Some years ago an irrigator in the Macquarie Valley explained to me that they had been giving back water for years as part of negotiated and then renegotiated water sharing plans.
He then asked me how much more water I thought the environmentalists would be asking for, before they had enough water for the environment.
My considered reply was that as long as irrigators took any water from the river they would be a target. I believed it did not matter how much or how little water he took, it was that he took any water at all that was the issue.
When a level of two percent water extraction from the Fitzroy River in Western Australia was proposed a few years ago, this was considered too high.
In Far North Queensland it is accepted that no water at all be harvested from rivers because they are known as ‘wild rivers’.
In southern Australia water must be given back to the environment because levels of extraction are generally considered too high whether this represents five or 35 percent of stream flow.
In short, there is little or no community support for irrigation.
Yet, combined with the use of the best crop varieties and appropriate fertiliser and pesticide inputs, irrigated agriculture is an efficient, reliable and sustainable way to produce food.
Globally world food reserves are at their lowest in 25 years and the prices of most food crops are at a record high.
Meanwhile, the Australian government is hell-bent on entering the water market and purchasing water from irrigators on the Murray River or its tributaries to send to South Australia.
New federal Water Minister, Penny Wong, has been claiming the water is for the river, but water levels in the main channel of the Murray River have remained high despite the drought all the way to the lower lakes.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claims more water is needed for the Murray’s mouth, but if it was really concerned about the river’s mouth it would insist the barrages be opened to let the water run from the lower lakes out to sea.
In short, the Australian taxpayer is about to spend billions of dollars to buy back water, mostly because many environment groups don’t like irrigated agriculture.
This article was first published by The Land.
——————-
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy via Jim.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“In short, the Australian taxpayer is about to spend billions of dollars to buy back water, mostly because many environment groups don’t like irrigated agriculture.”
Jen, this is a bit verbose, surely you can sum up Australian water policy in fewer words than this? I thought the situation was even more simple.
Here’s my attempt:
“We lose money because greenies hate farmers.”
Is that better?
Steve is trying to shape the debate again so the real issues are not covered. The Coorong needs a lot of new water. When river flows are persistently low, the lack of water behind the sand dunes allows the ocean to break through and provides the water needed to flush the entire system.
But this is an inconvenient truth for locals and greens so they focus solely on the flushing provided by the river in five to ten year flood events and try to claim that this should take place more often as some sort of perverted duty of care.
The whole area was originally a tidal estuary and any discussion on the so-called “health” of the system is fatuous nonsense if it does not take the original tidal condition as its starting point. And it follows that any so-called solution that does not involve the restoration of that tidal state is “AAA” rated bull$hit.
There is also no way that catchment health can be determined until the increases in run-off caused by clearing and the decreases caused by vegetation thickenning are fully accounted for.
But as we know, the truth is always the first casualty in war. So we have every right to ask why the greens and the urban dominated governments are waging war on those who live in the catchments? And under what lawful, constitutional authority, and under what legitimate mandate, are they waging this war on communities they are duty bound to serve “well and truly” and without prejudice or favour?
My sarcasm was aimed squarely at the kind of simplification that makes covering ‘real issues’ very difficult.
“Little or no community support for irrigation”!?
Please. Practically everyone believes there should be a balance between irrigation, environmental flows, and users downstream vs users upstream. It is only extremists of various sorts who don’t believe in some kind of balance, be it a zero irrigation attitude, or a zero environmental flows attitude.
The “real issue” is: what exactly constitutes balance. Jen’s simplification obscures this, and instead turns it into just another ‘greenies are bad’ article.
“My considered reply…” LOL!
The real issue is that this so-called balance is being continually renegotiated. Adelaide, a city of more than 1 million people and not even in the MDB catchment takes the view that all it needs to do when they add another suburb is to put another bunch of farmers out of business. The Gold Coast has three times the rainfall of Adelaide and has included desalination in its long term plans but these parasites in SA think they have a God given right to take more water whenever they want.
The rhetoric of balance is always used but the only constant is continual imbalance between urban green greed and regional resources.
I don’t know bvgger all about rivers, just trying to use my common sense here:
Ian I can see what you are saying, but don’t you think your framing of it is a bit extreme?
It sounds like you are suggesting that new development in Adelaide be capped! Perhaps it should (or else they only develop on the proviso that any additional water be sourced from somewhere other than the murray (e.g. raintanks, desal, recycling), but i don’t think that discussion is a no-brainer by any means.
If that is what you are suggesting, it is a pretty enormous policy step to take – placing curbs on new development in an entire city to ‘balance’ against the rights of irrigators in QLD. It would increase house prices in Adelaide, and probably send people out of the State, and if there is any State that couldn’t handle losing people, its SA. I think it is pretty obvious that the SA govt probably isn’t going to barracking for this view of ‘balance’.
Its a brave discussion to be had, one that can only be had at a national level. I don’t think couching it as an urban greens vs honest rural folk situation will facilitate that discussion.
In fact, it would probably ensure that the QLD irrigators lse – this is a democracy, and most people live in cities, and are wringing their hands about house prices at the moment.
Also, in arguing that ‘parasites’ is a poor choice of words, I would point out that SA has by far the highest penetration of rainwater tanks in Australia,
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/b214910227de9ff1ca2573a80011a8e9!OpenDocument
and the SA govt is looking at desal too.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/11/14/1788580.htm
“In short, the Australian taxpayer is about to spend billions of dollars to buy back water, mostly because many environment groups don’t like irrigated agriculture.”
Good to know that you’ve thoroughly researched this…
I like how the ‘bad guys’ don’t actually have a motive other than they “don’t like irrigated agriculture”. That makes the message nice and simple and ensures that it’s easy to see the good from the bad.
I was under the impression that the irrigation network in most states was quite poor, and the efficiency of water use was equally poor. Use of sprinklers etc is not wise when you have limited water.
Jen, the lakes certainly won’t flow out to sea at the moment, apparently they are 0.4m below sealevel.
Seems that people in the lower reaches and cities don’t realise that there isn’t currently enough water in the system to get the water to get the lakes back to normal, let alone maintain that level. All the complaining in the world won’t change that, nor will buying back every drop of irrigation licencing. Hume and Dartmouth storages don’t contain half the water required to get the lakes back to “normal”.
It’s all very well to want to get back to a natural river, but it needs to be acknowledged that without the dams and lochs the Lower Murray would be in a worse position than it is now.
Mr T and Steve,
While you obviously disagree with what I have written. I am not sure which bits I have got wrong?
The document at the following link is a bit dated, but is perhaps useful background. I will pop in some more links if this thread grows:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/data/MurrayMythsWeb.pdf
Rojo, What’s your source of info? And I guess that means the barrages are shut?
Jennifer.
This is what I have trouble with
“mostly because many environment groups don’t like irrigated agriculture.”
Have you actually tried to figure out why the ACF and others have tried to encourage Govts to reduce irrigation allowances? Or are you waiting for one of us to find it out for you?
I have been studying the ACF campaign since 2003. But I am always happy to hear a different opinion. Will even do it as a new thread if you have a convincing argument.
PS Don Henry (ACF CEO) and I go way back. He is also from Brisbane.
So it’s only the ACF?
I just am remarking that you have trivialised a complicated subject.
I was very good friends with Alan and Sue Tingay in the 80s and 90s (or rather my mum was, I was in my teens and twenties). Alan’s a splendid fellow. Remember him?
I’ve not idea who Alan Tingay is.
But here is some more information on the lower lakes:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002035.html
Alan was the Vice President of the ACF during the 80s.
The amount of water Adelaide takes is tiny in the overall scheme of things. Less than 5 % I think. If Adelaide took no water at all it would make little if any difference Ian Mott. There still would be a lack of water as there simply is historically low inflows due to low rainfall and other factors as you mention. I think it makes absolute sense for Adelaide to take its water from the river the water has to flow all the way down the length of the river nearly to its end before it is extracted doing all the environmental good along the way. Desal is very expensive and uses a lot of energy for little water.
hi jen,
“There has been no flow
over the barrages since October 2006. The Lower Lakes are now -0.5m below sea level which is
0.4 m lower than the previous minimum in April 1968, and 1.25 m below full supply level.”
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/river-info/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf
9/4/08
and yes the barrages are closed.
As Raven pointed out, the Fawcett & Jones paper doesn’t include satellite indices. In the following graphs of UAH and RSS MSU global temperature anomalies, I used monthly data from Jan 1998 to Mar 2008. I also added the IPCC forecast Fawcett and Jones resurrected in the last sentence on Page 8 of the report: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected. (IPCC4AR WG1 SPM)”. They chose not to include the comparisons to the IPCC predictions for obvious reasons. Maybe we could do a quick rewrite and re-title their paper: “Waiting for IPCC Projection”.
UAH MSU (Flat Trend):
http://i31.tinypic.com/24688rd.jpg
RSS MSU (Negative Trend):
http://i31.tinypic.com/20igopk.jpg
Regards
Sorry. Wrong thread on my previous post.
Jennifer, a post of mine disappeared.
I had listed about 5 papers showing varying reasons why increased flow (and subsequently decreased water allowance) would be a good thing.
From reducing levels of dryland salinity to removing carp refuges… Any idea where it went?
I guess tehy’re easy to find.
Just Google Scholar “Murray River reduced flow”
The point I was making was that your claim tha the ACF is just doing this because they “don’t like irrigated agriculture” is poorly founded.
Mr T.
There is nothing from you stuck in the spam filter. And if all you did was google then it probably doesn’t matter too much.
There is certainly a lot of misinformation out there – you probably got the worst of it from your google search.
I am still wondering which bits I got wrong in my initial blog piece and whether you read my monograph ‘Myth and the Murray’ (see my first link).
I am also wondering if you have any idea what flow levels have been in the Murray River over the last few years/over the drought? I suspect you have no idea.
And for some relatively recent pictures of the river you could have a scroll down here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_murray_river.html
and here
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Water_Levels
Jennifer,
must have vanished into the ether.
Google scholar is a very handy search tool. You only get papers and technical books.
I said what I found wrong with your initial post. The bit about how the only reason people want to increase the flow is that they “don’t like irrigated agriculture”. I thought you had presented a very warped one-sided treatment.
For a complicated subject you didn’t really present a compelling argument
No, I don’t know hwat the water levels were. I had a quick look at something you had done, and it had some photographs of the murray from 1914?
I would trust Google Scholar results more.
This article is rubbish the government is about to buy back water because the river is over allocated. The current allocations are not sustainable there simply is not enough water during dry times to support water needs so cuts have to be made. I would think this is an issue of incompetent management any idiot with a graph of historical inflows, rainfall and the level of water extracted should have been able to have the foresight to see that this was quite likely to happen seeing as we have had similar events of low inflow in the past. The difference being there wasn’t the level of water extracted in the past. Managers have been caught out because of higher than average inflows in the second half of the last century. The government needs to buy back water rights so the remaining irrigators have a sustainable industry with guaranteed water. Of course water levels along the river have remained high there are locks keeping the levels high. There is very little water in storage however. The lower lakes are as a previous poster has commented at record low levels if the barrages were opened further saline water would infiltrate from the sea not the other way around as you imply. People who rely on these lower lakes for irrigation ie Langhorne creek vineyards are in dire straits as the water is becoming even to saline for stock use and is so low it cannot be pumped out any way. If you really cared for irrigators you would not write such an obvious load of poorly researched rubbish.
Rich,
Can you tell me what current levels of allocation are and how much of the allocation has been delivered over recent years?
As regards farmers getting ‘guaranteed water’:
1. There is really no such thing.
2. Rice and cotton growers cope with this – recognising they just don’t plant when there is no water.
3. In contrast further down the river there are more and more irrigators with permanent plantings, especially almond and grapes, and they have been under your illusion that the river should be able to guarantee them water.
Here’s another relevant link:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=703
Jen the current level of allocation in south australia is I think about 32 % I have family that have orchards in the riverland in SA This amount is not enough to produce a crop unless water is bought at exorbitant prices they have had to decide which plantings to keep alive and which to let die. Large tracts of very old citrus have been left to die. Surely the only solution is to scale down, buying water rights thus even in dry times like recently there will be enough water to keep permanent plantings alive. I cant see any other solution other than letting things be in which case it may rain and everyone will be saved but will just happen again further down the track. Are you suggesting everyone should convert to growing annual crops and only plant when there is water, I guess this would be a solution but one hell of a transition.
Rich you are referring to the percentage of water your family is getting from its total licenced allocation? Many NSW irrigators have received no water from their licenced allocation over the last few years. So what percentage of the allocated water has been delivered along the Murray River over recent years? And what do you think is pushing up the price … making it so “exorbitant”?
Rich,
No one could have predicted this from historical flow graphs, new records have been set on minimum inflows to the rivers. I’m not sure how this will change calculations in the future, but needless to say allocations will not be based on the same amount of expected inflow as has happened prior to this drought.
I can’t agree with your thoughts on current allocation levels, if there is no water those allocations are not met. If allocations are reduced across the board then when we do return to wet years that water isn’t available for use by anyone, and I would be suprised if it boosted reliability during an equally protracted drought.
I agree with Jen, high security irrigators have not understood that having an allocation does not guarantee water delivery, only the right to use it when available. Even when history has indicated 90% plus reliability.
Never has 100% reliability be touted, and for effective use of a resource nor can it be.
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/86/water_volume.pdf
In a “one in a thousand year drought” that people are still getting allocations of 32% is quite an achievment.
There is much more to Adelaide’s annual water use than the volume that is pumped along the pipe. The original purpose of the barrages was to turn Lake Alexandrina into a water storage for Adelaide. But due to its past history as a very shallow tidal estuary the water was always going to be too brakish for human consumption.
But when they switched to pumping from further upstream at Morgan they didn’t bother restoring the estuary to its former condition. And in so doing, more than 700,000Ml of annual evaporation that used to be sourced from sea water is now sourced from fresh water.
And when this volume of totally unjustifiable fresh water evaporation is added to Adelaide’s annual use then they are exposed as the nations most disgusting water gluttons.
Moreover, the maintenance of this body of water that was once self flushing has now been lumped in as part of some perverted notion of environmental duty of care, the burden of which is to borne by the upstream farmers.
And steve, I was not suggesting that Adelaide have a cap on development as you imply. My view is that every city, indeed, every user that extracts water from a river system, has an obligation to first take all reasonable and practical steps to help themselves before they put their hand out for government assistance.
None of our cities have gone anywhere near meeting that obligation.
And as far as modern cities in Australia go, the precedent set by Perth, Gold coast, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne has established that a reasonable and practical step for a city to help itself in regard to water supplies includes a desalination plant.
Yes, I agree that Adelaide has much more use of rainwater tanks than most cities but they are no-where near the almost 100% tank use exhibited by rural Australians. And given the costs involved in all the options for urban water supply, desalination is now a minimum performance requirement.
This suggestion that reliance on desalination would preclude new housing development is pure bollocks. The mean household uses 250kL of water each year which, at current cost of $1.20/kL comes to only $300 a year. The cost of even 100% desalinated water would only increase that cost to $600 a year which is only a fraction of the cost burden imposed by existing planning bull$hit.
It is a cost increase to the homeowner equivalent to a once off 0.12% increase in interest rates on a $250,000 mortgage. But as a desalination plant would be integrated with the existing supply then the actual cost would be less than a third of that, about $2 a week.
But at the moment, the average Adelaide resident would rather put another bunch of farmers out of business, and forego the job creating cash flow from their produce, than part with a lousy $2 a week.
It would also seem to be the case, Motty, that Adelaide residents have no intention whatsoever of paying for all that evaporated water from the lakes which is still taking place as a consequence of their past mistakes.
You can support an awful lot of farmers with 700,000 megalitres.