I spilt my tea over a story at ABC News Online last Thursday.
Entitled ‘Murray River flows at record low’, without quoting a specific source, it stated:
“The water level in the Murray River is at its lowest since records began more than 100 years ago.”
I rang a couple of friends that live beside the River last Friday and they said it still has lots of water in it.
Yet less than 100 years ago, in 1914, it ran dry.
Indeed the ABC News Online piece goes on to explain that South Australian irrigators are still receiving 80 percent of their water entitlements so there must be a bit of water still in the river.
I contacted the ABC and they replied that it may take up to four weeks for a detailed response.
I contacted the Murray Darling Basin Commission and they explained that despite record low inflow:
“Because of the weirs and the provision of regulated flows downstream of dams, water levels are higher than historical minimums.”
It would appear that the ABC has confused record low inflows with record low water levels – a significant error in the scheme of things.
The story then goes on to quote water expert Peter Cullen and South Australia’s Minister for the Murray, Karlene Maywald, lamenting the catastrophe.
But there is no catastrophe because despite the dry weather, the dams and weirs that everyone loves to hate, have served their purpose so far – they stored water when it did rain, so the river can keep flowing during this extended drought.
Picture taken of the dry Murray River bed at Riversdale on 1st January 1914 – courtesy of Daryl McDonald.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So, did they blame the irrigators (downstream) for the “record low inflows” into the dams (upstream)?
Or did they blame these “record low inflows” on the farmers who have been clearing woody weeds and actually improving catchment water yields?
I bet they didn’t blame the “record low inflows” on the 3 million hectares of National Park in the high rainfall parts of Vic/NSW that was bunt out in 2003 and is now undergoing vigorous regrowth in response and allowing only minimal runoff?
That 3 million hectares has undergone substantial vegetative change as a result of public sector fire management incompetence that is likely to have reduced water yields by between 1.5 million and 3 million megalitres.
And I bet they didn’t give any credit to the SA irrigators for the valuable environmental services that their irrigation water provided as it flowed almost the full length of the river to the delivery point.
Yes folks, in the gonzo green accounting system used by MDBC and all the various “State of the Environment” farces, irrigation water is classed as a loss to the riverine ecosystem even when it flows the full length of the river to the irrigator.
Let one of these clowns sign off on that sort of crap as “a true and fair view” in a set of corporate financials and see how long a stretch they would serve.
There are so many environmental `records` being broken these days — record drought, record high temperatures, record high sea levels — that I can’t help but take them with a grain of cynicism.
Although I am waiting for the satirical headline `Record high levels of records broken` to appear …
“………….irrigation water is classed as a loss to the riverine ecosystem even when it flows the full length of the river to the irrigator.”
Yes thats right Ian M. Not only is the water stolen from the riverine ecosystem, but it is also forced along the river when it should be barely flowing, causing even greater damage to the ecosystem through artificially prolonged moderate flows. This water then becomes the equivalent of poison for the riverine ecosystem. It would be much better if it was taken out and sent down a channel instead.
The people involved in trying to keep the riverine ecosystems alive, do their best to keep this “poison” water out of the ecosystems along the river.
Really Michael. It seems that all the Murray Cod in the irrigation ditches are having some considerable difficulty comprehending your notion of “poison”. In fact, there are entire riverine ecosystems that have been duplicated in robust fecundity in all this “poison” of yours.
And given that a full 1.25 million megalitres of the claimed 1.5 million ML needed to “restore” the Murray is merely “height water” then it must be “poison” too. Height water is the volume of water needed to fill up the river itself so that the remaining 0.25 million ML can flood the adjacent Red Gums.
A 1 in 6 delivery ratio seems like a really inefficient way to irrigate a paddock. In fact, an ancient Egyptian Shaduf might be a more cost effective pump. And a whole lot cheaper than wasting $125 million worth of water, and foregoing $600 million worth of produce, to deliver a lousy $25 million worth of water to a regrowth choked forest.
But then these farmers are just as bad as the wildlife. They think green science is bull$hit too.
Motty you didn’t actually address Micheal’s point ie about historical seasonal/annual variations in flows, about the ‘unnatural’ smoothing of peaks & troughs. Have another bash at it (because it is intrresting to read yr posts, just that yr delivery diminishes the substance).
Pinxie, this “unnatural smoothing of peaks and troughs” is already being addressed by small bunds that enable conventional flood irrigation of the Red Gums. One doesn’t need a flood to achieve flood irrigation. And in any event, according to Vic Eddy, the Forest Manager of Glenn Avon Station, there is widespread evidence of regrowth expansion onto previously non-forested land. So the shortage of water cannot be too severe, if it exists at all.
The other issue of ‘unnatural’ flows during drought is entirely anthropogenic and imaginary. To date there is no science that can even begin to establish a case that a run of good years would produce ‘adverse’ outcomes. That is all the unseasonal flows do, mimic a ‘better’ year.
And all the conjecture on this causing some sort of disequilibrium is just that, untested speculation loaded with value judgements.
The easiest way to knock this stuff on the head is to let the wildlife cast their vote. List all the species that benefit by way of longer season and improved survival and larger populations etc and compare with those that are adversely affected. But don’t hold your breath for the losers.
thanks for the (unemotive) response Motty
Thats alright, Pinxie, I need to balance the demands of my gallery for vanquished enemies and the need to inform. And I must admit to suspecting that you may have a massochistic streak there somewhere. Did you ever hear the Captain Matchbox Woopee Band sing “The Massochism Tango”?
Captain Matchbox eh? As we suspected. There may be some things in common after all.
Oh dear, I fear we’re about to get friendly. Just in case, I’d better tell ya to get a woody weed up ya.
“And all the conjecture on this causing some sort of disequilibrium is just that, untested speculation loaded with value judgements.”
“The easiest way to knock this stuff on the head is to let the wildlife cast their vote.”
(quote Ian Mott)
————————————————-
Ian M, if this is untested, how can we let the Wildlife cast their vote?
I sure hope your not going to chase up some anecdote from some fishermen about his cod catch are you?
The smoothing of natural flows has been great for European Carp breeding and excessive regrowth of red gum in formerly un-treed wetland ecosystems and complete death in others. In other cases it has transfored Black Box woodlands into dense regrowth Redgum. And at the opposite end of the sprectrum, it has ended flooding of the higer floodplains, leading to droughted, saline floodplains and tree death.
Such changes have reduced the habitat for a whole list of endanged species that were previously abundant. Un-treed wetland ecosystems are what Brolga (almost extinct in northern vic)used to inhabit, open blackbox woodlands are habitat for Curlews (also almost extinct in northern vic).
There has been some fantastic work done with some of the Barmah wetlands to try and restore a more natural wetting and drying cycle, this has induced an amazing response from native fish and birds and wetland flora in the last couple of years. Mind you, this has all come about thanks to extra Murray River funding and environmental water allocations that you love to scorn.
The managers of these systems still have an awful lot of trouble avoiding the very damaging permanent flooding which comes about because the water authorities have to force too much water through the Barmah choke during Autumn to keep up with the increasing demand for water from downstream irrigators.
So, Michael, when can we have a detailed audit of both the victims and beneficiaries. This focus on threatened species is understandable for protection purposes but where is the other half of the ledger?
I also suspect that some of the effects you describe are more attributable to site specific drainage issues rather than smoothed flows.
But when will the public sector environment managers start using something even vaguely resembling current best irrigation practice to deliver water to their paddocks instead of the incredible waste involved in imitating floods.
Build bunded paddocks, pump the water up, run it from paddock to paddock as required and start implementing some proper water use efficiency of their own.
And when will they realise that the cheapest water of all to recycle is “environmental flow”? That is, catch it downstream and pump it back up to flow down again, and again. The limit to how far it can be pumped back is defined by the market price of the alternate farming use. That is, how far can a megalitre of water be pumped at $100/ML?
Has anyone listened to Radio National’s the “National Interest” on 3 September? It featured an interview with Fred Pearce, author of “When the Rivers Run Dry”. The transcript is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2006/1730593.htm.
The interview was both excellent and very sobering. The prognosis for the Murray river and all of the world’s rivers does not appear to be good, largely because of population.
Was the photo taken in January 1914 or 1915 at the end of the 1914 drought?
Where’s Riversdale. There is no postcode listed for such a place.
Promoting Products to Preserve our Creeks and Rivers – Free Water!
Water Harvesting Rain Catching
A new innovative product.
“Rain Catchers Water Harvester” can be placed in any open area to catch and contain rainwater.
Sounds easy? It is made from existing proven Australia products, its light weight, portable and able to contain large amounts of rainwater, and can easily moved or stored.
Australia is in crisis, our soil is damaged, and our dams are dry. A lot of water is wasted, and rain isn’t falling in the most desperately needed areas. Following weather patterns rainfall can be tracked, we believe this capacity can help people on the land.
Only 3% of the worlds rain fall is caught and contained, with our products we can increase that percentage significantly. Capturing drinkable fresh water, before becoming storm water is a great idea.
Due to the limited supply of water, people and plants have a significant demand for an increasingly scarce resource. The products I am promoting are called Rain Catchers. These products come in various sizes and have various applications.
Australia is the driest continent on the planet, it is critical for our survival that efficient and effective water strategies are put in place. These strategies must be able to store water efficiently and promote effective use of this water. However over most of the country rainfall is not only low, but highly erratic.
Australia is also currently in a very serious drought – the worst on record, following a run of very dry seasons. As a result many farming families are under significant financial and emotional pressure. This situation has implications for not only the families involved but for there regional communities and, given the economic contribution agriculture make to the nation economy, the nation as a whole.
Rain Catchers are aimed particularly at those areas that are unable to store or retain large quantities of water. People are now more aware of the need for water and the effect it has on the economy and household incomes. 2005-06 farm income was $26 billion and is projected to fall for this next year.
Following recent rains, the farming sector is feeling more confident anticipating further rainfall. Our designs aim to “drought proof” properties as both town and on farm water sources become more expensive. These products will have applications in all areas and be a cost effective and versatile alternative to rainwater tanks.
We have had a lot of interest from both Australia and countries overseas. We wish to gain support for this initiative, if you are interested or would like more information, please visit our website.
http://www.waterharvestingraincatching.bigpondhosting.com
Please e-mail any comments to: blundell2006@bigpond.com
0433704661
With thanks
Michael Blundell