In the December 2004 issue of Quadrant magazine I had an article published entitled ‘Why Save the Murray’. It began:
“I WAS SURPRISED when I learned that the Australian [newspaper] was running a “Saving the Murray” campaign. I realised that journalists often fail in their quest for the truth, but I assumed that they at least subscribed to the ideal. Campaigning – organised action to achieve a particular end – is the antithesis of honest reporting.
Environmentalism is now big business and big politics. It would therefore seem important that journalists at our national daily newspaper scrutinise the actions and the media releases from politicians, environmental activists and the growing industry and research lobby, particularly on an issue as important as the Murray River. Yet they were running a campaign.”
In the piece I went on to document the campaign, and how much of what the newspaper writes on the River is propaganda rather than news or considered opinion.
I knew it was a bad career move, so to speak, taking on the nation’s daily newspaper. But gee their editorial today, entitled ‘Weighing up Water‘ is a bit mean:
“IN 2001, The Australian launched a campaign to save the ailing Murray River. In daily reports during a 2200km journey along the nation’s mightiest waterway from Albury to its mouth at the Coorong, this newspaper’s Amanda Hodge catalogued its precarious plight as a result of salination, over-irrigation, and pollution…
The Australian’s Murray campaign was challenged by the conservative Institute of Public Affairs, which released a report showing the river’s condition had not deteriorated in 15 years. They were utterly wrong. Five years after Hodge’s journey and faced with the looming reality that the present drought may see the Murray run dry, John Howard and the premiers of the four southeastern states have finally agreed on a plan to overhaul the nation’s water management by fast-tracking both a system of interstate trading of water entitlements and water conservation projects.”
No. My report ‘ Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment’ was factually correct. Furthermore, it didn’t show “no deterioration”. It actually documented improvement!
In the report I also explained that while it is generally believed that irrigation diversions leave too little water in the river. In reality, as a consequence of the building of dams and weirs, the water level in the river is unnaturally high for much of the length of the river, most of the time.
Now in 2006 with record low inflows into the Murray, there is much hand wringing because the river might run dry. If this happens, the consequences will be devastating for many industries. But it won’t necessarily be devastating for the ecology of the river. Australian rivers naturally run dry during drought. What is most unnatural is to continue to push large quantities of water downstream during drought.
We’ll see if the Australian publishes the letter to the editor which I’ve just drafted and sent off now.
—————————
Update 10th November, 2006
My letter was published today in The Australian and is available online:
YOUR editorial (“Weighing up water”, 9/11) claims that a report by the Institute of Public Affairs was “utterly wrong” to conclude that the condition of the Murray River had not deteriorated in 15 years. Actually, all the evidence does support the IPA’s findings.
Our 2003 report showed that salt levels had halved at key sites, Murray cod and sliver perch numbers were on the increase and that while there were many stressed red gums in South Australia, forests in NSW and Victoria were generally healthy and supported large populations of water birds.
The report also explained that it’s generally believed that irrigation diversions leave too little water in the river. In reality, as a consequence of the building of dams and weirs, the water level in the river was unnaturally high for much of the length of the river, most of the time.
Now, in 2006, with record low inflows into the Murray, there is much hand-wringing because the river might run dry. If this happens, the consequences will be devastating for many industries. But it won’t necessarily be devastating for the ecology of the river. Australian rivers naturally run dry during drought. What is most unnatural is to continue to push large quantities of water downstream during drought.
Sensible water policy needs to be based on facts, not exaggeration.
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Senior fellow, Institute of Public Affairs
Melbourne
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen,
You neglect to mention that most of the Murray River floodplains have deteriorated because they do not receive sufficient floods to maintain their health.
The Barmah-Millewah had 57% of its 65,000 hectares inundated last year by an “environmental flow”. This was a good result but surely it represent only a tiny proportion of the Murray-Darling’s historic floodplain.
According to this federal government media release, the “The Murray Darling Basin is characterised by meandering rivers and vast floodplains supporting a large number of wetlands. It is estimated there are more than 30,000 floodplain wetlands.” http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2001/mr9jan01.html
Do you know how many hectares constitute the Murray-Darling floodplain? If we have that figure then we will have a better picture of the significance of the Barmah-Millewah environmental flow.
cheers
Jen,
A recent conversation with a group of editors/journalists at a conference confirmed your suspicions!
Apparently the days of objective reporting are long gone – most journalists see themselves as advocates or de-facto Oppositions and giving the victim the “right of reply” is seen as sufficient deference to the traditions of impartiality.
Probably post modern ” there is no single truth” theory assisted with the decline.
There’s no reason to expect that science reporting or reporting on scientific matters shoul be immune.
Sorry – should be ” should “!!!!
Ah the majestic tapestry of life adapting to changed circumstances.
The main problem with drought and water supply in Australia is that while we allowed the populations to increase threefold, little was done to increase the water supply storage facilities.
This is the price of allowing the state to interfere in the economy.
Incidentally we all know about the black or cash economy – where goods and services are freely traded by negoiation between individuals. Government hates it, of course.
It’s called capitalism.
I wonder what would happen if we treated water as a commodity, like coal, oil, iron ore, etc and let the market solve the problem. It manages to solve everything else by individual human action.
Let’s not forget – our water resources are government monopolies and therein lies the problem and the solution.
Prior to the various dams and weirs along the Murray it surely would have flooded after heavy rain and been dry (or damn near) during drought. Barmah state forest, like a lot of other flodplain regions would have vast amounts of water on some occasions but not at all on others.
Add those dams and weirs and artificially maintain those river levels and the vegetation gets used to having easy access to water and its grows well. In times like the present they have a root system that has grown to match easily accessible water and is mismatched for the conditions, moreover the trees are probably quite large and demand a lot of water.
Surely no-one would consider ripping out the dams and weirs to create an even less reliable supply of water just so that some trees might develop different root systems or demand less water.
Maybe the appropriate succinct reponse is “the environment naturally changes over time – get used to it!”
steve m,
from your post I get the impression that you believe that all those “30000 flodplain wetlands” should be retained as wetlands. I can only extend this to think you believe all Oz should remain natural, as in 1770.
If this is not the case, where do you draw the line. I would like to know, just how much development is acceptable, to to people, of what appears to be, your piont of view.
Hasbeen
Hasbeen says:
“from your post I get the impression that you believe that all those “30000 flodplain wetlands” should be retained as wetlands. I can only extend this to think you believe all Oz should remain natural, as in 1770.”
Your impression is incorrect, Hasbeen. I realise that the Murray-Darling Basin is Australia’s major foodbowl. It is impossible and undesirable to try to turn back the clock. As to the question, “where do we draw the line”, I’m unable to answer as I lack sufficient knowledge. However, at the very least, I think it makes sense to look after whatever floodplains/wetlands are currently in state and federal parks.
I also like the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists idea of paying farmers who perform “ecological services” on their land. For example, if they have a remnant wetland/floodplain area on their land and they look after it they receive a payment.
A pilot program along these lines is currently in operation in NSW:
“Agricultural scientist Dr Ron Hacker believes the Western Division can be farmed sustainably. Three years ago, he helped develop a pilot project for the Western Division where farmers would be paid to achieve conservation results. Called the Enterprise-Based Conservation Program, it kicked off in October 2003 with 10 farmers signing up for 5 years.” http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1734603.htm
Paying farmers to look after the ‘environment’ is what they do in EU, its called a subsidy. Instead of being primary producers farmers become employees in a State run theme park.
‘Paying farmers to look after the ‘environment’ is what they do in EU, its called a subsidy. Instead of being primary producers farmers become employees in a State run theme park.’ – Rog
Yeah probably explains why UK farmers are leaving the industry in droves and all the farm houses are being turned into holiday homes and second properties. Lots of overseas farm produce in the supermarkets though, some of it from Australia and New Zealand (the wine is great stuff but the beer is aptly nicknamed)….. fascinating industry agriculture. :o)
A lot of UK farmers were compensated after foot + mouth yet did not restock, I hear there are empty farms everywhere.
I’ve just update the original blog post (see above) with my letter that was published today in The Australian: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/facts_not_exaggeration/
Louis recommends capitalism and markets as the solution to water issues. Perhaps Louis can point us to some ideal cases in other countries of privatised water mngt & market allocation.
Markets are efficient allocation mechanisms. Is efficiency our sole criteria?
Well Pinxi, it could not be as bad as the present system.
After hearing for years, calls for full cost recovery for water supplied to farmers, we now have full cost recovery for water NOT SUPPLIED to farmers. Yes, thats right. Farmers pay for the water, even when there is none available
Then what do we hear? A lament from Anna Bligh that the people of SEQ, [suberbia], may have to pay a higher price for their water, if the commonwealth does not subsidise their water system to the tune of $500,000,000.
Full cost recovery for urban water, not bloody likely.
Jen,
Your letter to the Australian says: “Australian rivers naturally run dry during drought.”
Do you evidence that the Muray-Darling has ever been completely dry? I find this unlikely, since if it were true it would mean the local extinction of platypus and fish species.
Surely, even in the worst of droughts the Murray Darling Basin has sufficient Billabongs to provide refugia for those animals that are inacapable of repopulating once the drought is over.
Hi Steve,
You’ve added the word ‘completely’, it wasn’t in my letter. Certainly stretches of the Murray river have run dry in the past. Yes, billabongs then become important refugia.
Your comment almost assumes that ‘nature’ wouldn’t let the river run completely dry because this would be devastating for platypus etcetera?
But ‘mother nature’ can be a ‘wicked old witch’.
[ Bob Brinsmead explored this idea in his address to the AEF conference … http://www.aefweb.info then click on conference (listed in left panel) to download his address.
And the issue is explored in in the book ‘In a Dark Wood’ by Alston Chase.]
It would be interesting to have the MDBC give some indication of what they/Malcolm Turnbull see as the consequences if the storages run dry by Autumn. I assume this means there would be no guarantee of continuous flow from Lake Hume to SA and that this would be reported in the popular press as the river running dry?
“A recent conversation with a group of editors/journalists at a conference confirmed your suspicions!
Apparently the days of objective reporting are long gone – most journalists see themselves as advocates or de-facto Oppositions and giving the victim the “right of reply” is seen as sufficient deference to the traditions of impartiality”.
For an idea of how far downhill the standards have gone see
H.V. Morton (1929) “In Search of Scotland” pp145-150.
Too long for blog, but I copied the section to Jennifer if anyone is interested.
Correction re H.V. Morton – it’s actually a shorter read: pp145-46