In May 2005 Chris Hogendyk became aware of a small 260ha property located in the heart of the Macquarie Marshes that was for sale. The property had been used for cattle grazing for over 150 years, and was in a rather sad state after 5 years of drought and overgrazing.
Chris motivated a group of 30 residents of the Macquarie Valley to chip in to buy the property, which they named ‘Burrima’, the local Aboriginal name for ‘Black Swan’.
The group formed a unit trust, the Macquarie Marshes Environment Trust (MMET), and elected a Committee of Management to handle the day-to-day management of the property.
Since the MMET has owned ‘Burrima’:
1. It has been de-stocked, with spectacular regrowth of reeds and other plants
the block in 2005
the same area a few years later
2. An eco-toilet has been put in to cater for visitors
Chris Hogendyk is the man with the wide brimmed hat.
3. Walkways have been put across major channels to make the wetland walk more accessible
4. A total of 1,170 native trees and shrubs, including 600 saltbush, have been planted. Revegetation with native grasses has been planned for this spring.
5. Local traditional owners have been granted access to map scarred trees and Aboriginal middens
The MMET has hosted hundreds of visitors to ‘Burrima’ including local community groups, schools, politicians, birdwatchers, universities, research scientists, and many more.
Chris has also become increasingly determined to expose the environmental water theft and politics that are destroying the two nature reserves in the Macquarie Marshes.
He has been lobbying for policy change through his role as Chairman of Macquarie River Food and Fibre.
Chris is also the General Manager of Auscott Macquarie – a large cotton growing enterprise with a farm and gins in the Macquarie Valley.
Chris is passionate about farming and the environment. His wife Gill Hogendyk is Treasurer of the Australian Environmental Foundation and an active member of the Wildlife Information and Rescue Service (WIRES).
Ignorant armchair environmentalists at the popular blog Larvatus Prodeo criticize Chris on the basis he grows cotton and Gill on the basis she is married to Chris (see comment posted at 4.43pm on October 5). And at least some of those guys and gals wear cotton jeans and t-shirts! If the folk at Larvatus Prodeo want to learn something about wetlands and cotton growing they could volunteer to chip weeds at ‘Burrima’ or in the upstream cotton fields.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Impressive stuff and a worthy cause.
But I don’t understand why the information on the graziers is still vague. How long have they been there – what is the age of the diversion works. Is there there any legal basis – permits? to make the diversions.
Have the graziers been consulted – what was the outcome.
Is there a compromise plan?
And how do you weigh up the water that the cotton industry divert versus what the graziers divert. Who has priority ?
Just asking ?
If the AEF is the rootin’ tootin’ outfit of practical environmentalism it asserts – surely here’s a classic case to work for a globally optimum result for all ??
But nevertheless a nice bit of ecosystem restoration.
Luke, SUE JONES is a grazier and the Co-ordinator of the Macquarie Marshes Management Committee and I think has the website
http://www.macquariemarshes.com.au .
What about some investigative journalism from you for this blog … get her story? I’d be keen to publish it. But so far she hasn’t returned my phone calls. Not that I have called recently.
I assume the website cited above is Sue’s based on information here http://www.npansw.org.au/web/journal/200206/features-marshes.htm
The first ‘sponsored link’ is to http://www.rsvp.com.au . Right now (as I post this comment) this advertisement is prominantly displayed in the middle of the website. I can’t find any actual information on the marshes at the home page?
I wonder if the catchment management committee is making any money out of the site? I wonder who payed for the domain name http://www.macquariemarshes.com.au ?
Just asking?
Well Jen – this looked all pretty straight forward but now I’m very confused. Certainly http://www.macquariemarshes.com.au is weird – a strange collection of advertising owned by some Australian web company.
But http://www.macquariemarshes.com/bwWebsite/followon.asp?PageID=1227 (without the “au” exists)
However !! It says “At the last meeting of the MMMC it was decided by those presnet to disolve the committee. If anyone is seeking information on the Macquarie Marshes you may still contact those listed on this website as they are still actively involved in the management of the Marshes, just through this organisation. Thank you to all those who have supported the MMMC in past years, your involvement was very much appreciated” …. WOW !
So I find the above strange.
Without knowing any more looks like a bit of a classic bout of local politics and an argument about water allocation. Same old Same old.
Anyway I was interested in the full story. You guys are making the running !
Luke
There is a very clear distinction between environmental water and allocated water. It is illegal for anyone (grazier or irrigator) to divert environmental water for any purpose. The enforcement of this law seems to be in a real mess in the Macquarie.
It is however perfectly legal for anyone to divert allocated water for irrigation or stock and domestic purposes. The rules governing this diversion are clearly spelt out in the Macquarie Water Sharing Plan. This plan was developed with lengthy stakeholder consultation, and is the agreed way the water resource of the Macquarie is to be shared among the stakeholders which includes the environment. As Jennifer’s blog post shows, the environment is missing out on it’s water!
The Macquarie Marshes Management Committee is an interesting one, and I still have many questions. From what I can find out, throughout its entire period of operation the same two people were Chairman (Eric Fisher) and Secretary (Sue Jones). The Secretary role received Government funding.
Meetings were held twice a year and attended by a wide range of interested parties. However the elections for officebearers were held prior to these meetings.Despite extensive enquiries I have been unable to find out who voted the officebearers into office each year.
The MMMC have been the recipients of quite substantial Government grants for various projects,which appear not to be listed on the website.
Gillian – OK good. We’re now getting some background. So what is the age of the diversion works compared to the Water Sharing Plan? Have the problematic graziers been approached? The unstated implication is that they are recalcitrant but I can’t tell not being a local.
Is there a way of negotiating through the issue or is that not possible? Obviously the previous committee is disbanded so not much use.
Is that the dreaded cumbungi creeping in? It doesnt worry me too much, birds find it a haven and it seems to filter the water.
In the first photo I find it curious that the eucs on the right hand side of the fence are nicely leaved but the ones on the left side appear to all be defoliated, ie less healthy. I wonder what the explanation is?
Luke,
Of course the graziers have been approached – by myself and others.
While I haven’t had a phone conversation with Sue Jones I have with other graziers – all insisting discussion be “off the record”. I wouldn’t write so much on an issue without going out of my way to get all sides of the story. (Some links are here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=14&category=17 … not updated since last September.)
And I’ve also been in contact with the relevant government department… you could know this from previous blog posts eg. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001309.html .
Not all issues, as you know, can be resolved through consultation and negotiation particularly when public perceptions have been so distorted.
It seems you have been ‘asleep’ on this one.
PS I put all the links together ( http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=14&category=17 ) for a grazier who phoned upset with me and the blog – and who was having trouble searching this site. After emailing it to him I decided to post it at FAQ so I had a record for others.
Well Jen contrary to popular opinion I don’t know everything. I was just trying to draw you guys out on where the situation was at and a brief recap. As you know with some issues like climate change people need to do some reminding again and again, and avoid reading the links – same with myself and marshes it seems.
Luke,
I guess an unwillingness to contribute to a blog discussion can give the impression ‘the other side’ hasn’t been informed. …but I suspect/know they are reading.
Brian the trees are river red gums. The ones on the left were killed by a reed bed fire caused by lightning strike- a pretty common occurrence in the marshes. Red gums are not very tolerant of hot fires. There were no reeds on the right when the fire went through so they stayed healthy. Now that we have destocked the block and the reeds are re-growing the next fire will kill some of our trees, but a lot more are regenerating rapidly.
Rog we have spectacular regrowth of both cumbungi (shown) and phragmites or common reed. The North Marsh Nature Reserve on the edge of our block has the biggest continuous phragmites stand in Australia I believe, some 5000ha.
The cumbungi has been called a weed as it chokes up channels blocking water flow.But this is great in the marshes because it slows the water flow down and spreads it out, increasing and prolonging flooding. It also reduces evaporation.
Luke
the graziers that are stealing the environmental water have indeed been consulted, and are included in the formation of the water sharing plan for the valley. This plan is the rational attempt of all stakeholders to sit down and share the water resource equitably, making sure that there is an adequate share for the environment.The graziers were well satisfied with the plan that was gazetted in 2004.
Thanks Gillian – we’re getting through the background well now. So what’s the age of the diversion works on the grazing lands relative to the water sharing plan. Did the plan mention them?
So what was the official government response to what was, I assume, a formal complaint or notification of breach made some considerable time ago?
Clearly, if the graziers have not been prosecuted then they have a valid defence.
It is all very well to have a plan but if the diversion rocks have been in place for 50 years then they predate the plan. And in any case, they would now need formal approval to carry out any works in the creek bed, even remedial works.
And if that approval has not been provided, or the plan did not come with a budget for those works, and the plan did not have the legal power to direct those works to be done, or to modify an existing use, then the graziers are not “stealing” any water at all.
This is clearly more complex than we are being led to believe. So first up, what did the relevant authorities say in response to the complaint?
The banks and diversion works vary in age but many of them have been constructed in the past 10 years. A few banks apparently have a licence although no one can find any records. They say they were put in to stop erosion – created by excessive flows diverted into this system and the overgrazing in this environment. The banks are well above ground level as evidenced by all the dead trees in the creek channel where the water has backed up.
The diversions appear to be a blatant theft of water.
The authorities are quite concerned by what they have been shown and are apparently in the process of investigating them.
This is quite a remote area and I don’t believe many people were aware of what was going on.
So at this point in time no response has been provided by the relevant authority?
And we have no word on whether the works were done lawfully at the time? But some of them are licensed, and therefore, lawful.
And we have no word on whether the “plan” included any budget, or any specific power or directive to change the works?
The only certainty is that there seems to be a lot of hearsay.
Just one extra thing needs clearing up. Where is the above mentioned property in relation to the works being complained about?
A series of temporal remote sensed images ought be able to determine the age of the banks to at least a particular year of construction i.e was not in one image but was there in 12 months time. Perhaps a good request for a university remote sensing dept.
The banks may be be a blatant diversion of water – – but theft ?? – their legality vis a vis the water sharing plan, their inclusion or mention within the plan, and their individual time of construction are vital to determine if the issue is legal, ethical, ecological or heated opinion.
Again we are interested, the cause worthwhile, but need to know some more to see where the issue lies.
Ian, have found the following response from a Department of Water and Energy spokesperson
“An inter-agency task force has already been established to investigate and provide advice on allegations of unauthorised banks and diversion channels within the Macquarie Marshes. This task force includes representatives from the NSW Government departments of Environment and Climate Change, Water and Energy, and Primary Industries, State Water, and the Australian Government Department of Environment and Water Resources.
The task force has applied for $400,000 in funding from the Federal Government’s National Water Initiative Wetlands Recovery Program to undertake an audit into the operation of the Macquarie Marshes. This audit will include investigations into water diversion structures and the clearing of native vegetation such as Red Gums.
The findings of the audit will be used to ensure that remedial action is appropriate and targeted at the right structures.
In addition to the planned audit, the Department of Water and Energy is undertaking strategic compliance action in the Macquarie Marshes in the coming weeks.
More information will be provided once these investigations are finalised.”
The Watersharing Plan contains no “budget” or mention of these banks as no one was aware of them and their impact until we discovered what was going on. The Water Sharing Plan is public knowledge and can be accessed on the web.
Our property is on the western side of the Northern Nature Reserve (in fact shares 3 common boundaries with the Reserve).
So you bought a property in 2005, at a price based on certain drainage characteristics and water entitlements and are now in the process of a political campaign to improve the water entitlements to that property, and others, at the expense of other land owners?
Wow Ian we could spend all week arguing with you as you think up excuse after excuse for the blatant theft of environmental water.
No we didn’t start a campaign- the graziers that are pinching the water are involved in a long running campaign to increase the marsh’s water so they can divert it- have a look at the latest Ecos article- one of many many many similar.
No we aren’t complaining about this for our benefit- we’re complaining about the theft of water from YOUR property- the Nature Reserves are 20,000ha of publicly owned wetlands. So that is why you and everyone else should care (we don’t expect the world to care about the Hogendyks!)
Another reason you should care is that the solution to the marsh’s woes has been universally accepted as the purchase of more water for the marshes- millions and millions of dollars worth of YOUR money is being spent on this solution in NSW. This is without any public knowledge of what happens to this water once it has been sent to the marshes (ie it doesn’t get there).
We think this is important, and its great that people like you and Luke and Jennifer care enough about such issues to take an interest.
I don’t recall making any excuses for anyone. I do recall outlining what information I think needs to be available for us to form an opinion on the matter. You have showed us some impressive “before and after” shots of the property, including one photo with enough water to paddle a canoe in, and another with water right up to the top of the creek bank. And that certainly indicates that neither the reserves nor your property is in a parlous condition due to water deficit.
And at this stage we still do not know if the diversion works pre-date the establishment of the reserves themselves.
I have also made it perfectly clear on past posts that clearing in the upper catchment has most certainly increased total run-off in the system and this increase in water yield is likely to mean that even after irrigation removals have been accounted for, the current flows may not be much less than the historical range of variation.
And until this major factor is properly considered I simply don’t give a toss about any “universally accepted solution” because it is based on universally uninformed bollocks.
Ian, from your conclusions the marshes have enough water and the irrigators can therefore resume extractions in the next flush, and need not concern themselves with further water reductions.
“universally uninformed bollocks”
“from my conclusions”, Rojo?
Which part of “until this major factor is properly considered”, do you not understand? I have consistently not drawn conclusions, because the information required for proper consideration of all relevant facts is not present. And in the hope of gaining this information I have asked some provocative questions.
Ian
As Chris has said “The banks and diversion works vary in age but many of them have been constructed in the past 10 years”. There are multiple banks and diversions-at least 30 and up to 50- which are increasing each year. As most are illegal there is no record of them so one cannot be precise. They can be spotted by flying over the area. Perhaps the worst one (10kms long)is legal and was put in in the early 1980s just upstream of the South Marsh Nature Reserve. Surprise surprise the South Marsh has become a virtual desert over the last 20 years (see Jennifer’s blog post on this bank).I will send Jennifer a few photos of some beauties that have been put in upstream of the North Marsh.
I don’t disagree with your comments on runoff, and it seems that erosion is probably just as important a player in the demise of the South Marsh as these banks-ie the stream feeding the reed beds became badly eroded and started to act as a drainage channel, draining the wetlands.
The Nature Reserves were reserved very early in the piece- around 1900.
Thanks Chris, If the largest is entirely lawful then it cannot be termed “stealing”. One must also be careful about assuming that the Reserves were once in good condition. If this land was available as reserve land 100 years ago it is almost certainly the case that it was not as productive as the other land. Settlers were not stupid. They knew the value of a flood in those landscapes and the best land was always taken up first.
Can you advise us what the original area of the marshes was so we can see the portion of total marsh area now in reserves?