of a report on flood plain development on the lower Macquarie River say state and federal governments have turned a blind eye to water theft through flood plain harvesting, Fairfax reported on Monday.
http://news.smh.com.au/flood-plain-development-stealing-water/20080225-1ugc.html

'Water theft' threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON - Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A maze of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from NSW's flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
…. SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=48948

Posted by jennifer at 10:04 AM | TrackBack

January 30, 2008

Would Nathan Dam have Stopped Reef Flooding?

There has been a lot of rain in central Queensland over the last month. Water has been flowing over the Fairbairn dam spillway and the Nogoa River has flooded the town of Emerald with over 2,000 residents seeking emergency accommodation. The Nogoa River flows into the MacKenzie River which flows into the Fitzroy River which flows into the Great Barrier Reef.

According to environmental researcher Alison Jones floodwaters flowing down the Fitzroy River to the Great Barrier Reef will kill off masses of coral around the Keppel Islands.

So, according to Jones, floodwaters are bad for the reef.

The Dawson River, also flows into the Fitzroy River, and was to have a massive dam built in its headwaters. But development of the Nathan Dam was blocked through a court action brought by the Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

If the Nathan dam had been built on the Dawson River would there now be less flooding of the Great Barrier Reef, or would there be not enough flooding? Is there such a things as just the right amount of flooding?

Posted by jennifer at 11:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 30, 2007

The Wet Season has well and truly arrived in the Daintree

The Cooper Valley has been dumped on with exceptional rainfall over the past few days. Since Boxing Day, over 700 mm has been recorded in our portion of the catchment.

Last night I was unable to collect three travellers that had booked onto the nocturnal tour because of flooding. Another two, one from Hamburg and the other from Switzerland were awe-struck by the deluge, but eventually I had to abandon the tour. Flooding, landslides and tree falls were commonplace throughout the area.

This is by far the most exciting time of the year for wildlife. A Giant Petilurid, Australia's largest dragonfly, took refuge from the downfall, in our bathroom. The infrequently seen onychophorans or peripatus are at their most conspicuous. Tree frogs descend from their upper-story concealment in their thousands and produce such a cacophony that it is virtually impossible to be heard.

Posted by neil at 09:38 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 27, 2007

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History

I was at Burrima in the Macquarie Marshes yesterday for the launch of an important piece of research by Gillian Hogendyk:

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History, published as an Occasional Paper by the Institute of Public Affairs, September 2007.

Speakers included Don Burke (Australian Environment Foundation), Professor David Mitchell (Charles Stuart University) and Bertie Bartholomew an elder from the Wailwan people. It was the closing remarks from Gillian Hogendyk that I found most inspiring:

"I hope this paper brings about a moving on from past disputes, and that all groups in the Macquarie Valley can begin to work cooperatively towards our common goal: a healthy, viable Macquarie Marshes, and healthy, viable Macquarie Valley communities.

The time is right to achieve something really worthwhile for the Marshes. Currently there is a total of almost $206 million dollars of both State and Federal money on the table for the recovery of threatened wetlands in NSW. Surely the Macquarie Marshes, recognised both nationally and internationally, can benefit from this commitment.

However the right decisions for the Marshes must be based on the right information. This is where I hope my paper can be part of the solution. If I could put the message of my paper in a nutshell it would be this:

The Macquarie Marshes are in trouble, and have been for a very long time. We have been told that the solution is simply to buy more environmental water and send it down here. This solution completely ignores some fundamental problems. We now know that a significant part of the environmental water is regularly diverted, and doesn’t reach the Nature Reserves. We know too that large levee banks have been built upstream of both Nature Reserves. We know that the South Marsh has serious erosion problems and the North Marsh has salinity problems.

The good news is that solutions are possible. Like everyone here today, I would like to think that in the future my children and grandchildren will be able to visit and enjoy the Marshes.

Many of those present today have given me great encouragement and have added significantly to the content of my paper. In 2005 thirty Macquarie River Food and Fibre members dug into their own pockets to finance the purchase of this property ‘Burrima’. This was a pivotal moment in the whole marsh debate, as we can now lead by example and show people the results of our rehabilitation efforts here.

Thank you to all the owners of Burrima, to Don, Jennifer, and David for giving your support today, and to everyone who has worked so hard to make this day such a success. Thank you also to Bertie for welcoming us to the country of his ancestors, the Wailwan people."

This photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy yesterday (September 26, 2007) shows a grazed area within the Macquarie Marshes adjacent to the northern nature reserve in the north marsh. To the east of the fence line (within the ungrazed northern nature reserve) are reed beds.

Posted by jennifer at 06:45 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 10, 2007

Victorian Environment Assessment Council Set to Flood Murray River Communities: AEF Media Release

“Proposals for 4,000GL ‘overbank’ floods of the Murray River by the Victorian Environment Assessment Council beggar belief” said the chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation, Don Burke.

Mr Burke’s comments came at the conclusion of the foundation’s annual conference in Melbourne where a taskforce of scientists experienced in water, forestry and land management issues was appointed to investigate the VEAC recommendations.

“These draft proposals make recommendations that will see many Murray River communities under floodwaters if they were adopted by the Victorian government”, he said.

The Australian Environment Foundation will investigate the scientific robustness of these recommendations that underpin widespread and radical changes to land and water use along the Murray River.

Mr Burke commented that “Proposals such as these must address the needs of the people as well as the environment to be effective.

“The Australian Environment Foundation is focused on ensuring outcomes for the environment based on science and evidence. It is evident that obtaining 500GL for the Living Murray proposals for environmental flows have not eventuated as planned so we have real concerns about recommendations for either 2,000GL or 4,000GL to underpin these current proposals” concluded Mr Burke.

The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) is a not-for-profit, membership-based environment organisation having no political affiliation. The AEF is a different kind of environment group, caring for both Australia & Australians. Many of our members are practical environmentalists – people who actively use and also care for the environment. We accept that environmental protection and sustainable resource use are generally compatible. For more information about the AEF visit www.aefweb.info

Posted by jennifer at 06:49 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

August 15, 2007

Water Diversions in the Marshes: Finally a Mainstream Issue

Chris and Gill Hogendyk, with a bit of help from this blog, have been working hard to draw attention to the levy banks in the Macquarie Marshes starving the two nature reserves of water.

It seems the mainstream media have finally caught-on with an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled Cattlemen stealing water, irrigators say .

The piece by Daniel Lewis includes comment from Chris:

"Chris Hogendyk, the head of the irrigator group Macquarie River Food and Fibre, said the Gum Cowal-Terrigal branch of the marshes received less than 10 per cent of flood flows before 1980 but now got up to 30 per cent of what previously went to the nature reserves. There were once no large bird breeding colonies on the system, he said, but now there were several.

"The water should be going to the nature reserves, not onto private land. Once water enters the Gum Cowal-Terrigal system it is diverted and banked up across the floodplain by no less than 30 banks and channels.

"This water creates wonderful feed for fattening cattle, but kills the trees that are flooded. The resulting man-made wetlands are grazed bare."

"Mr Hogendyk said rather than buying more water, the Government had to get rid of the banks and channels or buy the private land being flooded and set it aside for conservation."

I understand that contrary to the Sydney Morning Herald article, Chris and Gill are keen for land to be purchased by The Australian Wildlife Conservancy or Bush Heritage - not government.

I am not sure that land needs to be purchased. But some of the levy banks need to be removed and some controls placed on grazing.

Posted by jennifer at 09:05 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

August 13, 2007

Let the Poor have Water, not Ideology: A New Paper from Alex Nash

This year’s World Water Week will see activists gather in Stockholm to discuss ways of getting clean water to the 1 billion people around the world who are currently without it. But, if water activists remain blinkered by ideology and continue to oppose private water provision, this goal will not be met – as explained in a new paper from the Sustainable Development Network.

Even though private water provision sees clean and safe water delivered to millions around the world, many politicians and NGOs remain irrationally opposed to the idea that profit should be made from “essential resources” like water.

According to the paper’s author, Alex Nash, a water engineer with experience of both public and private sector water projects in less-developed countries, this mindset is actively hindering universal access to water, and with it the achievement of several Millennium Development Goals.

The truth is that many public utilities in less-developed countries suffer from endemic corruption and rarely deliver services equitably – even refusing to recognise and connect slum-dwellers:

“The reality of many state run utilities is not pretty. Bribes, extortion, kickbacks, nepotism, patronage, shoddy technical standards; it’s all in a day’s work.”

Meanwhile, it is the private sector - from individual water porters to larger companies - that fill in the gaps left by dysfunctional state utilities.

The World Bank estimates that in most cities in less developed countries, more than half the population get their water from suppliers other than the public utility. This is the case in many peri-urban areas, as in Asunción Paraguay where 500 aguateros work to supply water to 500,000 people. But political opposition to private water could spell the end of such vital services.

“The net result of these ideologues’ well-meaning efforts is a staunch defence of the corrupt, lazy or incompetent utility managers and mayors. It is a defence of the comfortable middle classes in developing countries who have cheap water while their poorer compatriots queue and walk all day.”

Read the full paper: “Water Provision for the Poor- How ideology muddies the debate”,
by Alex Nash, published 13 August 2007 by the Sustainable Development Network – available for download at http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Water_Provision_for_the_Poor.pdf

Posted by jennifer at 08:53 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 26, 2007

Stealing Water from the Macquarie Marshes: A Note and More Pictures from Chris Hogendyk

During the past month there has been a tributary flood event in the Macquarie Valley resulting in a moderate but valuable volume of water (approximately 26,000 megalitres) making its way down to the drought ravaged Macquarie Marshes.

Over 30% of this water was delivered away from the publicly owned Nature Reserves into the Gum Cowal/Terrigal system than runs down the eastern side of the Macquarie Marshes. This system has been receiving almost annual flooding throughout the drought. All this system is on privately owned country and as can be seen from the following images, the water is simply being diverted out onto the flood plain to grow fodder for cattle.

The following images show only two examples of the many diversions that are occurring.

Sadly, while this is happening, the two Nature Reserves originally selected for their key ecological values and owned by the people of NSW, lie starved for water and are in a significantly worse state having missed out on much of the so called environmental flows that have been despatched to the Marshes over a considerable period. Mr Hogendyk, Chair of Macquarie River Food and Fibre (MRFF) says this situation is absurd. “We are losing these iconic wetlands yet everyone involved is closing their eyes to the real cause of the problems.

Government and NGOs are simply focused on attacking the irrigation industry and buying more water entitlements while continuing to deliver water without understanding how it is being managed and diverted in the Marshes. ”

Mr Whittaker, executive member of MRFF adds “even when water does get directed to the Nature Reserves, both have large embankments upstream of them robbing them of much of their water. Has anyone assessed the impact of these banks?”

“Furthermore, of the water that does get into the Northern Nature Reserve, much of the water passes down the Bora channel system to the west rather than down the Macquarie River system. This deprives the core reed beds of much of their water” he said. The Bora channel prior to 1980 used to carry only 30% of the Macquarie River flows, now it carries 70%.

It is time all parties involved with the Marshes sat down and worked out an effective protocol for the long term by understanding the real issues and taking ownership of what are questionable practices and diversions. It is no longer acceptable for government, NGOs and some scientists to make judgements from afar that bear no resemblance to what is really the underlying problem.

from Chris Hogendyk
Chair of Macquarie River Food and Fibre

---------------------------------
I have written about the marshes here for OLO: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4377
And there are more blog posts here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=14&category=17

Posted by jennifer at 03:20 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

June 25, 2007

ABC Belatedly Reports Macquarie Marsh Water Theft

ABC Online and ABC Radio National this morning suggested that "The New South Wales Government is under pressure to take action against landholders who have been accused of stealing water from the Macquarie Marshes in the state's north-west...

"A report conducted by the inland rivers network reveals some farmers have diverted [environmental flow] water for private use.

"Aerial photographs taken by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation show water released as part of the environmental flow was diverted." [to keep reading click here]

Macquarie River irrigators, in particular Chris Hogendyk, have been trying to get the ABC to report his issue for some time/years. Now it has been repackaged including by some of the culprits and/or deniers - at least that was the impression I got when I heard the story and interviews on radio national this morning - Sarah Clarke gives it a run.

Some of my many blog posts on the issue with pictures of the levies can be found here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=14&category=17

A piece written for On Line Opinion can be found here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4377

I am keen to get a transcript of the comment from the various graziers and scientist as broadcast on radio national this morning. Can anyone help?

Posted by jennifer at 08:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 19, 2007

The Cost of Supplying Melbourne With Irrigation Water: A Note from Rojo

Hi Jennifer,

I've just read an article in The Australian regarding a possible sweetner for the Bracks government, namely consideration of a $1.5 billion pipeline to supply Melbourne with water from the Murray river system.

I haven't found what the other options -- desalination, reuse of stormwater and a scheme to use waste water to replace water used by power generators in the Latrobe Valley -- were going to cost the Victorian goverment but I'm blown away with spending $1.5 billion for 150 gigalitres per year. And the water will have to be sourced from consumptive users and almost certainly not from environmental flows.

Maybe the $1.5 billion price tag includes the cost of purchasing this water, if not it will add another $ 2-300 million.

To my way of thinking that leaves the capital cost in the region of $10-12 million per gigalitre, or $10-12,000 per megalitre. The opportunity cost of that money will hover close to $1,000 per megalitre let alone any pumping, cleaning, maintenance and payback for the $1.5 billion outlay. And if we account for the lost agricultural production(say $250 per megalitre) due to the loss of the water, then cost per megalitre approaches $2,000.

And to top it all off we're not harnessing any new water for that outlay.

I can't begin to guess what it would cost to harvest storm water, which is wasted at a cost to the environment, or getting waste water to power generation sites, at least doing either 'create' new water. Water that can be used without infringing on anyone. I'll assume this is an expensive option.

I do note the Victorian government hasn't mentioned recycling.

What I do have, is some understanding of desalination. One of the more recent installations is in Ashkelon, Israel. This plant has a capital cost of about $300million( US$250m) to produce 110 gigalitres per year at a cost of $700 per megalitre (52 cents US/m3)

Desalination of seawater takes 3-4kw of electricity to produce a m3 (1,000 litres).

This desalination plant has it's own gas fired 80MW power station. I would guess such power consumption will have some people jumping up and down, but to put 80 MW into perspective it is less than 1% of Victoria's generating capacity of 9,000 MW and is close to 10% of Victoria's current (no pun intended) renewable electricity output of 767 MW of which 580 MW are hydro generated.

All we need to do is expand renewables by 10% to keep blood pressures in check.

A Texas site on desalination supports the Israel experience. Though slightly more expensive - those Israeli's know how to drive a bargain.

Regards,
Rojo

Posted by jennifer at 03:11 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

June 18, 2007

Government Should Stop Blaming The Drought?

Ken Smith, Coordinator-General and Director-General,
Department of Infrastructure, Queensland Government.

A recent publication circulated by your Department, Water for the Future, argued that Queensland is experiencing the worst drought in more than 100 years. It included the following diagram to make this point, and at face value this implies that unforeseeable drought is the major cause of southeast Queensland's water supply crisis.

However, others observers have offered different explanations, some of which which I have outlined in Structural Incompetence and SE Queensland's Water Crisis.

In particular, it has been suggested that SE Queensland's catchments (Wivenhoe in particular) are subject to very infrequent but large water inflows, with low inflows at other times sometimes for long periods. This hypothesis implies that:

The current series of years with low inflows would not be unique and should have been anticipated. If so, institutional incompetence is part of the cause of SE Queensland's current crisis; and the diagram your Department presented might give a false impression of the situation, as it shows high past inflows averaged over long periods that potentially conceal this problem (ie infrequent large inflows and many years of low inflows).

I would appreciate clarification of the facts of the matter, as this has serious implications for public confidence in the institutions that have been responsible for water supply management in Queensland.

Regards,
John Craig
Centre for Policy and Development Systems

Posted by jennifer at 02:03 PM | Comments (21) | 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

March 16, 2007

More on Australia's Water Crisis and Climate Change, This Sunday on 'Sunday'

I really wanted to walk out of the channel 9 television studio in Sydney last Thursday.

I was there because the 'Sunday' program had flown me all the way from Brisbane to be a part of a ‘water forum’ to discuss ‘the water crisis’.

Also there, on the very large forum panel, was federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, Wentworth Group Member and Water Commission Commissioner, Professor Peter Cullen, Australian Conservation Foundation Executive Director, Don Henry and the list went on to also include Laurie Arthur from the Rice Growers Association and someone from the Bureau of Meteorology and of course there was Dr Mike Young from CSIRO and a few more.

I almost forgot. They also had Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, on a video link up from Brisbane.

Before I could get a word in edge ways, Premier Beattie and Professor Cullen with some help from Minister Turnbull and others, had spun the usual story including that due to climate change, the Murray Darling Basin, not to mention the rest of Australia is in the grip of a water crisis.

I don't dispute that there is a water crisis, but I do dispute that it has much to do with climate change.

Minister Turnbull had also falsely claimed that Australian irrigators are inefficient and need reforming and Don Henry had managed to explain that the Murray River is in ruin. Mr Henry has been making the same claim over and over for about 10 years.

I had naïvely thought it wouldn’t unravel as such.

It was, after all, only last year that 'Sunday' ran a feature story on the Murray River explaining that there was no environmental crisis and no salinity crisis. One of their film crews had traveled the length of the river with Ross Coulthart uncovering the extent of the 'honesty crisis' – as I described it at the time.

Just a few weeks ago, in advance of the water forum, I had sent more information through to channel 9 explaining that despite all the more recent hype, the river is still doing OK. I also sent them through Bureau of Meteorology graphs, including a graph showing that there has not been a gradual long-term decline in rainfall in the Murray Darling Basin, as is so often repeatedly and falsely suggested in the mainstream media.

But this time most of the evidence was just ignored.

The shows host, Ellen Fanning, let Professor Cullen and others repeatedly confuse inflows with rainfall, drought with climate change and suggest the new $10 billion National Plan for Water Security could solve "the water crisis".

While Ellen was in complete control of where the cameras were pointing when, I did manage to make a few points in response to Premier Beattie’s claim that southeast Queensland’s water crisis was the fault of climate change and wait for it, local government, and I also managed to correct Professor Cullen when he suggested there was a direct link between the 30 percent increase in global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the current water crisis.

They filmed for 90 minutes and will edit this down to just 30 minutes. So, my efforts may have all been in vain.

There is ample opportunity, thanks in particular to Professor Cullen and Minister Turnbull, for the program to really hone the doomsayers message that we have a ‘climate crisis’ and that the government’s $10 billion plan can really fix it.

But I’m hopeful, if not optimistic, they might find a spot for some balance.

Anyway, the ‘water forum’ on the ‘water crisis’ should screen this Sunday on 'Sunday' some time between 9 and 11 am.

Posted by jennifer at 01:45 PM | Comments (55)

March 11, 2007

Good People Have Short Showers in Brisbane

How many times a day do you shower? How long do you shower for?

I live in southeast Queensland, in beautiful Brisbane. The region is famous for its balmy weather, surf beaches, theme parks (including Sea World at the Gold Coast) and general great outdoor lifestyle which often revolves around water and water sports.

Indeed, most people would consider southeast Queensland water rich.

But from the 11th April, when level 5 water restrictions are likely to be introduced, Brisbanites will be expected to comply with a raft of new water saving measures including 4 minute showers.

I don't have a problem with short showers, but I'm concerned that the government will soon be asking me to have just one shower a day.

Is there any other part of the world where government recommends how long and how often people should shower?

It is extraordinary that the situation has deteriorated to the extent that it has in southeast Queensland.

The Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, keeps blaming the "water crisis" on climate change and the drought. But the real issue is population. Indeed the population of south east Queensland has doubled since the last dam was build in 1985. There has been a chronic under investment in water infrastructure at least in part because of environmental campaigning. Indeed the planned Wolfdene Dam was scrapped about 18 years ago because of concern over environmental impacts. Now government is trying to fast track dams, desalination and waste water recycling.

Posted by jennifer at 02:03 PM | Comments (43) | TrackBack

February 22, 2007

Queensland Water for Southern Irrigators: The Bizarre Beattie-Bradfield Plan

Just 2 years ago the Queensland government passed the Wild Rivers Act 2005. It’s purportedly about preserving the natural values of wild rivers through regulating future development while maintaining grazing, fishing and eco-tourism. The bottom-line is that the legislation was championed by activists to stop the further development of irrigation in north Queensland.

The legislation is resented by many, who perceive double standards from the one government: a government which supports new dams and infrastructure development in south east Queensland, but introduces the first Act of its type in Australia to limit development in the north of the state.

But now to add insult to injury, the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, resurrects the 1920's Bradfield plan and suggests water be diverted from north Queensland Rivers to the Murray Darling system and for irrigation.

So the Murray Darling Basin is short of water. Well it’s in drought and furthermore inflows to major rivers have been reducing because of bushfires, plantations and more efficient use of water on farm including recycling.

There has been lots of rain in northern Australia and it’s in northern Australia that most of our water falls.

But for a Queensland Premier to suggest that large sums of money be spent building the infrastructure and piping water south, while at the same time restricting development in the north of this own state. Well that’s un-Australian!

Rainfall for the Murray Darling Basin from 1900 to 2006

Posted by jennifer at 08:42 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

January 31, 2007

A National Plan for Water Security (Part 2): The Issue of Over-Allocation

The Australian government’s new $10 billion, 10 point plan entitled 'A National Plan for Water Security' states that there is a need to address “once and for all water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin”. This is point 4 of the plan.

So what does it mean to be “over-allocated”?

According to The Plan “over-allocation is where more entitlements have been issued in a system than can be sustained.”

What does this mean?

According to a recent report ‘Water Use and Regulation’ by the ANZ bank:

“The National Water Commission estimates that as of 205, 1 percent of Australia’s 340 surface management areas and 5 percent of 367 groundwater management areas were over-allocated (that is over 100 percent of sustainable water levels were permanently allocated for extraction and consumption), while another 13 percent of surface water and 23 percent of groundwater areas were ‘highly developed’ (that is 70-100 percent of sustainable water was allocated) putting them at greater risk of temporary over-allocation during dry periods.”

I find the concept that over-allocation means over 100 percent of the water in a system has been allocated unusual and extreme and I have contacted the Nation Water Commission asking for more information and the specific reference. (deleted following comments below from Ian Mott and Wally, see below)

In the relevant document from the National Water Initiative there is no specific definition of 'over allocation' and comment is made that each state and territory has used different criteria.***

In the development of ‘Water Allocation and Management Plans’ in Queensland under the Water Act 2000 the arbitrary figure of 30 percent was used; that is if more than 30 percent of a river’s flow is diverted it could be considered over-allocated.*

How much of the Murray Darling Basin’s water is diverted?

Under natural conditions it is estimated that 46 percent of the 24,000 gigalitres that flow into the Murray-Darling Basin is consumed by wetlands and floodplains with the remaining 54 percent flowing out to sea. Now, with all the regulation it is estimated that 11,580 gigalitres, or about 50 percent of the water within the Murray Darling Basin, is diverted for irrigation.**

Based on the estimates in ‘River Losses and End of System Flows’ (MDBC, November 2003, and ignoring the 1,200 gigalitres from Inter-Basin Transfers), it would require that the government buy back about 4,425 gigalitres of water entitlement for the system to be at a 30 percent level of extraction.

If government paid a probably conservative $1,000 per megalitres for permanent entitlements then I estimate they would need about $4.425 billion.

This is an awful lot of money and the government currently only has $3 billion in the budget for buying water entitlements.

Is it worth it? What would be the net benefit of returning the 4,425 gigalitres to the Murray Darling Basin?

The Murray-Darling Basin covers about 14 percent of the land mass of Australia but mean runoff is only about 24,000 gigalitres or 6 percent of the Australia’s total mean annual runoff (Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000, pg 25).

While relatively little water falls within the Basin (6 percent), most of Australia’s water infrastructure has been developed here including the Snowy Mountain scheme build in the 1950s to drought proof the region.

The Murray River has essentially been turned into an irrigation channel with its headwaters part of the Snowy hydroelectricity scheme, four large dams and 13 locks along the way and the system ends in a series of barrages at the so-called Murray mouth.

The Murray River is kept artificially high most of the time as water is moved from the dams which are mostly at the top of the Catchment to irrigation areas downstream and also to meet Adelaide’s water needs.

The Darling is a very different system and less regulated.

In summary, 'A National Plan for Water Security' assumes over-allocation in the Murray Darling Basin but does not explain how this was determined and what an acceptable level of extraction might be. Assuming that 30 percent of pre-development flow levels is a reasonable level of extractions, the government would have to buy back about 4,425 gigalitres of water and is likely to cost more than $3 billion.

Buying back this water is likely to significantly impact on agricultural production in the Basin and the rural communities in irrigation areas.

There are already significant environmental flow allocations for the Murray River. Given the Murray River is already a highly regulated and somewhat artificial river system I doubt that the environmental benefit from the return of additional water would be significant. What would the environmental benefits be for the Darling River system?

-------------------
This is the second in a series of posts on 'A National Plan for Water Security', Part 1 is here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001859.html

* I can't find a good reference or link for this, Luke can you help?

** Based on 'River Losses and End of System Flows', published by the Murray Darling Basin Commission, November 2003. Can someone find the document on the internet for me?

***Changes made to this post at 12noon on Friday 2nd February.

Posted by jennifer at 02:15 PM | Comments (33) | 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 25, 2007

Australian PM Announces New Water Plan

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has just today announced a new plan for the management of water in Australia. He suggested a $10 billion budget for the following 10 point plan:

1. A nationwide investment in Australia’s irrigation infrastructure to line and pipe major delivery channels.
2. A nationwide programme to improve on-farm irrigation technology and metering.
3. The sharing of water savings on a 50/50 basis between irrigators and the Commonwealth leading to greater water security and increased environmental flows.
4. Addressing once and for all, water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin.
5. A new set of governance arrangements for the Basin [Transfer of governance from the States to the Commonwealth].
6. A sustainable cap on surface and groundwater use in the Basin.
7. Major engineering works at key sites in the Murray-Darling Basin such as the Barmah Choke and Menindee Lakes.
8. Expanding the role of the Bureau of Meteorology to provide the water data necessary for good decision-making by governments and industry.
9. A taskforce to explore future land and water development in Northern Australia.
10. Completion of the restoration of the Great Artesian Basin.

Following is the transcript of the speech at the National Press Club, Great Hall, Parliament House:

"A National Plan for Water Security Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I’m happy again to address the National Press Club on some of the great challenges that face our nation in 2007. Last year I spoke about the great sense of balance in public life and public policy which have been a hallmark of the Australian achievement.

Today I want to address in a very direct and detailed fashion one of the great challenges of our time and that is water security. Before doing so let me, of course, remind you that whatever policies we may have, in areas as specific as water security, ultimately, for their effective implementation, they depend upon the continuing strength and growth of the Australian economy. And there is no greater single challenge in face of this government and of others in public life, than demonstrating a capacity to maintain the enormous prosperity of this nation at the beginning of 2007.

Our lowest unemployment rate in more than a generation, a higher level of business investment, a very pleasing reminder that inflationary pressures are tending downward rather than in the other direction; none of these things have occurred by accident. They are not some kind of automatic God given right, they are only achieved by the implementation of the right policies in the right fashion based on experience and a capacity to take the decisions necessary to maintain the prosperity of our country.

Water has always been at the very heart of the existence of the Australian nation. It influenced the life and the activity of the first Australians. It determined that the British settlement would occur at Port Jackson rather than at Botany Bay, and the great Federation drought of 1892 through to the early part of the next century inspired Dorothea Mackellar to pen those immortal words about droughts and flooding rains. As we grew and prospered as a nation after World War II, we placed heavy demands on our water resources, but that was a time when we invested heavily in infrastructure. We built the great Snowy Mountains Scheme, we invested heavily in dams and other ways of ensuring that our water resources were there and were available.

But by the time of the 1980s, policies began to change. Governments became reluctant, for a combination, in some cases of misguided implementation of environmental policies, became reluctant to invest in the construction of water conservation infrastructure, particularly dams. And that, of course, created understandable concern about the availability of water to look after us in the years ahead. In the last decade or so, we’ve begun to turn this around. Billions of dollars both at the state and a federal level have been set aside for projects individual projects. Our own $2 billion Water Fund is leveraging major investments in every state. And through the Living Murray Initiative, we are on the way to restoring six iconic environmental sites in our greatest river system. And with the National Water Initiative, a long-term framework is finally in place to increase the efficiency of water use, to service the needs of communities, and to return our river and groundwater systems to environmental health. Despite this, the current trajectory of water use and management in Australia is not sustainable. In a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change.

I regard myself as a climate change realist...

Read the full transcript here: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech2342.html

I intend to post a critique in a day or two.

Posted by jennifer at 06:51 PM | Comments (13) | 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)

December 06, 2006

Brisbane to Vote on Waste Water Recycling

I live in Brisbane, in south east Queensland, and the city has historically relied on three dams for all its water. Not so many years ago politicians boasted that the dams were big and we would always have enough water.

Now we have level 4 water restrictions, which means that if I want to water my garden I can only do it on Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday during specified hours and with a single bucket. All hosing is banned. Sprinklers are something we have already almost forgotten ever existed. It really is bizarre that gardening should come to this.

I have written that Brisbane should recycle its water and build a desalination plant or two, click here for the piece entitled 'No More Excuses' originally published in the local newspaper, The Courier Mail.

The Australian Water Association has said that if Brisbane recycled its water there would be 40 percent more water in the system. I am all for it, but the politicians have been dragging their feet while claiming the w