There has been heavy rain and even flooding in northern South Australia and parts of western Victoria. But irrigators upstream in the New South Wales Murray Valley are running out of water and what little remains is stagnant and becoming contaminated.
Right now about 1,000 farmers in this region are out of water and sheep are dying as farm dams empty.
This is the first year since the late 1930s, when the irrigation channels were first dug, that there has been no water for stock. Photograph taken by John Lolicato, Wakool, Murray Valley, January 2007.
These farmers began the season with a zero water allocation. This means they knew they would get no water from the licenses they held; from the entitlements they owned.
Many were hoping to get through the season with water saved from the year before, while others purchased water at considerable expense as a temporary trade to keep their stock alive.
Then just before Christmas they had 52 percent of this carry-over or newly purchased water taken off them by the New South Wales government.
Most farms within the Murray Irrigation boundaries are now facing the prospect of no ‘stock and domestic’ water for the first time since the beginning of irrigation in the region in the late 1930s.
Many irrigators in the Murray Valley claim the decision to take their water was unjustified as there is still water in the dams at the top of the catchment, in the Snowy scheme, but governments have been saving this for electricity generation and for Adelaide.
Instead of providing the farmers with stock and dometic water, the New South Wales government has in effect offered them $20 million dollars in compensation with any single farmer eligible for up to $50,000. Government has said that the water it has taken will be re-credited as soon as there is sufficient rainfall and that the $20 million is not compensation, but rather “extraordinary assistance”.
Why didn’t government buy the water, rather than just taking it, in the first place?
Perhaps because State governments are used to just taking water. Indeed across Australia a majority of irrigators often pay for water they never receive as they are locked into a system whereby 60 percent of their water entitlement is as a fixed charge, payable whether or not the water is provided.
Governments justify this arrangement on the basis they have to manage the water infrastructure whether or not there is a drought. In effect, state run water monopolies are saying, farmers should plan for drought, while we, government, are incapable of the same.
The $20 million payment smacks to me of a bribe in advance of the upcoming New South Wales state election.
ABC Online has suggested the $20 million was promised to avert the possibility of legal action by irrigators.
Normally state governments decide at the beginning of the season how much water they have in dams, likely inflows, and how much they can allocate for irrigation and other uses.
The decision by the New South Wales government to take water from irrigators during the season is unprecedented.
The $20 million Extraordinary Assistance Program for Murray and Murrumbidgee irrigators has been welcomed by the NSW Irrigators Council while the Council has noted that irrigators actually lost $57million in water late last year.
Many farmers would just like some water and all the New South Wales government needs to do is let it out of the Snowy Scheme. This would reduce the amount of water in reserve, but why deny farmers access to stock and domestic water now? There is an immediate need, and now is the time to act.
Photograph taken by John Lolicato, Wakool, Murray Valley, January 2007.
Where is Peta on this one? Photograph taken by John Lolicato, Wakool, Murray Valley, January 2007.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Where is Peta on this one? No Jennifer, where is the farmer, who has responsibility for his animals to be treated humanely, with his rifle? It is the farmer’s responsibility, not Peta’s. The ability of some here to absolve responsibility and attack any welfare or environmental organisation is astounding. Give it up with the greenie bashing and try and be impartial, just for something novel.
Water has been pumped into Hattah Lakes, Chowilla. Back creeks in South Australia were full of water from the Murray River even before the recent rain. There should also be water for sheep.
Travis in Jennifer’s informative IPA article (unreferenced) on the koalas one learns that sheep are a species in decline, unlike koalas.
If these weather patterns are NORMAL then it should have been foreseen and stock levels kept according to historical rainfall patterns and their own feed and dam capacity. Was it Boxer, with Motty agreeing, talking how he follows old-timer wisdom to plan for drought and has always been pretty resilient?
“farmers should plan for drought, while we, government, are incapable of the same”. A stupid argument. Given that govmint is a loose bunch of incompetent greenies, wouldn’t farmers overcompensate by planning for risks from climate and unpredictable and incompetent guvmint actions? Businesses need to plan adequately for recessions (reoccurring events like drought) or changes in the market or supply of essential input.
Do we have any real farmers here to tell us about their water experience, farm mangement approach and their sheep?
Jennifer says Guvmints are used to just taking water. Irrigators aren’t? If there’s not currently enough water to meet everyone’s demands, should the irrigators get 1st suck of the straw? It’s easy to make random criticisms and pro-irrigators points (the real agenda), but what’s your proposed solution jennifer? They could jam up the price (price correctly) so demand doesn’t outstrip supply. We all love free markets here, so it’s clear that water in short-term markets (ie dam debates aside) is too cheap if demand exceeds supply.
What’s the solution jennifer? You want PETA to go around with drink bottles to give the sheep a drink? You want the price of water increased to reflect capacity to prevent overuse?
Pinxi,
A couple of points:
1. The irrigators are asking for water for stock and domestic, not to grow crops.
2. The farmers that planned, i.e. that didn’t use their water last year to plant a crop on the basis they might need it this year to water stock, had it taken off them at the end of last year.
3. How should water in the Snowy scheme be used? At times like these how should priorities be determine? Should priority be given to generating electricity, watering Adelaide and grape vines (SA is still getting 60% of its allocation) or watering livestock?
Cool it LPRosa, and take another look. This is a real chance for PETA to get alongside farmers. And when up against those water bureacrats, these farmers need all the help they can get.
I served on a regional water allocation policy committee prior to it becoming a water board. Stock and domestic water needs took policy precedence over all other water needs – irrigation or industrial. This precedence is an absolute social and animal welfare imperitave. So why has this imperitave changed in NSW?
Don’t belt the farmers or ‘sool’ PETA onto then. PETA, with its renowned public relations expertise, could do a lot worse than go after the real instigator of this disaster, the NSW Government. And lift its profile at the same time.
As a real farmer with sheep experience, I can tell you a bit about their behaviour.
Years ago I was sent on a water-run during a sever drought. Checking that mills were pumping, and cleaning out troughs.
On a recently purchased run-down property a mill had stopped pumping from an underground tank into the adjacent trough. So a couple of thirsty sheep had pushed through the poor fence and jumped into the tank. I went for help, some miles away. By the time we got back, other members of the mob had done what sheep do, and followed the leader. About 30 were swimming around, with more lined up.
As the weaker sex, I got the job of standing waist deep in water and getting a rope around each, so the muscles up top could haul them out. It took a few hours.
Water-logged wooly sheep find it difficult to stand, so each lay down for a while to drain, then happily upped and off. They were able to do this as they had been swimming around, and their legs and circulation had not been restricted.
Things are a bit different with sheep caught in the edges of muddy dams, or pushed into troughs by other sheep. Here, the circulation is often restricted, and they cannot stand when rescued. The added weight of mud does not help either. In these cases, the sheep have to be turned over about every 10-15 minutes until the water has drained and the circulation restored. If a sheep has been trapped and immoblised too long before found and rescued, it does not get up. Younger, fit sheep handle it better.
By the look of the sheep in the above picture, there is a good chance that it did get up and off. You would not shoot it while there was a chance it could recover.
One further bit of information: in droughts the sheep are on dry feed, so they drink more water. A lot more water. Whether to supplement moisture they are not getting from green pick, or to get a comfortably ‘full’ feeling when feed is short, I do not know.
This explantion how sheep can behave when thirsty, and how I read the photos, is an aside from the main purpose of this blog.
And what of the people living and working on the Snowy, don’t they deserve some water too?
JD, do we set water allocation priorities on ‘deserves’ or ‘needs’?
Should the bottom line ‘need’ of people and animals to drink come before all other ‘needs’, ‘deserves’ or ‘wants’? I think so, on humanitarian and animal welfare grounds.
By the way, the major domestic users are metropolitan. We are seeing domestic ‘wants’ restricted more to domestic ‘needs’ with water restrictions. No judgement implied, just that it is happening. The vast majority of domestic users know this is necessary to ensure the basic domestic ‘needs’ for water can be supplied.
There, that is my three entries. So long.
I was simply making the point that much of that water is being diverted from the Snowy River. There are a lot of people doing it pretty rough in East Gippsland but unfortunately they don’t have the dollars and political might behind them that the irrigators do.
Just two questions about those in Gippsland doing it hard. Are they on reticulated water on which they depend? And have they been denied stock (or domestic) water by policy wonks?
That one thousand farmers (irrigators) have been denied even stock water does not say much for their political clout.
And for further information, we are not fortunate (or at present unfortunate) enough to be on a reticulated water supply. We have to find our own, and it is just enough for stock and domestic. No more.
La Panter, While drought is normal the severity of this one is, in most areas, unparalleled.
You already told us that sheep numbers are in decline, so wouldn’t that show a certain degree of planning.
As to the photos, I have spent a great deal of energy and sweat removing sheep from just such a predicament. The lack of other bodies/bones suggests that the farmer is in no way neglecting the animals. Sheep when removed are also exhausted from struggling to get out and often have nothing left. It takes a while to recover.
Irrigators do not get priority to water, in fact they are last. People/urban/industry then stock and dometic then environmental flows and finally if there is any left commercial irrigation.
I believe the govt has ceased environmental releases in favour of permanent plantings but i’m not sure.
The value of traded water has risen more than 500% from normal but there are constraints to how much can be paid. Obviously one would pay more money than could be returned in that year in order to keep orchards/vineyards alive.
Hi Helen,
Thanks for your comments on sheep in drought.
Thanks rojo & Helen. My earlier questions aside which seemed callous on the surface, I am sympathetic to farmers, especially family concerns and I know what happens to livestock and the difficulties for farmers. I ask if we’re looking at a complete solution and how you choose between competing demands (and excessively high pricing which I was wondering if anyone would raise and rojo did, thanks). Also, *if* we are facing changing rainfall patterns how and when do we acknowledge this and change landuse?
I have just deleted some comments on other issues/topics. Please keep comments on topic/relevant to this thread. If you wish to communicate with me on other matters my email address is jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
LPRosa, this blog is about an exceptional crisis situation now.
You do not need to worry about land use planning for the possibility of long term reduction in rainfall. If this happens, circumstances – and the market cost of water – will dictate the long term land use, not the other way around. Farmers are an adaptable bunch.
The likely outcome in such a scenario would be the return of land to dryland farming, with rangeland or feedlot livestock, none of which are big users of run-off water.
Don’t worry about it. If it happens, so will the solutions. Am I running out of blog credit Jen?
Helen, It is great to have someone with first hand experience of sheep and drought tell a story and answer some questions and provide new information. many thanks.
I’m not sure that we expect to have less rainfall in the future due to climate change although we could be facing a cyclical downturn.
If climate change does run along modeling predictions we are likely to have longer dry periods interupted by bigger rain events. Under this scenario I think irrigation will be as reliable(intense rain=more runoff)but dryland farming less so as crops just don’t last long between drinks. Lots of dryland farming will revert to grazing as has happened in southern Qld, rain just hasn’t been reliable enough in the last few years there.
It is hard to plan when what you rely on waterwise at the start of the year is reduced. Unprecedented low river inflows have meant that water already allocated has had to be resumed. It’s a bitter pill to realise that you have established a crop that you can no longer complete because of water redudtions, a crop you wouldn’t have established if you’d known earlier.
Some stock and domestic has been stopped because the water losses getting to some systems is too great.
Jen,
the Murray Darling Basin has received an average of 40.6mm this month (to date). The average for January is 57.4mm. In other words the Basin has only had 70% of the long term average. This is not a drought breaker, but rather just another dry month in a long list of dry months. Most of the good rains will trigger runoff into the arid interior (Lake Eyre etc) as it fell in the “wrong place” – see http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=percentages&period=cmonth&area=aus.
Last year was the third driest on record and third hottest on record across the basin (2005 being the hottest). Such a combination of heat and dryness has not previously been see before in our records.
David
Wanting your Backing to help more farmers and all
Hello
. I’m trying to help farmers.And all. I have good practicable ideas and designs I have ready to go now portable dams from 40.000 letter up 100.000 letters 40.000 letter rain catchers from [$3800] portable dams with cover to stop water evaporation .
Please help me help farmers.
10.000Lt catchers for back yards thay catch roof run off and catch there Owen area.8meters by
2meters by 600mm deep.=10.000lts $1700. Better then rain tanks thay catch more.
My designs are tuff and safe. Ways to keep up with climate changes with rain bands that have speed up.
We can have fenced off part of car park at sports fields or out side field to have water to water grass. Rain we will all ways have we have to keep up with it.Contain it.Not watch it go to wast.
Have at schools for there sports fields. Hanging rain catchers for trees drip feed. and can be man filled
to save on water wastage.thrown soaking. Fill every 4weeks not water every second day. Save on man power. Fuel . and most in portent save water no wast.
It is not counselling or hand outs farmers want. Farmers want help to stay on the land by having feed and[ [water] for their stock .They want to have meat on their plates other then chicken. [Water]And essential to life.Water Harvesting Rain Catching..
Michael Blundell. 0433645015 Queanbeyan
www. waterharvestingraincatching. bigpondhosting. com
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
3 Eugenia St
Queanbeyan
NSW
With thanks
Michael Blundell