And according to recent Australian government advice there are opportunities for Australian businesses in pollution prevention and control technologies as the country seeks to address air and water pollution.  Current major suppliers of environmental equipment are apparently from the USA, Japan, mainland China and the UK.

“Air pollution is a serious problem, and diesel smoke and fine dust in the urban areas are the most pressing problems, causing health concerns. A number of measures have been introduced that have reduced vehicle emissions by almost 80 per cent.

Major progress:
• Hong Kong became the first city in Asia to switch to ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel
• Over 98 per cent of the 15,000 taxis in Hong Kong have converted to LPG
• Over 80 per cent (24,000 in number) old light diesel vehicles installed particulate trap
• All new petrol cars must be fitted with catalytic converters
• Higher fines are imposed on smoky vehicles
• Introduction of the most stringent Euro III emission standards

Road traffic noise is one of the most pervasive forms of pollution in Hong Kong. Close to a million people live in homes which suffer road traffic noise higher than the minimum acceptable standard (70 dB) in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. The following measures have been introduced to tackle road traffic noise problems:
• Pre-emptive planning based on environmental impact assessments
• Introduction of building insulation to redress the impact on the affected premises
• Installation of roadside barriers and enclosures on existing roads
• Imposition of legislative regulation to control noise from vehicles
• Resurfacing noisy roads with a special porous, low-noise road surface

“Water pollution has increased with urban development. Hong Kong produces more than two million tonnes of sewage every day. The lack of proper treatment for most sewage from the urban area around Victoria Harbour has resulted in poor water quality. The Government has launched the ‘Harbour Area Treatment Scheme’ to tackle the sewage and wastewater pollution. Around 70 per cent of the sewage that flows into Victoria Harbour will pass through chemically enhanced treatment. An international panel completed a review on the sewage system in Hong Kong and made suggestions on the future treatment of sewage.

The total recycling recovery rate in Hong Kong is about 35 per cent of the total municipal solid waste. In the industrial and commercial sectors Hong Kong has a good recovery rate with over 50 per cent of materials being recycled. Local industry reprocesses over 50 per cent of recyclable materials such as waste paper, metals, plastic and glass.

Chemical wastes are treated at the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre by incineration. The government also plans to develop incineration facilities for the disposal of municipal waste, clinical waste, sewage sludge from the sewage treatment plants, and animal carcasses.”

All this in one of the most densely populated countries on earth.

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)

Mr Xenophon is certainly demanding the attention of the most powerful politician officially, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, by insisting on more water for South Australia in return for the passage of the economic stimulus package.

Now he is backing a possible constitutional challenge by South Australia to remove barriers to water trade in Victoria. 

By backing this legal action, he will in effect be supporting the federal bureaucracy against the states – presumably only because he believes it is the federal government that will act in the interests of South Australia. 

Given its continual dominance of the national water agenda, it is probably a safe bet.  

During the Howard years, South Australians, Nick Minchin and Alexandra Downer, ensured cabinet decisions, including on water, never disadvantaged them. 

Now, South Australians can lay claim to not only Mr Xenophon, but also  the federal Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong.

Then there is also Senator Sarah Hanson-Young who, also from South Australia, tends to chime in whenever Mr Xenophon takes the running on an issue.

Last Friday, she repeated Mr Xenophon’s claim that the survival of South Australia’s Lower Lakes and Coorong was dependent on the Federal Government taking control of the Murray River.  

Of course it theoretically already has control through the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority. 

But there’s a snag: neither Ms Wong or Mr Rudd can make it rain.  

They can try and get more water from places where it is raining, like “Tooralee”, down to South Australia, but it’s a long way, and there will be significant losses along the way.

However, there is a simple solution to the problem of the lower lakes and Coorong:  they only need to open the barrages currently holding back the sea for the area to become flooded with seawater as it was when Charles Sturt first visited the area in 1830.

But if South Australia started solving its own problems, it might become irrelevant nationally and then they wouldn’t have the most powerful politician in Australia.

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

First published in The Land newspaper.  Rural Press also publish a daily e-newsletter, click here to subscribe.

The photograph of the seagull was taken at the mouth of the Murray River – beyond the barrages – in April 2007 by Jennifer Marohasy.

“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).

If we convert the average annual rainfall into megalitres and do the same for the other continents, then yes, Australia does receive the least precipitation of all of the inhabited continents.  This is exemplified by comparing some average runoff data.  Of all of the rain that falls on Australia about 11% finds its way to the sea via our river system, which on average amounts to 290 million megalitres per year from mainland Australia. Another 50million megalitres runs to the sea from Tasmania.   By comparison the Mississippi river alone in USA averages a discharge of 560 million megalitres annually – almost double all of the rivers from mainland Australia. The Yangtze Kiang in China discharges 690 million megalitres annually and the Amazon in Brazil nearly ten times that amount.

So, yes, Australia does have meager water supplies compared to the other continents, but these figures lack relevance unless we consider two other vital factors. Australia is the smallest continent and much more importantly we have a miniscule population in comparison to other continents and countries. 

If we look at a comparison of water availability per head of population, which is much more relevant, we get a dramatically different picture.   Water per person from annual precipitation from various countries:
Australia:  130 megalitres
Brazil:  121 megalitres
United States  29 megalitres
China:  11 megalitres
Japan:   5.9 megalitres.
United Kingdom:  2.6 megalitres.

Leaving aside ground water for now, Australia has another source of water.   Because most of our cities and towns were originally built on river estuaries, for obvious reasons and because no thought was given to the collection of runoff from roofing and pavement, most of our storm water runs into the sea.   While the quantum of this is not known, estimates of around 40 million megalitres annually are considered reasonable. 

So, how much water do we need?

For each Australia household to have all the water we need to live what we consider to be the Australian lifestyle. That is, have a garden with lawn on which we wash the car when we feel like it, have a pool for the kids and generally not have to be concerned about water.  We need 110,000, litres per person per year.  That includes all domestic use, Council and industrial use, but does not include Agriculture and Mining.  Therefore for every 9 people in Australia we need 1 megalitre of water per year.

Let us assume that with some rational planning we did the following:
A. Collected and recycled just 5% of urban runoff = 2M megalitres
B.  New dams to collect just 5% of river runoff      = 14 M megalitres.
Total 16 million megalitres = sufficient for 144 million people.

So, Australia is not short of water, but incredibly short of practical planning and intelligent use of this resource. 

Radical environmentalism has distorted our capacity to make rational decisions on how we harvest and recycle this resource in the interests of all Australians.

Let us look at this from an extraterrestrial viewpoint.

If there were intelligent aliens orbiting the earth and looking down on Australia, they would certainly recognize that a large part of our continent is dry and a rugged place to live. But they would also note that the coastal strip from Adelaide to Cairns was sparsely populated with beautiful clean cities and towns, enjoying a wonderful lifestyle. All built on river and creek estuaries.

They would note that while these rivers did not have huge mountain catchments like other continents, they nonetheless had mostly pristine catchments that delivered regular stream flows.

They would also observe over time that the streams that served this naturally wonderful area in which to live, regularly had excess flows and on an irregular basis carried huge floods to the sea.

They would then learn from our media that these beautiful cities and towns were regularly short of water.
They could only conclude that the people who lived in this wonderful part of the world.  Lacked basic intelligence!  They could not reasonably come to any other conclusion.

Should you think this is a harsh criticism, let me give you an example from my home area on our wonderful coastal strip at Coffs Harbour.

Since arriving here in 2002 most of the towns both north and south of Coffs Harbour have had water restrictions. Coffs Harbour uses approximately 5,500 megalitres of water per year.

Since our arrival in this wonderful part of the world, the Bellinger River (a small river, average discharge 240,000 megs/year.) has been in flood three times. In March 2006 a flood in this river was flowing over the top of the bridge at Bellingen at the rate of 72.000 megalitres per day, sufficient flow if harvested to keep Coffs Harbour in water for 13 years.

This is just one small example of the water harvesting opportunities that can be shared with hydro electricity generation in Australia on many streams.

It needs to be shouted from the rafters and repeated over and over, that in the Australian environment, correctly sited, properly engineered and sensibly managed dams and water storages are never other than a plus for the environment.

There is no environmental downside.

Properly managed water storages, augment stream flow in drought, they do not deplete flows.  Water saved from flood flows is there for mankind to use to best advantage, for the environment, for community consumption, for hydro power, for agriculture and fishing and for leisure activities.

Water is not scarce, it is perpetual.

Australia is not short of water, but we are short on practical planning and the intelligent use of a basic resource.

Ron Pike
Coffs Harbour, New South Wales

Waterfind has today publically released our 2007-08 Annual Water Market Report. As a part of Waterfind’s dedication to providing an integrated water brokerage service, we strive to provide our clients with the most up to date and comprehensive information about the Australian water market. 

The report provides information on the state of our National water resources, major policy announcements and trading activity for the 2007-08 irrigation season, and provides some analysis on how these factors impacted the water market throughout the season. 

 Key findings of the report include: 

1.  Major northern water storages above the NSW–QLD border line were not adversely affected by the current drought conditions being experienced in Australia, holding on average 90% of their capacity compared to 20% on average for major southern storages. 

2.  The largest volume of water stored in Australia was in Lake Argyle in Western Australia, with over 10 million ML of actual water storage, more than the other 9 largest water storages in Australia combined. 

3.  The price of water in Australia’s largest water markets in the Southern Murray Darling regions experienced extreme volatility during the 07-08 season, peaking at $1200 per ML in November 2007 only to drop to below $300 per ML in February 2008.  This was influenced by water resource availability and major policy/allocation announcements during the season.

4.  Early observations indicate that water market activity in the 2008-09 season has been lower than in 2007-08, with prices being recorded at up to 50% less than the same period last year.  This has been attributed to grower concerns about last season’s record high prices and current uncertainty of water resource availability. 

To view the full 2007-08 Annual Water Market Report, visit www.waterfind.com.au/water-report-signup.html.

Regards, 

Waterfind Pty Ltd
NATIONAL WATER BROKERS

In response, Dr Jennifer Marohasy posted ‘How Melbourne’s Climate Has Changed: A reply to Dr David Jones (Part 3)’, which included a graph of high quality data of rainfall at Yan Yean, Victoria, because of its proximity to Melbourne. 

The graph is from Mr Warwick Hughes based on Bureau of Meteorology data and shows that recent rainfall decline at Yan Yean is comparable to declines during previous droughts.

I have also graphed Bureau data for some of Melbourne’s catchment areas.  While I couldn’t find a site with data extending back as far as the Yan Yean site, the Maroondah and O’Shanneyssy stations show a significant recent decline in rainfall that is greater than previous droughts in the 1896, 1925 and 1945.

Some of the Melbourne catchment areas rainfall data shows recent significant decline, but there are a number of problems with using bureau rainfall data for the Melbourne catchment.  A main problem is that the Bureau does not have rainfall data for Melbourne’s largest reservoirs, Upper Yarra and Thomson back more than 30 years.

The best publicly available data on catchment area rainfall comes from Melbourne Water. However, Melbourne Water’s publicly available data is only from 1998 to 2008.

Without long-term high quality data of catchment area rainfall for all catchment areas, it is impossible to know whether the longer-term trend shows dramatic declines at many, or just some, places in the Melbourne catchment. 

Nichole Hoskin
Blue Mountains, Australia