The impression I got from the film, and then later from media reports and environmental campaigning is that the lagoon is connected to the freshwater lakes at the bottom of the Murray River, when in fact they have been separated since the 1940s by barrages – infrastructure built to keep out the Southern Ocean.   

But as Susan writes in the following note, “looking at the satellite imagery of the Coorong and Lower Lakes drives home the message that the two are really part of the same ecosystem and should not have those 1940’s barrages separating them.”

There will be people disadvantaged if the barrages are now opened, in particular South Australian irrigators, and also environmental campaigners who have used images of the drying lakes to argue for more water to be taken from irrigators in New South Wales and Victoria for environmental flow. 

But given the dry conditions that continue through the lower Murray Darling Basin, it is surely the best solution and would immediately restore water to this ecosystem. 

Dear Jennifer

Judging from the news stories in the Australian media you would assume that all South Australians believe that more fresh water is the only solution to the predicament the communities around the Lower Lakes  find themselves in. 

You would read about the local group saving turtles and marching on parliament house demanding more water, the local government stating that ‘seawater is a last resort’, the environmental groups declaring a saltwater solution an environmental disaster, even the ‘Murray Futures’ a recent government/community outreach program favouring a freshwater only solution.

The website LakesNeedWater.org was launched in January 2009 when a few of us, extremely frustrated by the lack of balanced viewpoint in the media and government, decided to pool our research and make it public so that others could learn about the crisis in the Lower Lakes. We hope that if people have enough information they will come to a similar conclusion, and then have the confidence and courage to make change possible.  Our goal is to have vibrant and sustainable ecosystem in the Lower Lakes, which in our opinion means returning the Lower Lakes to an estuarine system.  Producing the website content is an all volunteer effort by everyone involved in the group, some of whom have never met face to face.

So when members discover information they want to share, it gets organized onto the website.  We think that our new ‘photo map’ is a useful way for people to learn about the area.  Looking at the satellite imagery of the Coorong and Lower Lakes drives home the message that the two are really part of the same ecosystem and should not have those 1940’s barrages separating them.  We are eagerly waiting for updated satellite imagery which will more accurately reflect the current water levels.

One member recently discovered this old 2000 report from The Murray-Darling Basin Commission.  That study the ‘River Murray Barrages Environmental Flows’ report recommends treating the Coorong and the Lower Lakes as one estuary, opening the barrages to the sea, and moving the barrages back to Wellington.  If the government had acted then, we would not be faced with the nightmare of remediating thousand of hectares of acid sulphate soils, and a more environmentally friendly process of mixing seawater with freshwater could have been used.

If only.

Cheers, Susan
LakesNeedWater.org

************************

Notes and Links

The photographs were taken near Clayton South Australia from the same jetty 3 years apart – in 2006 and then in 2009.  More photos are at the website.

More information on opening the barrages can be found in an article written by Jennifer Marohasy in August 2008 entitled Saving the Coorong by restoring its native state
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7762

About the film ‘Storm Boy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Boy_(film)

When farmers say that the region has never been as dry in their lifetime they are correct.  However, the data clearly show that over south eastern Australia the first half of the 20th century was much drier than the second half and the recent ‘drought’ is a return to the conditions of the early 20th century.  Also, the recent dry period is not yet as dry as the period from about 1935 through 1945.

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) have taken the station annual rainfall since 1900 and created maps of annual rainfall. They have then calculated the average annual rainfall within various regions, including the Murray Darling Basin region.  At the website the BOM also have this map which shows the annual departure from the average (anomaly) together with the 11-year average plotted on the 6th year of the averaging period.

The data are available at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=11

Click on the graph for a better larger view.

The creation of new national parks was a 2006 election promise to secure inner-city votes but is based on a lie – on the false belief that by declaring an area a national park you can somehow “save it”. 

In reality the red gums of the mid-Murray need water and thinning and a national park declaration will achieve neither.    The national park declaration will simply increase the risk of wild fires and the death of koalas.

The Rivers and Red Gum Alliance, representing local forest users, provided the government with a well research plan whereby 104,000 hectares could be managed under the principles of the internationally recognised Ramsar convention.  

As Peter Newman, chairman of the Alliance, explained yesterday, “The forests exist in a highly modified landscape surrounded by farmland and need active management to maintain forest health.  This includes fuel reduction through controlled grazing and thinning of the red gum trees to keep the forest open and in a healthy state.” 

But the alliance plan was ignored in favour of city votes.

Announcing the plan to convert the forests to national park and effectively exclude active management, Premier Brumby falsely claimed trees in the forests are more than 500 years old: “You’re talking about trees that are more than 500 years old. And they are ancient, they are part of our history and they need to be protected.”

This is incorrect.  During the late 1800s, large quantities of timber were harvested from these forests for building and operating river boats, gold mining and as sleepers for local and overseas railways. The extent of the logging, including along the entire river frontage to a distance of approximately three kilometres from the River bank, resulted in concern that the forest would be entirely cut out. A Conservator of Forests was appointed in 1888. His focus was on protecting the forest from over-cutting, controlling over-grazing, introducing silviculture treatment and protecting the forest from fire.

The current extent of the largest of the mid-Murray forests, the Barmah forest (23,000 hectares), is thought to be a result of the extensive regeneration that also occurred at this time, in part a consequence of wet years during the 1870s coinciding with the decline of Aboriginal burning practices and preceding the introduction of sheep, cattle and rabbits.

Significant quantities of timber continued to be harvested from the Barmah forest during the 1900s. There was an official assessment of the Barmah forestry resources in 1929–30 and then again in 1960–61. The 1960–61 assessment indicated a considerable increase in growing stock and total sawlog volumes, notwithstanding the significant volumes harvested in the intervening period and despite the fact that river regulation since the construction of the Hume Dam in the 1930s had changed flow regimes.

The Murray River is now flowing strongly with water from this dam, but the water is passing the forests on its way to South Australia.  Some of this water could be diverted.  It could be pumped into the forests, but the Victorian government is intent on waiting until there is a large flood event.

The mid-Murray forests really just need some water and some thinning now.  Yesterday’s announcement by Premier Brumby will secure neither.

**************

Photograph of the burnt koala taken in Barmah Forest, in the Central MurrayValley, October 17, 2008 by Peter Newman.

Related blog posts:

A New Plan for the Red Gums of Northern Victoria, August 1, 2008.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/08/a-new-plan-for-the-red-gums-of-northern-victoria/

Thinning Red Gum Forest at Koondrook, November 9, 2007
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/thinning-red-gum-forests-at-koondrook/

After the ‘Top Island’ Fire in the Barmah Red Gum Forest, November 10, 2007
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/after-the-%e2%80%98top-island%e2%80%99-fire-in-the-barmah-red-gum-forest/

Further reading:

Myth and the Murray, Measuring the Real State of the River Environment, IPA Backgrounder,  December 2003, Vol. 15/5 http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/449/myth-and-the-murray-measuring-the-real-state-of-the-environment

“The lack of flow volumes in the rivers of the Murray Darling Basin (MDBC) in recent years is not due to irrigation and over extraction.  The facts are that without the storages and the irrigation industries, conditions would have been considerably worse.   Throughout the MDB there is presently more wetland habitat than there would have been had there been no irrigation for the last several years.  It is also wrong to suggest that increasing stream flows by releasing extra water from storages, somehow benefits the environment.   It makes no appreciable difference to the  environment whether the Murrumbidgee at say Narrandera is running at 3,500 megalitres per day or 25,000 megalitres per day. The flows in both cases remain within the banks and do not, and cannot, water the floodplain or most wetlands.

Reading the journal notes of the men who were the first explorers of the rivers of the Murray Darling Basin (MDBC) gives us a number of facts which are still relevant if we care to understand the system and wish to maintain it for the good of future generations.

The explorers note that once the rivers of the MDB leave the hills and commence their meandering journey across the plains, the stream flow is twenty to forty feet below the surrounding flood plain.  Only at the Macquarie Marshes, the wetlands of the lower Lachlan and to a lesser extent above the Bahmar Choke in the Murray do the rivers flow above their bank, other than in large floods. 

Most of the other rivers in the MDB, including the Murray have the same characteristics; once they reach the flood plain (it is on the flood plain that the wonderful River Red Gums grow and also the vast but irregularly watered wetlands preside); they flow well below the surrounding plains.   Therefore these wetlands are only ever flooded in periods of excessive catchment rainfall which causes the river to flow above its banks.   When this happens the wetlands explode in a volcano of abundant life across all species natural to this environment. 

A magnificent, spontaneous and symbiotic food chain develops only limited by the environment in which it exists, and sadly it seems, not understood by many present day commentators.

In order to understand the system it is necessary to have some understanding of water volumes. 

A megalitre is 1 million litres or 1000 cubic meters. It is the measure that is used for all sales and purchases of water throughout the MDB. It is also used by all Municipal authorities.  For those who want a comparative picture, an Olympic Pool is around 1.7 megalitres, depending on depth and width.

In the case of the Murrumbidgee, the photograph shows the river running at around 2,400 megalitres per day. If a release from both Burrinjuck Dam (full capacity 1.03 M megalitres) and Blowering Dam (full capacity 1.6 M megalitres) of 20,000 megalitres per day were to be made in this situation, it will not put water onto the flood plain. A flow of 40,000 M/d will put some water into a few low lying Billabongs and backwaters, but will not put water on the floodplain.  All that would be achieved is a high river flow for a few days. Most of which would run to the sea and to waste.  The same applies to most other valleys in the MDB.

To put water onto the Murrumbidgee floodplain and fill the wetlands requires volumes in excess of 150,000 megalitres per day. This is far beyond what is possible from existing storages.  It will only ever be achieved by Mother Nature and man has no influence on its recurrence and little on its magnitude.  As an example of what is required to flood any of the MDB river valleys, the Murrumbidgee flood of September 1974 is enlightening.    Following heavy rain in the area of the ACT, Burrinjuck dam quickly filled and a day later there was almost 400,000 megalitres per day going over the spillway, plus the outlets were fully open. There was sufficient water going down the Murrumbidgee Valley to fill Burrinjuck from empty every two days.

While this flood reached a height of 9.19 meters at Wagga Wagga it was not an exceptionally large flood historically.  This and greater volumes are required in most of the river valleys of the MDB to water the wetlands.

Our early explorers and settlers recognized the huge flow changes that occur in our river systems. They were also aware that this old river system was very unpredictable. It moved from abundance of flow to completely dry at irregular intervals. 

While a vocal minority of modern man seems unable to accept these historical and present facts, we are prone to make bad decisions on behalf of future generations.  From the 1840s to present time we do have sufficient records to support the variability of stream flows within the MDB. One of these is at Wagga Wagga where records have been kept since 1844 and show that there have been 77 floods over 8.23M. Note a flow of 3,000 mgs. /day is a river reading of approximately 1 metre at this site.

To stress the point, the Murrumbidgee at Wagga has to rise 7 metres above normal flow to reach flood level and water the floodplain. This requires volumes far in excess of any storage on the system.

Ron Pike now lives at Coff Harbour on the NSW Central Coast in Australia.  Read Part 1 here.  Photograph of the Murrumbidgee River at Gogeldrie taken on September 3, 2008.

[As correctly pointed out in the comments following this posting, my brother Jim Turnour, also a member of the Federal Parliament, has a Batchelor of Agricultural Science.  Other members with science and science-related degrees are listed in a comment in the following thread.]    

Yesterday Dr Jensen suggested in the Australian Parliament that many of the current problems facing the Murray Darling Basin are the result of low runoff as a consequence of changed land management practices (including more plantations in the top of catchments), catchment-wide drainage management plans (place in the 1980s and 1990s to lower water tables) and more efficient water use (resulting in less leakage). 

He explained that it was wrong to blame climate change for the low levels in the dams, because there had been no long term decline in rainfall in the Basin. 

Dr Jensen also explained that many of the climate models used to predict regional rainfall, including the CSIRO models (relied upon by Ross Garnaut in his report on climate change to the Australian government), are unreliable and unduly pessimistic.

When Dr Jensen asked to table supporting information in the Parliament by way of charts and tables, the request was denied. 

Much of the information that Dr Jensen was banned from tabling can be found in a recent publication from the IPA entitled ‘What’s Happening to the Murray River?’.

**************

The picture of Dr Jensen is from his parliamentary website.

While it is easy for modern man to pass this off as superstition, much of what is being claimed in relation to the rivers of the Murray Darling Basin is as unreasonable as a belief in Bunyips.

To begin to understand the ecology and the unique environment of the Murray Darling Basin, we need to revisit some of the observations made by the first explorers after the arrival of white man in Australia.

Shortly after the settlers made their way across the Blue Mountains in 1813, a Government surveyor, Mr. Evans was sent on an expedition westward to find rivers and water, sufficient for settlement. He found and named the Lachlan and Macquarie rivers and a number of tributaries. He notes in his journal:

“The greater part of these lands are nearly free of timber and brushwood and should meet every demand for the Colonies extension of tillage and pasture lands for a century to come.”

On a later excursion when the land was in drought Evans notes:

“Rivers such as these no man has ever heard of before. They all run inland. They stop when least expected, leaving no visible channel or water-course. Sometimes they are as salty as the ocean and at other times contain excellent drinking water. From my observations it is apparent that they can go from a chain of stagnant ponds to boiling over their banks, filling whole valleys with raging water.”

To resolve the riddle of the two rivers discovered by Evans, the Governor dispatched in 1817, Lieutenant Oxley and botanist Alan Cunningham to follow the Lachlan and if possible also the Macquarie.  According to Oxley’s journal:

“We reached the Lachlan on the 26th April 1817at a place where it is about 100 feet wide, with deep banks, and its course obstructed by many large trees that have fallen into the stream, obstructing the current and rendering progress difficult. Flood marks thirty-six feet above the stream were clearly visible.”

After making their way down the Lachlan, Oxley and his party are eventually stopped by the swamps of the lower Lachlan valley only a day or so short of discovering the Murrumbidgee.

They retrace their steps back up the Lachlan until the 1st of August 1817,  when they head north to the Macquarie and then back to Bathurst.

In 1828 with the Colonies expanded stock numbers are all dying as a result of extended drought, Governor Darling sends an expedition led by Charles Sturt and Hamilton Hume to return to the Macquarie marshes found by Oxley, in search of pasture for the dying stock.

They reach the marshes on 26th December 1828, to find them dry and denuded with the barest trickle of water. This was in stark contrast to what Oxley had described ten years earlier.

They head north and on the 4th February 1829 in Sturt’s words:

“We discover a fine river about 240 feet wide, deep and covered with wild fowl. Much to our astonishment the water is so salty that our thirsty horses refuse to drink.”

The party proceeds downstream and discovers the Bogan River and replenish their water supplies. The party then proceeded to the Castlereagh River which was totally dry and Sturt described thus:

“So long had this drought continued, that the vegetable kingdom was annihilated. In the creeks and rivers, weeds had grown and withered and young saplings were growing in their beds. The larger trees on the banks were drooping and many appeared near dead.”

by Ron Pike, Coffs Harbour, Australia

The Picture is of the Castlereagh River at Gilgandra taken by Ron Pike in September, 2008.

The Riverina, a once rich farming area in south western New South Wales, was considered most affected by this “scourge of salinity”, this “curse of salt”.  

In the next year it is likely that a lot of farmers in this area will walk, will leave the Riverina, but it won’t be because of salt.  Farmers in the Riverina worked with their local water corporation, Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL), and government engineers to solve the salt problem. 

While it was once feared over 300,000 hectares would be lost to salt, by March 2003 the area with shallow water tables had stabilized below 20,000 hectares and is now less than 4,000 hectares. 

Indeed farmers won’t be leaving because of salt.  They will be leaving because of prolonged drought, and government policy. 

John Lolicato, a Wakool farmer and keen fisherman, explains:

Recently there has been quite a bit of media coverage about the Wakool Landholders wanting to sell their water to the Federal Government.  Please allow me the opportunity to put the situation into perspective.  The vast majority of Landholders would prefer not to sell any water at all but due to practically 3 years of zero allocation with virtually no farming income and governments ad-hoc approach to spending their billions of dollars on water buy-back, they fail to recognise the role we play in producing food and fibre for the country.

The recent ABC television Four Corners program highlighted the fact that Penny Wong and her department have entered into the market to buy large amounts of water with no set plan and have absolutely no regard for the social and economic costs to the local and regional communities of water leaving their areas. 

Government have actively been encouraging groups of farmers to consider the complete shut-down of irrigation throughout the region, this has been the main catalyst to encourage the Wakool Landholders Association to investigate the option for a full sale of their entitlements, recognising that large parcels of water leaving the area would affect those that remain.  

Over the last 10-15 years  the area has already undergone massive restructure and up until the change of Federal government  the remaining farmers were still showing their confidence in being  broad scale food and fibre producers by continuing to adopt best management practices as encouraged by our land and water management plans (LWMP’s).  The main push was to become more efficient and sustainable for the long term and usually this meant spreading the capital base by investing in more land and infrastructure. 
Now the people that had the greatest confidence in the future of irrigation farming are being hit the hardest. 

Here are some of the facts:
• The majority are paying more than $40,000 a year in fixed water charges for something they haven’t received for the last 2, going on 3 years.  Some are paying over $100,000 a year.
• MIL has consistently told their shareholders to prepare for a 20 – 40% reduction in their entitlements.
• Government is not prepared to acknowledge the true cost of the water buy back, only wanting to recognise the market price without any structural adjustment.
• In their wisdom government pulled out of the most successful partnership developed by the community and government – the Murray LWMP’s with only 2 years of their commitment left.
• The majority of cereal crops have failed and the prospect of being able to carry stock or grow a summer crop is very unlikely.
• Issues like the purchase of Yanga Station by government (which increased the shires rates by 5%) and striping water off irrigation country undermines confidence.

If the government was serious about their desire to retrieve water for the environment while still recognising the role irrigation plays for the efficient production of food and fibre they could have adopted one of the many proposals put forward by the various irrigation communities.    The main ones being:
• The WLA put forward a proposal to sell up to 20% of their entitlements that included recognising the impact on the local community and minimising the effect on the remaining irrigators.
• Murrumbidgee Irrigation has suggested a long term lease arrangement that could be a win-win situation.
• MIL has developed an integrated package that recognises benefits to the environment and shareholders.

The Rudd Government appears to be obsessed with shutting down irrigation communities without any real strategy or plan.  Attempting to justify the buy back by living the lie of the South Australian Lower Lakes and encouraging more horticulture only fuels the increasing lack of confidence of practical business people for the future of broad scale irrigation.

In summing up the Wakool district has some of the most modern and efficient infrastructure in the supply system, on farm and in the region (eg. controlled water tables).  It has the most efficient and dedicated farm business people in the world but like most business people they will not continue to invest capital into a business they see very little future in while these negative signals are being sent out by Government.

John Lolicato
Barham, Australia

***************************************

The picture of John Lolicato on the banks of the Wakool River in Possum Forest, was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in October 2007.

The following chart is from the Murray Irrigation Ltd Environment and Sustainability Report 2003 (click on the image, for a larger image).

But few Australians now have anything much to do with the bush.  They mostly live in cities, don’t know how to ride a horse and go to the beach for their holidays.  They just singing about sheep at sporting events and read poems about mighty rivers and like the idea of saving the outback.  And so it seems every new Australia government makes saving the Murray River part of their platform. 

The previous Howard government was going to save the Murray from salinity – and achieved this through the construction of salt interception schemes and catchment wide drainage plans all administered by the Murray Darling Basin Commission.     

The new Rudd Government wants to save the Murray from climate change.   This is a much more ambitious undertaking than saving the Murray from salt.  

As part of this campaign the new government has new legislation, The Water Amendment Bill 2008, and it is currently being debated in federal parliament with its second reading beginning last week.   A centre piece of the new legislation is the creation of a ‘The Murray Darling Basin Authority’.   This new institution is claimed to be needed because the existing Murray Darling Basin Commission doesn’t have enough control over the states, but in reality the new organisation, like the old, will still be subject to state politics.  In short, nothing much will change, but it keeps the politicians in politics.   

Politician and new Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, plans to relieve the claimed climate change problem by buying up farms; most recently through the purchase of a 91,000 hectare property called Tooralee near Burke in NSW.  Tooralee currently grows maize, cotton and beef cattle but following the federal government takeover will be converted to national park.  

Internet campaigners ‘GetUp’ helped get the Rudd-government elected, and have recently joined ‘the fray’ on Murray River issues claiming to provide an opportunity for Australians “to keep the rivers flowing” and save “Australia’s food bowl” through a few mouse-clicks.   But this new campaign is particularly deceptive as Penny Wong’s policies will actually close-down agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin i.e. empty the food bowl!  Indeed the federal government has something like $3.6 billion to buyback farms like Tooralee.
Furthermore, as some farmers explained on ABC’s TV’s Four Corners program on Tuesday night, you can’t buy back rivers, not even with billions of dollars, because water allocations are just air space until it rains.   

But hey, modern Australia’s are now a mostly soft and gullible lot and likely to support this campaign which is essentially a campaign in support of more politics and big government and against bushies because they now know no better.   But none of this makes senses in the context of our heritage which was about being practical and a part of the bush – the floods and the droughts and the climate change.

Beyond Burke, May 2005. Photograph by Jennifer Marohasy

Last Tuesday in federal parliament as part of debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2008, Mr Thomson described me as an anti-environmentalist and made much of my opposition to the creation of another 100,000 hectares of National Park along the Murray River.   He suggested that converting state forest to national park would be a very significant nature conservation outcome for the Murray River which I opposed.  

In reality converting state forest to national park is not going to address the current key issue for the forests which is provision of adequate environment flows in an efficient manner.  Furthermore, by ‘locking-up’ the forests and banning current management practices the forests may become less, rather than more, resilient.  

I do oppose the continual ‘locking-up’ of ever more forest principally on the basis that those in metropolitan Australia, in places like inner-city Melbourne, like the idea of national parks.  

Many city people have a romantic notion of wilderness – an idea that wilderness is a place where people do not go.   In reality the beauty of many wild places is a consequence of careful management by people.  Indeed the red gum forests of the central Murray Valley, the forests that Mr Thomson would like to see ‘locked-up’, are only about 6,000 years old following a geological uplifting that changed the course of the Murray River.  They have always been managed, first by indigenous Australians and more recently by the wood cutters and cattlemen who now live there. 

In July this year I launched the 152-page ‘Conservation and Community Plan’ for the Red Gum forests at the Victorian Parliament House.   This plan is about protecting the Red Gum forests not leaving their survival to fate.   The plan developed by 25 community groups under the guidance of foresters Mark Poynter and Barry Dexter proposes the creation of a public land tenure known as RAMSAR Reserve with management to integrate the principles of multiple-use with environmental care.   Current government policies and plans relating to timber production, cattle grazing, and recreational activities would be retained in RAMSAR Reserves in accordance with zoning that takes account of prevailing values and conditions.   

The community plan proposes that funding for more on-ground resources be obtained from revenue generated by these commercial uses of the forest such as timber production, grazing, firewood collection and bee keeping.   

The Alliance of community groups supports more environmental flows for the forests and the plan explains how to achieve the more efficient delivery of this water through the use of water regulators that already exist in many of the forests. 

In short, Mr Thomson misrepresents me when he suggested in federal parliament last week that I do not care about the Red Gum forests.   I care deeply about these forests and I recognise that their preservation is dependent on appropriate management regimes, not the romantic notion of wilderness implicit in the speech by Mr Thomson that falsely assumes less people equals more trees.    

************
Additional Reading:

While the Murray River is flowing despite the drought, many of its tributaries are drying up: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/murray-river-tributary-reduced-to-billabongs/ 

After a fire in the Barmah forest:    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/after-the-%e2%80%98top-island%e2%80%99-fire-in-the-barmah-red-gum-forest/

Some forests can be ‘drought proofed’ through thinning: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/thinning-red-gum-forests-at-koondrook/ 

You can read my speech at the launch of the community plan here:  http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/08/a-new-plan-for-the-red-gums-of-northern-victoria/

Enjoying the Murray River, surrounded by River Red gums, just upstream of Barham, October 2007.  Photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy.

IS the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by climate change? The simple answer is that there is no evidence that CO2 has had any significant role. Like it or not, that is the science.

In fact, the drought was caused by an entirely natural phenomenon: the 2002 El Nino event. This led to particularly low rainfalls across eastern Australia. The subsequent years were either neutral or weak El Nino conditions. Significantly, neutral conditions are not sufficient to break a drought. In 2006, we had a return to El Nino conditions which further exacerbated the drought. What we didn’t have was a strong La Nina.

Last year finally brought a La Nina event but it was relatively weak. It produced a number of major storm events in coastal areas and some useful rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin and elsewhere. Approximately half of NSW drought-declared areas were lifted out of drought (albeit into “marginal” status) and Sydney’s water supply doubled in the space of a few months.

This was the first rain-bearing La Nina since 1999 but proved insufficient to break the drought. In short, the drought was initiated by El Nino, protracted by further El Nino events and perhaps more importantly, the absence of substantial La Nina events.

Despite the known causes of the drought, many have claimed that CO2 emissions are to blame. There have been arguments put forward to justify this claim, all eagerly adopted by various groups, but none of which have serious merit.

A key claim is that the multiple occurrence of El Nino is a sign of climate change. This is speculative at best. Recent analysis showed the nine-year absence of La Nina was not unusual. In fact long-term records demonstrate alternating periods of 20-40 years where El Nino is dominant, followed by similarly extended periods where La Nina dominates. Ominously, the data demonstrates that it is possible to go 14-15 years without any La Nina events. The consequent drought would be devastating but entirely natural.

The observation that El Nino and La Nina events cluster on 20-40 year, multi-decadal timescales is an important one. It demonstrates that Australia should always expect major changes in climate as a function of natural variability. When viewed in this light, the drought is most likely a recurring feature of the Australian climate.

A more recent claim is that higher temperatures are leading to increased evaporation of moisture. The weather bureau acknowledges that rainfall from September 2001 until now has not been the lowest recorded, however much has been made of the fact that consequent inflows have been the lowest. It has been claimed increased evaporation, driven by climate change, can make up this discrepancy. Indeed, Wendy Craik, the chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission has stated that temperatures were warmer, leading to more evaporation and drier catchments.

This is disturbing to hear from the head of the MDBC, as it is completely at odds with the known physics of evaporation. While it sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong.

When soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun’s energy is used in evaporation. Consequently, there is limited heating of the surface. When soil moisture content is low (as occurs during drought) nearly all of that energy is converted into heating the surface, and air temperatures rise significantly. Consequently, higher temperatures are due to the lack of evaporation, not a cause of significantly higher evaporation.

Cloud cover also provides a major control on air temperatures. El Nino delivers less rainfall but also less cloud cover. This has a major impact on the amount of the sun’s energy reaching land; far greater than the trivial increase in radiant energy caused by increased CO2. Again, in the absence of soil moisture, air temperatures increase.

These are known and accepted processes of environmental physics and are not contentious. They are ignored because they detract from the simple message that we should sign up to the concept of “dangerous climate change” and an emissions trading scheme. After all, who would pay for carbon emissions if they were not proven to be detrimental? Who would provide extra funds for climate change science if it wasn’t a proven significant factor compared to natural climatic variability?

None of the above is to say that CO2 is not having some effect; the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen and this is largely attributable to anthropogenic emissions. CO2 is a radiatively-active gas and leads

to a minor increase in downward radiation. However, there is no evidence that this is in any way significant, especially when compared to the naturally varying processes that dominate rainfall variability and evaporation.

We do know why inflows are so low and why various ecosystems of the Murray-Darling are in crisis: the system is over-allocated and has experienced a growth in groundwater extraction and in the number of farm dams preventing rainfall from becoming run-off. This is due to a failure of planning, management and leadership from the relevant authorities. Under these conditions, when a prolonged drought strikes, the system collapses.

This is a man-made problem but not one that is attributable to CO2.

Craik is not alone in her desire to view CO2-induced climate change as proven and affecting the drought. Numerous politicians, environmentalists and especially scientists have made spectacular leaps of faith in their adherence to the doctrine of climate change over recent years, too many to document here. However, the most literally fantastic claim on climate change must go to Kevin Rudd, who has guaranteed that rainfall will decline over coming decades; one can only assume he’s based his view on deficient climate models and bad advice.

Perhaps our leading climate authorities who have played such a prominent role in fomenting speculation about climate change, and who apparently adhere to the notion that climate is amenable to prediction, should also point out that these models cannot reproduce the observed multi-decadal variability of El Nino and La Nina in anything like a realistic manner.

Given the uncertainty of El Nino and La Nina behaviour, one clearly cannot predict the future.   There is no direct evidence of CO2 impacts on the drought, nor is there any rational basis for predicting rainfall in 30 years time. One just hopes that sensible and sustainable management from our leaders will enable struggling rural communities to weather the vagaries of climatic and political extremes.

Steward Franks

Newcastle, Australia

Stewart Franks is a hydroclimatologist and an associate professor at the University of Newcastle School of Engineering. He is president-elect of the International Commission on the Coupled Land – Atmosphere System.

This article has been republished from The Australian with permission from the author.

———————– 

Emissions not making rivers run dry, The Australian, Stewart Franks, September 12, 2008