Yesterday the Sydney Morning Herald ran yet another nonsense story about the Macquarie Marshes. I reckon that their journalist, Anne Davies, was hoodwinked.
There is a strong belief that more water, in particular more environmental flows, will solve the environmental problems of the Murray-Darling Basin. Flood plain graziers have a vested interest in lobbying for more water, particularly in the Macquarie Marshes, where they claim “fat ducks equal fat cattle”.
I have previously posted photographs at this blog suggesting that a problem in the marshes may be overgrazing rather than inadequate environmental flows. Only 12 percent of the marshes are nature reserve leaving 88 percent for cattle fattening.
But the ‘eye poking’ is mostly always of cotton growers, despite evidence of overgrazing. This is what Anne Davies, the State Political Editor, at the Sydney Morning Herald had to say yesterday under the emotive title ‘As politicians squabble the wetlands die’.
“Then in the 1960s the Burrendong Dam was built, and after that came more intensive farming of cotton. By the late 1980s cotton farming had increased fourfold and irrigation licences meant less than 30 per cent of the original water flow was reaching the marshes.
Measures were then put in place to save the remaining 50 per cent of the marshes with considerable pain to the irrigators. But it proved to be insufficient. Last October, the Department of Environment conducted its annual aerial survey of wetland birds. The results, compounded by the continuing drought, were shocking.
“For the second year in a row, record low numbers of waterbirds were counted on the Macquarie Marshes,” the scientists wrote. “The marshes averaged 30,000 in the 1980s, never below 100 but this year less than 10 birds.”
There is a lot of misinformation here. I wonder who gave her that story? Who is the unnamed scientist?
I visited the marshes last October, when there were apparently only 10 birds to found, and here is one of the many photographs I took. Also, I saw lots of birds including great egrets, black ducks, reed warblers, straw necked ibis and spoon bills.
While Davies suggests the marshes are now receiving less than 30 percent of original water flow, since the 1996 water sharing plan, the official figure has been 85 percent. That is the marshes now receive 85 percent of their long term average annual flow.
The idea that birds have reduced in number from 30,000 to 10 since the 1980s is not consistent with the various technical reports or Atlas of Australian Birds which shows numbers of most colonial nesting waterbird species increased for the Darling Riverine Plains Bioregion over the past 20 years.
The graziers manipulate water flow in the marshes and one land holder in the region tells me new wetland habitat has been created by artificially directing flow into the Gum-Cowal Terrigal Creek wetlands and in this way directed water away from nature reserve to private land.
Here is an aerial photograph taken on 25th November 2005 showing a levy bank in the Terrigal/Gum Cowal system.
According to the landholder who sent me the photograph, “This is the system that we have been challenging strongly about even receiving much water, has now got the Ramsar wetland on it on private land although it is in conflict with the nature reserve. This is a system that should only receive minimal water under current conditions. An exceptional amount of environmental water has been pushed down there of late and virtually doesn’t reach the other end. It is held up by many banks such as this purely to develop wetlands for grazing as you can see in the image.”
The following photograph shows a levy bank just south of the southern nature reserve holding water on private land and preventing it reaching the nature reserve.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Editor
Sydney Morning Herald
Dear Sir
I refer to Anne Davies’ opinion piece yesterday “As politicians squabble, the wetlands die.”
The Macquarie Marshes will indeed die as a result of political squabbling and lack of action to address the key issues but the Federal Government is not to blame.
The problem lies within the NSW Government.
Firstly, politically motivated announcements of large sums of public money to purchase water from the irrigation industry for the “environment” ignore the impact of land management practices on the ecological health of the 90% of the Macquarie Marshes that is on private land. Yes – 90% of the Macquarie Marshes are on private land.
I would hope that the State Government would take a closer look at all the impacts before spending $105 million of taxpayers’ money on a solution that will not fix the major problems.
Not only will it not fix the problem, potentially it will exacerbate the problem by enabling higher stocking rates to be carried on 90% of the marshes with the increased water.
Secondly, the NSW Government cannot agree which information or science to use when discussing the Macquarie Marshes. The Department of Natural Resources manages water flow and resource information in NSW yet other portfolio ministers seem to use whatever information suits them when discussing the amount of water that reaches the Marshes. The Department of Natural Resources clearly state that the Macquarie Marshes receive 85% of average annual flows, not 30% as stated in Ms Davies’ article.
Irrigators in the Macquarie Valley recognise that river regulation has had an impact on the Macquarie Marshes and hope that the Water Sharing Plan developed by our local community can strike a balance between a healthy Marsh environment and a vibrant irrigated agriculture industry.
It’s high time that other stakeholders and the NSW Government recognise the detrimental impact their political gamesmanship is having on the long term health of these iconic wetlands.
Yours Sincerely,
Macquarie River Food and Fibre
Chris Hogendyk
Chair
Are you arguing the same point? From a very quick spot of homework it seems that:
– the 30% refers to proportion of total catchment flow reaching the marshes, and
– the 85% refers to the water reaching the marshes under current land and water use patterns v’s natural uniterrupted flows,
meaning that both figures are roughly correct but perhaps Davies misunderstood the distinction (or was hoodwinked).
“Flows in the regulated section of the Macquarie River can be simulated by the Department of Land and Water Conservation using a daily time step simulation model. This model determines flows for different stretches of the river over a 104-year period of record. Model runs based on current conditions and the new 1996 plan indicate that the Marshes now receive an average of 30 percent of the water that flows into the catchment. In contrast, under natural conditions (simulated no dam, no irrigation) the Marshes would have received an average 38 % of the inflows to the catchment.”
(this quote is probably a bit dated)
http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/wetlands/activities/centralwest/mvalley_feature.html
I confess to being totally bewildered by the arguments re macquarie marshes, too much water, not enough, and all these agreements cancelling out other agreements then those not being met..and the dates dont match up..
Ray Jones from NPWS says “To give you an idea of the size of the breedings that do occur here, in ’98, and this flood’s shaping up to be a flood about the size of the ’98 flood, in one colony alone here that we had in a half a kilometre square, we had 50,000 breeding pair, of birds breeding in reed beds and they come in weight of numbers, trample the 4-metre reed down to water level, then they build nests and lay all over the top of it.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s218039.htm
Of course it’s not just the volume of water, but the pattern of inundation. A biodiversity threat comes from the more consistent flows to satisfy irrigation demands, waterlogging some areas inappropriately and reducing the area inundated by large floods by 40%.
What’s the operation of the water sharing plan?
In 1990, 89% of Macquarie river water volumes were allocated to irrigation (7% to the marshes). (What’s the water use of the graziers?)
What are the objections to the following?
“Over the past two decades (prior to 1991/2) land-use within the Macquarie Valley has undergone a change, with cotton rising in prominence to become the major irrigated crop. The area of cotton grown has increased three to four fold”
“Irrigation, run-off from cropped areas upstream and raised water tables may result in increased levels of salts in the water that flows through the Marshes. Saline discharges are a major concern.. ” and “Of primary concern are the pesticides used in the cotton growing areas (NSW NPWS, 1993) and the effects that these chemicals may have on breeding waterbirds”.
“Loss of ground cover and soil compaction caused by grazing stock are suggested as possible causes of a decline in species and numbers (NSW NPWS, 1993). Grazing is, however, not considered to be a major threat and in fact grazing of privately held Marsh land in combination with a suitable flooding regime may provide sustainable resource use and conservation value.”
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/series/paper9/appnd2_2.html
Phil commented on other thread that graziers say they can’t reduce stocking rates due to debt obligations. It makes sense that overgrazing and grazing in sensitive areas should be prevented and water use by graziers minimised, similarly as for cotton.
Dear Thinksy
Firstly I apologise for my vociferous outburst re your reference to Jennifer as Marohasy. I should have realised you were confirming to the well established convention re citing sources.
It’s just that I get a bit upset about the common practice of referring to people by their surnames viz Howard, Bush, Keating et al. But I guess that’s my upbringing.
However I wish to comment on the questions raised in your post. “What are the objections to the following”.
1.”Over the past two decades (prior to 1991/2) land-use within the Macquarie Valley has undergone a change, with cotton rising in prominence to become the major irrigated crop. The area of cotton grown has increased three to four fold”
Easily testable statement. Check the stats.
2.”Irrigation, run-off from cropped areas upstream and raised water tables may result in increased levels of salts in the water that flows through the Marshes. Saline discharges are a major concern.. ” and “Of primary concern are the pesticides used in the cotton growing areas (NSW NPWS, 1993) and the effects that these chemicals may have on breeding waterbirds”.
I guess a few responses seem reasonable:
Has there been an increase in the level of salts?
Has there been any effect from pesticides use on breeding waterbirds?
Who is concerned?
“Grazing is, however, not considered to be a major threat and in fact grazing of privately held Marsh land in combination with a suitable flooding regime may provide sustainable resource use and conservation value.”
I have no idea what “sustainable resource use and conservation value” are. Perhaps you may enlighten me.
Also I read your reference and I came across the following statement.
“Adopting a precautionary approach would suggest a minimum requirement should at least allow the successful breeding of the water birds.”
Now I don’t know much about the breeding habits of water birds but what constitutes the successful breeding of water birds? Are we talking about some historical reference point concerning the total number of birds who mated and had offspring? If the breeding area is reduced due to curtailment of historical flows to the marshes does it somehow follow that succesful breeding of a reduced number of birds is also affected?
Also what has been the impact on bird numbers/species etc following the construction of a reservoir?
How do you arrive at your statement “overgrazing and grazing in sensitive areas should be prevented and water use by graziers minimised, similarly as for cotton.”?
The term “overgrazing” immediately suggests something bad..nobody seems to worry about undergrazing. But I am still intrigued how you arrive at your conclusion that “water use by graziers and and cotton farmers should be minimised”. Is their some optimum water allocation and if so how did you arrive at it?
Blair
It is difficult to find any long term history on bird numbers, these comments attribute a portion of the bird decline to conservation farming practices.
“Pervasive waterbird decline in the NSW central-western slopes
The mid-Lachlan and upper-Macquarie valleys of the Murray-Darling Basin extend from Dubbo south to Yass and west to Condobolin and Junee, and include Lake Cowal. Over the 20 years of bird atlasing, agriculture has diversified, although mixed farming (sheep, cattle, crops) still predominates over most of the region. With the increasing development of irrigated crops and pastures, considerably more water is extracted from the rivers and storages now than 25 years ago. There are many more farm dams in place, and two recent shifts in standard agricultural practice have also greatly reduced surface runoff: conservation tillage whereby stubble and off-season growth are retained until the next crop (as opposed to ploughed fallow paddocks), and the conversion from short-rooted annual pastures to deep-rooted perennials. All these developments have probably contributed to the great decline in seasonal wetlands and swamps in the region.
The analysis of reporting rates of 46 species of waterbird recorded in the region in 11 or more years between 1981 and 2000 paints a gloomy picture. There appear to be few winners and many losers. Most species show signs of long-term decline (see table). Considering the overall trends, 29 species trend down and five species up. The Black-fronted Dotterel has suffered the worst decline—a fourfold decrease in 20 years (see graph). Four basic types of trend were detected (see examples in the graphs): linear increase (five species); linear decrease (21 species); humped so that the species was in decline for at least the last 10 years (8 species); and no trend towards long-term change (12 species).
Will these waterbird declines continue, or will reporting rates stabilise at some lower equilibrium? We do not know, but these results point to a regional level of agricultural development which is ecologically unsustainable. Under current farming systems, too much water is being pumped out of the rivers by irrigators, and too much of the overland flow is captured in farm dams, further exacerbating the thirst of rivers. Just as excessive loss of natural wooded habitat has endangered many of the region’s woodland birds, so the loss of natural wetlands is impacting on the waterbirds. It is little consolation that the latter may be better buffered by their greater ability to disperse long distances.
by Julian Reid, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,
and Dick Cooper, Brian Curtis and Ian McAllan,
New South Wales Bird Atlassers Inc.”
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/birds-04/regional.html#mac
Hi Blair, I did a quick search and read a few sources (incl other related posts by Jennifer), trying to get a better understanding of the Macq marshes issue. You ask detailed questions on the quotes as if I was the original researcher or author rather than someone who simply wanted to learn a bit more in the limited time available. References are provided in the DEH source from which those quotes above are taken if you wish to follow them up to answer yr questions. Unfortunately they aren’t given for each stat/claim and I don’t have time to research it further (this was the clearest report that jumped out in my quick search). In that case do I accept the report by CSIRO, the Australian Centre for Environmental Law, and Community Solutions appearing on DEH website, complemented by posts above, as the best available info (or do I need to embark upon a new specialist career in this area before I’m allowed to think on it some more)?
Given the suggestions above that there’s misinformation and the govt doesn’t have the right solution, I thought the Macquarie River Food and Fibre or other readers from that area might care to clarify if and how those extracts from the report on DEH site were misleading. Do you have anything concrete to add? It would be nice to hear some specifics if/how irrigators are wearing a disproportionate share of the responsibility. Note that they don’t seem to be arguing that there aren’t conservation issues, rather, questioning where the responsibility lies.
Re: my reference to overgrazing & minimising water use was an attempt to present a balanced post before I got attacked for anti-cotton bias and then had to painfully clarify, like I’m doing now! (can’t win) Note that the original post and letter above points to (alleged!) problems of insufficient water volumes/patterns of inundation, potential higher water costs for irrigation. You seemed to have missed the connections with the original post and letter: I mentioned overgrazing specifically because Jennifer has posted pictures (follow link to her earlier post) suggesting that overgrazing is a problem, and in this post says “problem in the marshes may be overgrazing” and “The graziers manipulate water flow in the marshes” (conclusion being that cotton farmers unfairly wear most of the blame for the degradation of the marshes). Cotton farming clearly uses a significant and (allegedly!!) increasing amount of water – I was simply trying to balance my post by making it clear (before I got attacked) that if efforts are needed to reduce water use then they should apply to all users. (The distinction between upstream and downstream water use >may>perhaps<< this provides a solid basis for distinguishing between users.) In answer to yr question on the optimal water allocation, is there a special agro-economic formula for ‘utopian outcomes’?
Isn’t the problem here that some scoundrel has built a bloody big levee on his land that’s starving the marshes of water.
Blow the dyke !! Call dam busters. And give the recalcitrant owner a paradigm transplant. Like wildlife tour licence in the Marshes to earn some tourism bucks. What’s the bloody NSW EPA doing .. ..
Sorry getting lost.
Phil what do you mean by ‘levee’ exactly? And perhaps you can enlighten me on your concept of “starving the marshes of water”? Do you have any reliable sources? Are you Ian? And what’s this about dykes? Are you an eco-terrorist?
A levee or protective dyke is a woman in sensible shoes near a dangerous body of water saying “Don’t go near there!”.
I want to use a big cotton-idustry deep ripper dozer to break the norty cow-rancher’s fascist hydrological barrier. For the ducks.
Predictable green/left approach to private property, confiscate it in the name of ”the environment”.
Bumkum – this is crown jewels RAMSAR wetlands. Lucky we didn’t ask for a custodial sentence. It’s the old right wing stuff-the-externalities again- “I can get away with trashing the commons again”. Vandal and barbarian supporter.
He can still park his Chevy on parts of the levee but like with little kids – learn to share the water.
rog proves his inability to read or comprehend yet again. Who proposed confiscating pvt property?
rog, do you wish that all the beaches and all the waterways were private property – screw the public and the wildlife?
While we’re at it, why are you so touchy about property development – a sensitive issue for you?
Dear Thinksy
You posed the qustion “What are the objections to the following?”
I read the article from which they were extracted and then asked some questions, which indicated my objections. I certainly didn’t expect you, not beeing the author of the paper, to defend them.
My biggest concern about this whole area of environment/agricultural conflict is that decisions are made often without any scientific support. For example if one is considering how to share impounded water among agricultural use and non-gricultural uses including environmental flows then one would like a little more information about(say)salts and pesticide effects rather than untested claims and vague statements such as “minimum requirement should at least allow the successful breeding of the water birds.”
I think the issue about how one handles competing claims for natural resource use between agriculture and non-agriculture sectors has yet to be successfully resolved. Agricultural economists can model the impact on the agricultural and related sectors of different water allocations; they can also look at the impact of differing water charges on farm profitability, enterprise mix etc.
Unfortunately they cannot in the majority of cases satisfactorily measure, in dollars and sense, the impact on the non-market sector viz the natural environment. This is despite many valiant attempts to do so. Of course it does not follow that environmental values are non-existent it’s just that in many cases it is very difficult, if at all possible,to put a dollar value on them. One can’t compare apples (dollars) with oranges (decline in water bird numbers)so how can the issue be settled?
So yes there is NO special agro-economic formula to arrive at ‘utopian outcomes’.
One can only hope that science can shed some light on the impact of, in this case,changing water allocations on the environment.
Then the muddled and imperfect political process can provide the final decision based on the information from the agricultural economists and the physical scientists.
Finally “do I accept the report by CSIRO, the Australian Centre for Environmental Law, and Community Solutions appearing on DEH website, complemented by posts above, as the best available info (or do I need to embark upon a new specialist career in this area before I’m allowed to think on it some more)?”
I humbly suggest you apply the same probing approach to matters wide and various as you have displayed on this site. If we accept, because of their source, that some findings are more reliable than others without actually critically examining the content than surely we are not contributing much via our comments.
If I encounter topics about which I have little knowledge my rule is not to contribute but I still read the article, comments, etc and hopefully in the end I become more enlightened
Blair
Thinksi, I’m not touchy about property development but when I hear reports of gridlocked transport systems in Sydney I know that the prevalent urban touchy feely greeny politics have got themselves into a fine mess.
Phil gets off on “trashing commons” hyperbole. More meaningless greenie rhetoric.
That’s cause Rog is probably tossing his nursery waste in nearby bushland or grazing the horses on the verge. Trashing the commons: Rog – it’s like taking your dog for a walk – so it can defecate on someone else’s footpath.
Who owns the footpath Phil?
Blair I’m curious that you didn’t question the original post and letter above, only the extracts I provided as a basis for questions. I took the probing approach that yu recommend, above, within the limits of my time. It’s impossible to examine all original sources for all claims and all sides, but I do question all sides (far more than the average person).
==>> And so it comes back to my questions on the extracts above. Will the Macquarie cotton farmers and supporters provide some informative responses so we all become more enlightened?
rog, do you wish that all the beaches and all the waterways were private property?
I will be posting more on this, probably as a new blog post, but in the interim..
I agree with Phil, the issue is that dyke!
I’ve been trying to chase it down with the NSW governemnt and this has been the response to date:
“We are still trying to identify where this bank/levee/channel is actually constructed. Until we can accurately locate it we cannot say for sure whether it is an approved work or not. Similarly, until we locate it accurately we are unable to ascertain whether it had any impact, adverse or otherwise, on the October/November 05 environmental flow release. The department will contact you again once we have more details.”
They’ve already been told the name of the property .. but I reckon they are just stalling. That’s a bureacracy for you?
For heavens sake NSW Govt – acquire an Ikonos high-res satellite image of the property. Shouldn’t take more than a couple of days. If they’re not authorised – put a dozer through it in a dozen spots.
I wish that all the beaches and all the waterways were private property, they would then achieve some value.
So esteemed Thinksi of vast retired wealth – now greenie stalwart, nemesis of right-wing extremists and defender of the faith – how many of them like Rog are out there do you reckon? And is it contagious?
Dear Thinksi
The reason I didn’t make comment about the original article and Jennifer’s response was I thought the main points had been adequately covered by earlier contributors, including yourself.
It certainly does appear that some grazier(s) are tapping into the environmental flows meant for the marshes so until that has been resolved it seems a little premature to talk about spending $27m on “water efficiency projects, water buy-back and projects to improve wetland management in the Macquarie Marshes and Gwydir Wetlands”.
http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/wetlands/recovery_plan.html
Rather my comments were directed to a related, but in my opinion little debated issue, namely that of determining the information needs required to adequately cover the issue of competing uses of natural resources.
Blair
rog, “I wish that all the beaches and all the waterways were private property, they would then achieve some value”. What a dumb throw-away remark. ‘achieve some value’!! ‘Some’ value for whom? More value than we have today?
By coincidence, stumbled across this:
“Only a little over a quarter of a century ago much of the NSW coastline between Batemans Bay and the Victorian border was in private hands. Farmers used to graze their cattle down to the ocean’s edge, destroying vegetation, causing erosion and disturbing Aboriginal artefacts as old as the Egyptian pyramids. It was the way things were done.
Visitors trying to reach favourite beaches and fishing spots had to jump over barbed wire fences and dodge landholders who refused to share the shore.
When the State Government began to acquire some of this coastal land so that it could be enjoyed by everybody, there was an outcry. The sky was falling, lawyers were hired and pages of ink were spilt moaning about government interference.
But it was a courageous action and as a result we now have some of the state’s most precious and popular coastal national parks. An intergenerational pattern of coastal degradation was halted and the public’s right to the beach was guaranteed.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/we-have-to-fight-them-for-the-beaches/2006/03/29/1143441212601.html
Really thinxsi, that SMH author wants to ban recreational fishing too. We now have a growing number of marine parks with NPWS controlling activities on the coast. He says that 25 years ago the coast was entirely in private hands??? More greenie extravagance.
The actual coast has always been the property of the Crown. Businesses that operate adjacent to the water usually have a Crown lease or local council lease or combination of the two. Councils enact State legislature and the State is the Crown.
rog fails to read and comprehend yet again. the author is a recreational fisherman who takes his son fishing with him. He doesn’t want to see it banned.
rog yr comments are thoughtless. At least offer up some evidence. Can you explain ‘add some value’?
btw, I reckon now that dammed land should be confiscated by the govt (if it had any teeth) and handed over to the ducks (not the dykes).
Currently recreational fishing is banned in 20% of marine parks.
Read all about marine parks http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pages/faqs.htm
And what about all this hoohaa about greedy farmers raping and pillaging the NSW coast?
And aboriginal artifacts – I’ll bet they are middens or garbage dumps, hardly on par with egyptian pyramids.
Aboriginals made good use of the natural resources, should they be similarly castigated?
In the good ol’ days they used to burn the middens for lime to make mortar, hence place names ‘lime burners creek’ and ‘oyster shell rd’. If they couldnt make mortar they couldnt make buildings etc etc.
rog either you have serious comprehension problems or you don’t know how to make a logical point.
The author was making an *age* comparison to the pyramids, he didn’t say they’re on par.
Recreational fishing is banned in sanctuary zones. 20% of marine parks? Um.. and? What would you expect? Among other benefits, this allows fishing grounds to be restocked.
“Aboriginals made” is past tense (& a loose point). We’re talking about today.
You would prefer to still live in the ‘good ol days’ but nothing stands still so try to get informed and keep an open mind on contemporary issues.
rog you still haven’t explained “I wish that all the beaches and all the waterways were private property, they would then achieve some value”. Achieve what value, how, for whom, by what method? Increase value to the general public? You should revise that statement.
I recently visited the Macquarie Marshes on a school excursion to investigate an ecosystem. The Macquarie Marshes is now a FAILING ECOSYSTEM. All you have to do is compare its previous appearance to the caked, bare and dehydrated area it is now. You are mistaken in suggesting that overgrazing is the problem in the marshes, it is most definitely lack of water flow. The once-natural water flow is the most significant factor in the health of the wetlands. Simply in the fact that they are WETlands. They need significant amounts of water to satisfy birds needs for breeeding, kill species of weeds, transport neccessary soil sediment, sustain the redgum population among other major functions.
The piesometer measurements in areas of the marshes have registered the water table at 7metres below the surface, as opposed to the 1metre of 2002. Obviously, the marsh now needs a vast amount of water to even begin to rejuvinate the dying wetlands.
In reference to the bird population, i myself have seen images of the HUGE amount of colonies that were once present in the marshes. Our national parks guide; a bird lover whose job is to register such colonies, has indeed specifically observed a extremely significant drop in bird population, from 1thousands in 2004 to 10 to 15 in the last two years. The statemnt by Anne Davies, “For the second year in a row, record low numbers of waterbirds were counted on the Macquarie Marshes,” the scientists wrote. “The marshes averaged 30,000 in the 1980s, never below 100 but this year less than 10 birds.”, I am in complete support of.
In my time in the marshes I discovered a land completely parched, the northen side of the national park are almost completely dead, while only one major reed bed still functions to clean water. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that the detriment of the marshes is due to anything but lack of water. Perhaps you yourself should take a look at the area now and speak to the people on it, the marshes are nothing but thirsty.