The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has just today announced a new plan for the management of water in Australia. He suggested a $10 billion budget for the following 10 point plan:
1. A nationwide investment in Australia’s irrigation infrastructure to line and pipe major delivery channels.
2. A nationwide programme to improve on-farm irrigation technology and metering.
3. The sharing of water savings on a 50/50 basis between irrigators and the Commonwealth leading to greater water security and increased environmental flows.
4. Addressing once and for all, water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin.
5. A new set of governance arrangements for the Basin [Transfer of governance from the States to the Commonwealth].
6. A sustainable cap on surface and groundwater use in the Basin.
7. Major engineering works at key sites in the Murray-Darling Basin such as the Barmah Choke and Menindee Lakes.
8. Expanding the role of the Bureau of Meteorology to provide the water data necessary for good decision-making by governments and industry.
9. A taskforce to explore future land and water development in Northern Australia.
10. Completion of the restoration of the Great Artesian Basin.
Following is the transcript of the speech at the National Press Club, Great Hall, Parliament House:
“A National Plan for Water Security Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I’m happy again to address the National Press Club on some of the great challenges that face our nation in 2007. Last year I spoke about the great sense of balance in public life and public policy which have been a hallmark of the Australian achievement.
Today I want to address in a very direct and detailed fashion one of the great challenges of our time and that is water security. Before doing so let me, of course, remind you that whatever policies we may have, in areas as specific as water security, ultimately, for their effective implementation, they depend upon the continuing strength and growth of the Australian economy. And there is no greater single challenge in face of this government and of others in public life, than demonstrating a capacity to maintain the enormous prosperity of this nation at the beginning of 2007.
Our lowest unemployment rate in more than a generation, a higher level of business investment, a very pleasing reminder that inflationary pressures are tending downward rather than in the other direction; none of these things have occurred by accident. They are not some kind of automatic God given right, they are only achieved by the implementation of the right policies in the right fashion based on experience and a capacity to take the decisions necessary to maintain the prosperity of our country.
Water has always been at the very heart of the existence of the Australian nation. It influenced the life and the activity of the first Australians. It determined that the British settlement would occur at Port Jackson rather than at Botany Bay, and the great Federation drought of 1892 through to the early part of the next century inspired Dorothea Mackellar to pen those immortal words about droughts and flooding rains. As we grew and prospered as a nation after World War II, we placed heavy demands on our water resources, but that was a time when we invested heavily in infrastructure. We built the great Snowy Mountains Scheme, we invested heavily in dams and other ways of ensuring that our water resources were there and were available.
But by the time of the 1980s, policies began to change. Governments became reluctant, for a combination, in some cases of misguided implementation of environmental policies, became reluctant to invest in the construction of water conservation infrastructure, particularly dams. And that, of course, created understandable concern about the availability of water to look after us in the years ahead. In the last decade or so, we’ve begun to turn this around. Billions of dollars both at the state and a federal level have been set aside for projects individual projects. Our own $2 billion Water Fund is leveraging major investments in every state. And through the Living Murray Initiative, we are on the way to restoring six iconic environmental sites in our greatest river system. And with the National Water Initiative, a long-term framework is finally in place to increase the efficiency of water use, to service the needs of communities, and to return our river and groundwater systems to environmental health. Despite this, the current trajectory of water use and management in Australia is not sustainable. In a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change.
I regard myself as a climate change realist…
Read the full transcript here: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech2342.html
I intend to post a critique in a day or two.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer: I find the most interesting aspect is this huge amount of taxpayer’s funds is aimed only at drought in the rural sector. I reckon city folk and their governments will have a lot more to say about that in the long run to the election.
If the States cannot deal with water in the Murray-Darling system properly, and many writers have suggested that this is true, then its management should be put in the hands of the Commonwealth.
The mantra I can recall being repeated over the years was “States Rights”. It’s pretty clear that was nothing more than empty rhetoric. The Liberal Party only believes in what furthers it’s political interests.
I agree the river system is a national issue and needs to be handled at that level, the partisan states never seem to be able to get over their differences.
However, in this case, it’s clearly NSW that will end up calling the tune, since NSW is the centre of political power under John Howard, (as it was under Paul Keating).
Still the same people on the ground at day #1. It’s not like you have a whole new crew of managers, hydrologists and scientists to wheel in. A big challenge. What happens if the States decline?
Precedence is the Franklin River. Commonwealth trumps States for greater good.
And face it, the States look after their cities as a priority because thats where the votes are.
NSW has stood for Newcastle, Sydney , Wollongong for quite a while!
So what about Turnbull’s statutory obligation to consider the increased water yield from land clearing in the MDB before he starts spending money fixing bogus flow shortfalls?
Remember, ever since Adelaide got itself on the Murray/Darling drip, the need to supply regular flow for its use has ensured that the daily flow rate, for most of most years, is well in excess of the natural, pre-settlement flows.
And if Adelaide bothered to invest the same proportion of its income in downstream offstream storage capacity as every other capital city, then its annual requirements could be delivered in a single flood surge. And this surge would also provide 75% of the volume needed to innundate the River Red Gums along the way.
But that would require metrocentrics to actually pay their own way when the cheaper option is to just buy out $3 billion worth of farmers entitlements and punch a $15 billion hole in the MDB economy.
Gavin, It’s mainly the city folk that believe the Murray is “dying” so it seems fair that they contribute. I would be unhappy if you thought there were no rural taxpayers.
rojo: I would be unhappy if you thought there were no rural towns dying.
Gavin many rural towns are dying, removing economic drivers like irrigation will speed the downward spiral.
rojo: Do you consider our money a crutch or an investment for those dying towns?
Whose is “our” money? Do you mean only city people have money? Tax payers in general? What money do you mean and what is it doing at the moment.
towns shouldn’t need to be paid to exist, they need to have some inherent basis for prosperity, resource, manufacturing, tourism, fishing, retirement etc.
I hope it’s not cynical to suspect an election year political stunt may bring about a real solution to a serious problem?
The States ( particularly Queensland )have had access to substantial additional funds via the GST since 1999 and have nary a water shortage solution to show for it.
They should hang their heads in shame – it is incompetence par excellence.
However, this could have been addressed by the Commonwealth long ago via tied grants allocations but wasn’t.
Now , the PM further undermines federalism to get some value on the ” hopeless Labor States ” ticket.
All the measures canvassed seem worthwhile and it’s a big spending programme.
It’d just be nice to see something genuinely altruistic for a change….
rojo: Who paid for Lake Eucumbene. Dartmouth Reservoir, even the Hume Weir? Taxpayers in general are funding the inland water infrastructure.
On the question of dying towns in the rural sector rojo; where would you retire by choice or on a pension?