Sold Down the River by Canberra
Posted by jennifer, January 29th, 2012 - under Information, Opinion.
Tags: Murray River
WHEN former Labor leader Mark Latham was campaigning to win the 2004 federal election, he promised to add 450 gigalitres of environmental flows to the Murray River in his first term of government and an extra 1,500 within ten years.
Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown said he would return 1,500 gigalitres within five years – in half the time.
Back then 1,500 gigalitres seemed like a lot of water.
In a June 2003 interview for ABC Television’s Four Corners, the late Peter Cullen from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists also mentioned 1,500 gigalitres and indicated that volume was scientifically derived.
In their Blueprint for a National Water Plan, the Wentworth Group proposed the water be returned through an annual incremental increase of 100 gigalitres for environmental flow. Based on this 2003 plan, by last year at least 800 gigalitres would need to have been returned to the river.
In fact, when campaigning during the 2010 federal election Julia Gillard said over 900 gigalitres had already been recovered.
The Wentworth Group should be happy with progress.
But it isn’t.
The group now claims no less than 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to the Murray Darling river system. The Australian Greens are also now claiming that a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to ensure the Murray River’s survival and 7,600 gigalitres if it is to be healthy.
What has precipitated such a momentous change in the volume of water required to save the river?
In 2003 the water was apparently needed because of declining water quality and rising river salinity. This was shown to be a furphy: river salinity levels had been falling since the early 1980s since implementation of the salinity management strategy of the Murray Darling Basin Commission.
So now less, not more, water should be needed. But the focus has switched to the bottom of the system with claims more water is now needed to keep the Murray’s mouth open.
Professor Cullen was talking about the Murray’s mouth in that June 2003 Four Corners interview. Had he mentioned the need for a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres back then it would have been considered greedy.
Not any more! Expectations have changed.
I put the change down to two initiatives lead by former prime minister John Howard. In 2007 the Water Act became law, creating priority for environmental water. In the same year $10 billion was allocated for implementation of the associated Murray-Darling Basin plan.
Thanks to Mr Howard, Ms Gillard now has a legal obligation to send a volume of water about equal to the total current baseline diversions for the NSW Murray (1,812/year GL) and also the Murrumbidgee (2501 GL/year) to South Australia every year.
***************
First published in The Land newspaper on January 19, 2012
Peter,
Instead of :-
• A study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero,
Peter,
Hit the wrong button.
Instead of :-
• A study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero,
• Have a “ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN” into Lock Zero.
Especially now we have Professor Tim Flannery 12th. July, 2008, Professor Peter Gell 6th. January, 2009 and Dr. Mike Geddes 22nd. April, 2010 all suggesting salt water ( sea water ) into the Lakes.
That’s clever Sean,
Use their own language!
Can you throw in ‘localism’ as well?
Peter….this will probably fall on deaf ears but if SA can create efficiencies that make sense and achieve those ’9 years out of 10′ goals, that would require less conserved and conveyance water to achieve (which is ironically what SA is demanding of everyone else) it would not surprise me if SA got the absolute lion’s share of the money. Many of the upstream productive water users would support something like that.
The challenge is to create the efficiencies so that SA does not lock out the productive use of storage water in the upstream storages. At the moment, that is the inevitable result of the current plan and also your plan. They require water to be held in upstream storages until at least December. That effectively locks out the majority of upstream irrigation in Spring, which is when they need access to their water entitlements.
Think in terms of ‘Environmental works and measures’ and also think in terms of upgrading those barrages and other structures so that the ocean can be used to everyone’s advantage…especially in Summer/Autumn which was the traditional time for the tidal estuarine ecology to operate there.
You would probably find people throwing money at you if you could come up with an adaptive management plan like that.
Don’t forget that seasons like the last 2 will then create extra bonuses for SA.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs38.pdf
Hi Sean,
It doesn’t matter what you call it, it still has to be accepted and carried out. I have spoken to Mike Geddes and yes while he has mentioned it he has had no support though does support our call for a study into Lock Zero. I will be raising it at next Tuesday’s meeting.
Hi Debbie,
Excuse me the Murray mouth 9 out of 10 is the MDBA’s idea not ours, we totally refute that crap as it would mean dredges to keep the mouth open and who pays?
Re, “it would not surprise me if SA got the absolute lion’s share of the money” if you are talking about the $10-Billion, Victoria have already had $1-Billion and much of it has already been earmarked but not for SA.
Re, “Many of the upstream productive water users would support something like that” I doubt that!
What about allowing all of our Lower River Murray irrigators to be able to resume irrigating we did have some of the most fertile dairy land in this country, if not the best?
It’s seems to be all about, “upstream productive water users” what about us?
Re, “also think in terms of upgrading those barrages and other structures so that the ocean can be used to everyone’s advantage” by everybody you mean everybody above Lock 1?
If we are able to have the investigation started and then completed, then accepted, then the decisions made to YOUR way of thinking it should take at least a decade for that then another decade to have the work completed!
You are joking, “You would probably find people throwing money at you if you could come up with an adaptive management plan like that” why would they do that in this I’m alright jack world?
And the only reason that, “Don’t forget that seasons like the last 2 will then create extra bonuses for SA” is because above Lock 1 can’t hold/retain the water and the bonus will be for the Murray mouth!
Who pays for dredges? They cost about 50 million, for some years. A 2750GL reduction in water will cost a billion per annum in lost production. Most years.
Peter,
Where on earth did this come from?
“What about allowing all of our Lower River Murray irrigators to be able to resume irrigating we did have some of the most fertile dairy land in this country, if not the best?”
Who says they’re not allowed? That would have to part of the challenge wouldn’t it? We all think we have the best…and in some ways we are all correct. That is not the issue or the problem we need to solve.
You are still arguing from an ‘us or them’ platform.
Sean understands that can’t work, why don’t you?
Check out Rojo’s comparison as well.
Hi Rojo,
Re, “Who pays for dredges?” firstly please don’t exaggerate the cost figures it’s about $1-Million per dredge per year and why should SA foot the full bill as all we want is to be able to irrigate in the Lower River Murray with some confidence and our dairy farmers on the Lower River Murray flats would like is to be able to resume irrigating.
And I don’t believe, “A 2750GL reduction in water will cost a billion per annum in lost production. Most years” unless you are counting our losses in that and then I still doubt the figures.
Hi Debbie,
“Where on earth did this come from?” it came from the continued attacks on – especially the Lower River Murray including the Barrages and Lake Albert!
I kid you not the Lower Murray irrigated swamps were some if not the best dairy properties in the Basin with great production figures!
Re, “Who says they’re not allowed?” the availability to re laser level their swamps which was done some 10 years ago at a cost of in excess of $ millions and they can’t afford it again, repair of cracks in those swamps, some big enough to swallow a semi trailer, repair of large diameter pipes broken because of the shifting ground, repair of pumps stations that have sunk/shifted/moved.
The estimated cost of repairs $50-Million!
What Sean is doing is slowing bowing to your solution, I can assure we are doing as much as possible putting pressure on our State Government to have changes made, studies undertaken but then we hear what Knowles and co are saying interstate and especially at Mildura and we just wonder why they can’t say the same at each meeting.
Then Bourke says we don’t care about how the water is used as long as it revenue positive, the b****** pandering to the mining lobby.
Also allowing massive take from the country’s ground water, what a joke.
If you were prepared to go to my web page and look at my email contacts and then email me I could send you some presentations that are being presented, we are doing our best to open up the discussions so we can get some answers.
And where did it come from, listening to our State pollies making out they care and our Premier who really has no idea!
Peter,
No one who has been involved in water politics is even slightly surprised by the ‘divide & conquer’ tactics or the rather duplicitous comments that are made depending where they happen to be speaking. Haven’t you figured it out yet? SA is being played just as much as everyone else. Sean has figured that out, he is most definitely NOT bowing to anyone’s solutions. He argues just as strongly for SA as he always has, he has just stopped playing the ‘divide and conquer’ game.
While we allow that game to continue, no one wins.
Also Peter, while I agree that those areas suffered damage, it appears that they are simply not as ‘drought tolerant’ as other areas in the MDB. The huge cracks and broken pipes are a clear indication of that as they were definitely caused by the drought.
Other places in Australia, including some coastal areas also suffered from the same issues. It had very little to do with bad management or the Eastern States. It simply didn’t rain enough and we all ran short of storage capacity. Even the coastal cities like Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane ran short.
Hi Debbie,
I realise no one is surprised but that does not make it right or fair and yes I knew that right from the beginning!
Re, the damage caused by the drought in the LRM it is the FIRST time since irrigation began on the irrigated swamps (1880’s) that this problem had arisen.
Also there is no absolutely no comparison between the LRM and “coastal areas also suffered from the same issues”
It was the first time for a lot of other places too Peter.
We have outstripped our storage capacity and we can’t supply all demands in a drought like that.
That’s the problem.
Of course there are comparable areas. Although it has it’s own unique characteristics, the LRM soils etc have many similarities to other areas.
Hi Debbie,
I am sorry, and this is not about blame, it’s about 1) The water being so low that soil, some a kilometre from the River, cracked open, huge cracks, and in some places groups of trees soil and all just sank by as much a 2 or 3 metres, 2) Because of the loss of hydrological pressure 100’s of 1,000’s of tonnes just slide into the River taking with it cars, water pumps, power poles, boat ramps etc in some cases destabilizing houses which are un livable.
It is not about soils it is about water!
It was DROUGHT Peter!
Good grief!
Of course it is soils as well.
Obviously there are places in our country that are not as drought tolerant as others.
It’s OK. It is not only those areas in SA like that. There are others in other states who copped it as well when the soil cracked open and infrastructure and housing was damaged.
You need to remember it was a DROUGHT!
Hi Debbie,
I know it was a bloody drought for Christ’s sake what I am TRYING to say is and it’s not blaming anyone but the drought.
I know about the drought don’t treat me like a fool these soils have never in recorded times ever been affected like this before and when I took a hundred odd photos to a Murray Darling Association Conference in Victoria none of our members from the Eastern States had EVER seen the likes of this before.
I am NOT blaming ANYBODY I am seeking your understanding of the situation.
Have you EVER seen irrigated land open up with cracks wide enough to completely swallow a semi-trailer these cracks at right angles to the river some 500 metres or more from the River?
Maybe one day you should visit!
Of course I have Peter.
We all suffered through the millenium drought and observed horrible damage. Soils like the ones you refer to crack open like that. SA is not the only place that has them. SA is not the only place where major damage, for the first time, occured.
I am not trying to belittle the damage there, I know exactly how devastating it was. You need to understand that it was not a unique problem and that it was caused by drought. If we want to avoid damage like that again, it won’t be avoided by jamming up upstream storages in normal years. It also won’t be avoided by simply playing around with pool levels in the river.
Hi Debbie,
I didn’t know that the cracks, which as I said would have swallowed a semi-trailer, appeared in the land along the Murrumbidgee as all of the members of the Murray Darling Association I spoke to in the Eastern States had never seen anything like what occurred in the LRM so you really , unless you have seen it, cannot know, “exactly how devastating it was.”
You are WRONG, “You need to understand that it was not a unique problem and that it was caused by drought”
Because if the level of the LRM had not dropped by more than THREE METRES this damage WOULD NOT have manifested along the LRM and it was caused by lack of inflows into the MDB.
Re, “If we want to avoid damage like that again” IT IS ABOUT POOL LEVELS the LRM cannot if humanly possible not allow the LRM to drop below sea level!
I can only suggest that the people you showed the photos to need to get out more.
You are missing the point Peter.
You claim you understand that the damage was caused by lack of inflows (ie a millenium drought) but still then claim that somehow the LRM should have had more water in it.
The LRM was extra ordinarily lucky to have any water in it at all.
The incessant bleating about ‘bad management’ and poor SA is not helping your cause.
SA needs to take some responsibilty here and stop pretending that it is everybody else’s responsibility and that apart from pure physics and position that somehow SA suffered more than anyone else.
SA is vulnerable because of its position. SA also wants its Lake environment to be like others further upstream when SA’s Lake environment is DIFFERENT to other upstream MDB environments because it is influenced by the ocean.
The further anomoly is that the environment movement is pretending that a fresh water solution is necessary because that’s ‘natural’.
Your environment bears more similarities to other coastal environments, NOT upstream MDB environments.
Put simply, it has proven to be a mistake to try and nullify the influence of the ocean.
It is too powerful an influence..
Hi Debbie,
I didn’t think you had actually seen cracks that would swallow a semi-trailer but by saying, “I can only suggest that the people you showed the photos to need to get out more” as they came from throughout the Basin in the Eastern States I don’t think you have seen them either!
Whilst our environment (near the Murray mouth) used to, “Your environment bears more similarities to other coastal environments” it no longer does as the River upstream of Lake Alexandrina has been irreversibly altered and that, “powerful an influence” could turn the LRM non-potable if it weren’t for the Barrages!