I was at Burrima in the Macquarie Marshes yesterday for the launch of an important piece of research by Gillian Hogendyk:
The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History, published as an Occasional Paper by the Institute of Public Affairs, September 2007.
Speakers included Don Burke (Australian Environment Foundation), Professor David Mitchell (Charles Stuart University) and Bertie Bartholomew an elder from the Wailwan people. It was the closing remarks from Gillian Hogendyk that I found most inspiring:
“I hope this paper brings about a moving on from past disputes, and that all groups in the Macquarie Valley can begin to work cooperatively towards our common goal: a healthy, viable Macquarie Marshes, and healthy, viable Macquarie Valley communities.
The time is right to achieve something really worthwhile for the Marshes. Currently there is a total of almost $206 million dollars of both State and Federal money on the table for the recovery of threatened wetlands in NSW. Surely the Macquarie Marshes, recognised both nationally and internationally, can benefit from this commitment.
However the right decisions for the Marshes must be based on the right information. This is where I hope my paper can be part of the solution. If I could put the message of my paper in a nutshell it would be this:
The Macquarie Marshes are in trouble, and have been for a very long time. We have been told that the solution is simply to buy more environmental water and send it down here. This solution completely ignores some fundamental problems. We now know that a significant part of the environmental water is regularly diverted, and doesn’t reach the Nature Reserves. We know too that large levee banks have been built upstream of both Nature Reserves. We know that the South Marsh has serious erosion problems and the North Marsh has salinity problems.
The good news is that solutions are possible. Like everyone here today, I would like to think that in the future my children and grandchildren will be able to visit and enjoy the Marshes.
Many of those present today have given me great encouragement and have added significantly to the content of my paper. In 2005 thirty Macquarie River Food and Fibre members dug into their own pockets to finance the purchase of this property ‘Burrima’. This was a pivotal moment in the whole marsh debate, as we can now lead by example and show people the results of our rehabilitation efforts here.
Thank you to all the owners of Burrima, to Don, Jennifer, and David for giving your support today, and to everyone who has worked so hard to make this day such a success. Thank you also to Bertie for welcoming us to the country of his ancestors, the Wailwan people.”
This photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy yesterday (September 26, 2007) shows a grazed area within the Macquarie Marshes adjacent to the northern nature reserve in the north marsh. To the east of the fence line (within the ungrazed northern nature reserve) are reed beds.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
Did the Elder Bertie Bartholomew mention anything about restoring traditional patch burning to the marshes, before the lot goes up in smoke in a horrendous wildfire? What about traditional food and medicine plants, stimulated by mild fire? And green pick for animals?
What must stop is that water diverted to private property, when the flows are for the environment.
The taxpayer should be alerted to the fact that the little water available to the environment is stolen!
Stealing water being a much greater crime in my opinion than stealing from the tax dept. or an old lady, so easy!!
fluff4
I forgot to mention that there is research showing that burning generally increases stream flow. Excluding fire for long periods is a form of water theft.
Am I mistaken, or does the ungrazed section also have more water than the grazed section?
It would seem that water is, in fact, getting through to the reserve land. And it is also abundantly clear that the grazed land is not using much water at all because the leaf area index is so low.
So the question is, once again, how much is getting through to the reserves?
This continual description of the pastoral uses of water as “theft” when some of it is clearly entirely lawful and consistent with existing use rights has a stench of hypocrisy about it.
And I still have no answer to my earlier question as to whether all of the flows to non-cropping irrigators are being wrongly assumed to be 100% envirionmental flows.
Ian, the reason you can see more water in the foreground is it is bare! Across the fence is the nature reserve and what you see is 3 metre plus reeds (brown because of the frosts over winter)that not only cover the ground but also slow the water and make it spread out across the landscape. The water in the foreground is simply eroding the landscape. Incidently, this area would have been reed beds at one stage.
During the last environmental event that occurred in July some 9,500ML was diverted into a system to the east away from the nature reserves with only 2000ML getting into the Northern Nature Reserve.
Ian, it’s great to see your interest in this complex issue that if not addressed could ultimately lead to loss of these iconic wetlands. Can I suggest you read Gill’s book, link attached at the top of Jennifer’s opening remarks, and am happy to show you first hand here on the ground if you need to see it for yourself.