This year we have record inflows to dams and rivers, a deep snow pack and all environmental assets are totally sodden. It is inconceivable that farmers on the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers have insufficient access to their irrigation water entitlements. Yet, on the Murray River, allocations are at 15 percent and on the Murrumbidgee, where I farm, they are currently at 57 percent.
On our farm, near Leeton in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, we grow many different cereal crops such as wheat, corn, oats, barley, canola and rice. We also graze sheep.
Others grow cotton, grapes, citrus, almonds, fruit and vegetable crops. Some also have pigs, cattle, goats and other grazing stock. All of us need access to our water entitlements via the NSW Office of water to be able to efficiently grow this bountiful produce. We also need to have a clear indication of our allocations by September so that we can complete our winter cropping/grazing programs and plan our summer cropping/grazing programs.
During the years of crippling drought, broad acre irrigators like us had little to no access to their water entitlements. Despite that fact, we were all expected to pay full asset charges based on 100% of our water entitlements.
We spent the entire year of 2007 on a zero allocation yet our water bill that year was over $50,000. We were informed that there was no water for our type of enterprise. When water supply is critical, that’s how the Water Sharing Plan works.
We were also informed that water bureaucracies still needed to have their income to maintain delivery systems: thus the need for us to continue to pay despite no water being delivered to our farms.
Because the recent drought was a long one, many of our friends and neighbours were not able to survive those financial burdens. Some were forced to sell everything and others forced to sell part of their entitlements in order to ‘hang on’ until circumstances changed. Sadly, very sadly, some could not bear to watch themselves lose everything their families had worked for and we lost good productive people in the worst possible way.
After years of crippling drought, followed by a season of significant floods, we desperately need to be able to plan confidently for the next few seasons. We know the circumstances have radically changed. Why are our water authorities refusing to recognise that?
Based on current conditions, we should reasonably expect 100% of allocation. Instead we have the NSW Office of Water arguing, by using computer models, that there ‘might’ be a water shortage. Due to some ‘intra state rules’ some water has even been ‘double dipped’ and counted twice in the storage facilities. These computer models and rules are being used to claim that farmers like us can have no secure access to our entitlements. Therefore, we can have no support from our water authorities to plan our farming programs.
Interestingly, while being informed there is shortage; farmers are also being informed that there is plenty of water for sale and they could buy that instead of complaining about low allocations.
I wonder if it has occurred to them that we think it is perfectly reasonable to be able to access the water we have already paid for, many times over, before we have to go out and buy more. Wouldn’t anyone?
I wonder if it has occurred to them that claiming there is a shortage and then claiming there is plenty for sale, appears duplicitous to those of us who are still waiting for our full allocations.
I wonder if they have even thought to consider the needs of the businesses they are supposed to be servicing/ supplying and who pay a significant portion of their wages.
If owners of water entitlements are denied reasonable access in a season like this one, something is wrong …. very wrong.
‘Adaptive Management’ is a concept enshrined in the NSW Water Management Act and has also been picked up as a ‘buzz phrase’ by Craig Knowles and the Murray Darling Basin Authority.
Considering all water -dependant environmental assets have roared back to life and there is obviously no water shortage anywhere except inside those computer models, the bureaucratic definition of “adaptive management” must be very different to mine.
Debbie Buller is a broad acre irrigator in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and is currently the president of the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association.
The article was first published at Quadrant Online.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Debbie,
let me see if I have this right.
For all those years of drought, you had to pay the full cost for your full water allocation and yet you received no water.
Now that there actually is some good water, you pay your full allocation, still receive no water, and then are advised to go out and buy water.
Environmentalists truly do have a lot to answer for.
Have these people never eaten food.
Maybe what that little girl says in the TV ad is indicative not just of small children, but of everyone.
“Oh, Grand Dad. Everyone knows peas come from the freezer.”
You beat your head against the wall, explaining the reality, and people just think of as another ‘whinger’.
Debbie, you have my most profound sympathy.
Tony.
Mine too Debbie. On top of it all they are now suggesting that we are headed for another La Nina year!!
Well Tony,
It’s not unlikely that something similar is about to happen in the electricity industry perhaps?
A bureaucratic refusal to upgrade in concert with increasing demands but inventing policy to receive ever increasing payment for services?
How close are we getting to people having to pay for power via service charges and not receiving that product?
That will be a very interesting situation I would think?
And…..all in the name of ‘the environment’ 🙂
My greatest regret is that none of us are allowed to prove that it is entirely achievable to upgrade and supply more of our esential services such as water and power at progressively cheaper prices and do so in balance with environmental responsibility.
We have learned much about being environmentally responsible in the last 50 years but the “greens” are stalling it all by continuing to highlight the mistakes of the past.
Many of those mistakes have already been fixed and we already know how not to repeat them.
And there you have it. Coal-and-uranium-rich Australia has to prepare for blackouts and soaring power bills, while its fabulous soils will be used for fire-prone regrowth scrub which only an urban Green hipster could find “natural”. And the Murray will flow uselessly to the sea in the name of “Adaptive Management”. Yes, you really have my sympathies, Deb.
Management is supposed to adapt, eh? Who knew?
I don’t want anyone hurt in real life…but could some boffin come up with a computer game where we get to strangle climate modellers with the entrails of MBAs?
Debbie, I would think that you need to get a firm decision ASAP. If your allocations are at this level in such a good year with a second La Nina likely [IOW possibly the best it can get] then it seems to me that in all fairness the max charge has to be reassesed.
Debbie,
There is deceitfulness galore when it comes to the power-mongering we often find in the modern political industry.
These people responsible for the decision making are either scared of losing their positions or manipulating their position for self-benefit.
How on earth can one take an honest argument to them and expect meaningful dialogue?
That’s why our authortities refuse to recognise anything that does not have political self-merit or gain. What you mention are solutions that would give the greatest good to most.. that’s means nothing when you live in a democratic-has-been culture that has a somewhat socialistic stench to it.
Being honest has always come at a price, but what ‘these’ people are charging for participation in modern Australian is too much!
Keep fighting, Debbie.
Debbie,
It seems water used to feed and clothe human beings is not as far up the heiarchy of water use virtue as “environmental” water.
How many megalitres have been taken out of production since the “save The Murray” meme became popular ? It is surely enough to feed and clothe millions of people,isn”t it ?
What we really need is a credible figure that indicates how many people are fed and clothed per gigalitre of irrigation water in the MDB. That way every time some river saviour demands thousands of gigalitres be taken away from farmers we can tell them how many people have to give up eating to achieve it.
Dave
This comment from Walter Starck sort of sums up what seems to be going completely pear shaped.
‘This fairy tale view of nature has found strong appeal with the large population of urban non-producers which our increasing prosperity has spawned. Environmentalism offers them a satisfying sense of righteousness and absolves any need of gratitude for the effort from others their way of life demands or guilt about the massive impact it imposes on nature. In reality, the delicate fragile myth bears little relation to the tough, hard, messy and often tragic struggle which is life in nature. This is also the reality with which primary producers must cope in order for the urban cocoon to exist. Without a constant flow of energy, food and water the condition of life in the huge modern urban areas would become desperate within a few days; and ironically, it is where the naïve demands of climate alarmists would quickly lead if fully implemented. ‘
In answer to your question Dave, there is well over 1Million ML already removed with a plan in place to remove a further 2.8 Million ML more.
That represents a staggering amount of food and fibre that we will no longer be producing for Australia and the rest of the world.
Our bureaucracies will still want their money however, despite the fact that the management philosophy underlying this removal of productive water will be in direct contradiction to the way water is used by food and fibre producers.
Hence, in a season like this one, even though there is water everywhere, these people are still denied reasonable access to their entitlements.
If they can’t have it in time, they can’t produce with it.
It’s not rocket science although you would be forgiven for thinking it was rocket science if you could ever be bothered to understand the complexity that riddles current water policy.
It is securely wrapped in’green tape’ and flies in the face of our proud history of development of inland Australia.
We are definitely not arguing against change….there are several mistakes that desperately need fixing…one of the most obvious being the problems developing in SA.
Unfortunately the proposed ‘fix it’ plan is even worse than the actual problem.
As here in the US, it doesn’t appear to be about the environment. It appears to be about restructuring society in the image the Politicians desire.
And as of July 1, 2011, SA irrigators have been on a 100% allocation.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/06/06/3236290.htm
Nice article Debbie. People need to hear what you’re saying.
“Without a constant flow of energy, food and water the condition of life in the huge modern urban areas would become desperate within a few days”
That quote from Walter Starck on the “large population of urban non-producers which our increasing prosperity has spawned.” is exact. I’ve been arguing this precise point for some years now – urban non-producers are clueless here, and have no wish at all to become clued-in
When you consider it, this explains the urban fear of exporting stuff (this fear is something I have struggled to understand for decades). Put bluntly, urbanites have little control over primary exports, nor do most contribute to the process – so they fear it, while simultaneously demanding a “fair share” of the proceeds
Good point Susan,
I hope everyone has noticed that it is NSW farmers who are locked out of storages.
On the Murray river, NSW is on 15% but the victorian and SA farmers are on 100%.
Why?
Good luck working out that one!
A little hint, it’s because, because, because, because, because, because….none of which take any notice of current circumstances.
🙂
Debbie,
Don’t get me started. The rivers are full, but my brother, in Sydney, hung up on me when I insisted this was true. It is a PR thing at that level .
Mr Carl-Betzer is onside ,it seems .
Need to educate the “Supermarket Cargo Cult”
Jen, O/T but FYI
” Accounting error seriously overestimates benefits of biofuels.
The European Union is overestimating the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved through reliance on biofuels as a result of a “serious accounting error,” according to a draft opinion by an influential committee of 19 scientists and academics.
The European Environment Agency Scientific Committee writes that the role of energy from crops like biofuels in curbing warming gases should be measured by how much additional carbon dioxide such crops absorb beyond what would have been absorbed anyway by existing fields, forests and grasslands.
Instead, the European Union has been “double counting” some of the savings, according to the draft opinion, which was prepared by the committee in May and viewed this week by The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times.
The committee said that the error had crept into European Union regulations because of a “misapplication of the original guidance” under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“The potential consequences of this bioenergy accounting error are immense since it assumes that all burning of biomass does not add carbon to the air,” the committee wrote.
Duh. This has been a known fact to about everyone else, as most independent studies not done by a corn-state university have found ethanol to have, at best, zero utility in reducing atmospheric CO2.
It is worth noting that the EU would likely have never made this admission had it solely been under the pressure of skeptics, for whom this is just one of a long list of fairly obvious errors in climate-related science. But several years ago, environmental groups jumped on the skeptic bandwagon opposing ethanol, both for its lack of efficacy in reducing emissions as well as the impact of increasing ethanol product on land use and food prices.”
From http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/09/these-are-the-folks-who-are-wrapping-themselves-in-the-mantle-of-science.html
This seems to fit this thread. As a lead-in
“Yeah, yeah, before you sneer just read what she had to say.
“On the political class:
Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. ” ”
More at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100104496/sarah-palin-totally-gets-it/
With a link to the full speech
New Allocation announcements for NSW irrigators today.
Murray are now on 18% and Murrumbidgee are now on 59%.
Please also remember 2 things.
We are being told this is happening to us because there is an ‘oversupply’.
It is now September 15th. Our planning and planting windows are about to be firmly closed!
I dont envy you Deb, it must be bloody depressing to have big brother preventing you making money and effectively telling you how to use your land and water. but food is not very important is it? cant we import that as well from farmers who do more damage to their land and draw on ever diminishing water supplies ( ie china) and use ever more marginal land. The world has gone mad. maybe its time to take up heroin? Something has to block out the pain and worry of so much stupidity around us.
debbie,
say, you could plant a wind turbine or two.
I hear there’s good Government money in them!!!
Tony.
ROFL!
Good one Tony!
ha ha ha
We can sell our water entitlements to them and then plant some wind turbines for them.
That’ll fix up the environment and manage the weather and spend everyone’s tax dollars all in one fell swoop!
And when the same thing that has happened with water starts to happen to power?
That will be extremely interesting to watch.
It must be getting close already?
They haven’t upgraded enough that’s for sure.
But it’s OK, we can plant some wind turbines out here ha ha ha 🙂
Debbie, who would you be paying for the water you have to buy? Does the State government (if it’s not them you are paying) take a cut of any ‘sale’?
That’s a good question JMD
Some of that water for sale does belong to the States, some of it belongs to the Federal Govt, some of it is held by water traders, some belongs to the private infrastructure companies and some belongs to other farmers. There are also other smaller parcels that belong to local councils and some NGOs.
The State govt definitely takes a cut from every transaction as part of their pricing policy that is connected to minimising converyance and operational losses…. among other things.
The infrastructure companies take a cut too if those water entitlements sit inside their licences.
And of course they get the lot when it’s the water they are selling.
Wouldn’t you love to own a company that can do that?
Charge people even when they don’t receive the product, have control over who does and doesn’t receive the product and then also be a participator in that same market because you have the product to sell.
How’s your head doing? Hopefully I didn’t just mess it up?
Debbie, State governments are skint, did you know the RBA (basically the banking arm of the federal government) is ‘on the bid’ for State debt? This keeps a floor under state government debt prices, otherwise they’d be falling through the floor as their credit rating vanishes.
It doesn’t surprise me that states are squeezing every last drop out of producers. My only suggestion is refuse to produce any amounts of goods that the government can squeeze out of you.
I don’t usually comment on Murray-Darling policy as I don’t know a great deal about the details.
But I’ll dive in just this once to note that Jennifer gets a mention twice in the Oz’s weekend edition: her letter nicely counterpoints Kym McHugh’s oped.
I live near to Lake Macquarie, which seems quite happy to be saline. The best thing to happen to it has been a lot of quite practical activity by the LMCC to capture run-off and silt, which has very noticeably improved the lake (eg ‘stinky corner’ is no longer stinky). Practical actions like putting in silt traps and wetlands is just so boringly efficient though (/irony).
Ah yes….But JMD,
Even if we refuse to use the water we still have to pay for it. Go figure ! 🙂
We may have to shut them out another way?
And Bruce….love the irony.
Which bureaucrat has said any of this should be practical or make sense?
Good one! ROFL
And you’re right, Jennifer is doing an awesome job keeping those abused SA Lakes in the limelight.
We all owe her a huge debt for that.
Perhaps someone would be interested in countering The Wilderness Society spin on this posting
http://www.accidentallyoutback.com.au/news/opinions/1441-mdb-condemned-to-death-wilderness-society
Oh dear; Debbie want’s to put our water in another straight jacket downstream.
Sorry but that requires paying some form of taxes day in day out regardless of rainfall or use if you want a reasonably assured supply over time. Growing populations, particularly in some towns have outstripped the natural minimum river flow so extra dams become essential.
Look up the latest on our ACTEW Cotter Dam project however observers should be aware most ACT water revenue is based on actual use.
Rainfall peaks used to ebb and flow via wetlands but nobody wants to depend on these as they were. Everybody expects to get in first so all grain heads beware.
Nuff said
Gavin,
Growing populations, particularly in some towns have outstripped the natural minimum river flow so extra dams become essential.
And why would I disagree with that?
I’m not sure at all what you mean about ‘another straight jacket’ downstream?
And Gav,
Whose water is our water?
Do you mean ACT’s water? I’m rather lost?