Yesterday a Murrumbidgee food producer, Virginia Tropeano, had a letter printed in the local Murrumbidgee ‘Area News’ explaining that in an average rainfall year it take 5,000 gigalitres of water to keep the Lower Lakes artificially fresh.
Because of the sea dykes across the bottom of the Lower Lakes, they are totally dependent on water from upstream. In drought years this makes the Lower Lakes completely dependent on water in upstream storages. The only really large and reliable storages in drought years are in the upper Murray and Murrumbidgee catchments because they are the only snow fed catchments.
The Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, wants 4,000 gigalitres more freshwater each year for South Australia as guaranteed supply. Because the Lower Lakes are Ramsar listed and because of the way the Water Act has been written, he is likely to get this water even if he has to take the Murray Darling Basin Authority to the High Court.
I think that in a good year, the most water that is ever allocated for food production in the Murrumbidgee is 2,500 gigalitres. Can someone verify this figure for me? Assuming I’m about right, Mr Weatherill wants all of this water and more.
If you have continued to read this far, and you are not an irrigator, you are probably getting bored with my use of these meaningless figures of thousands of gigalitres. So help me make this a more interesting story.
How much food can 2,500 gigalitres produce?
Farmers in the Murrumbidgee use about this volume of water to produce food.
What types of foods do they produce and how could the total volume, or caloric equivalent, be described in a meaningful way.
For example, can someone let me know for how many weeks or months the population of Australia could survive on food produced from 2,500 gigalitres of water?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, I know this is not related to the question you asked, but it is about this same area in question.
I understand that this will sound cynical of me no matter which way it is taken.
I noticed a news ‘puff piece’ on the ABC (where else) in the last couple of days about yacht races on Lake Alexandrina after such a long hiatus.
I wondered at the irony.
They need that water at the Murray Mouth so they can stage yacht races. The first thing I thought was if these people ever eat fresh fruit and veg.
This is the link to the site telling the story about the yachting.
http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Milang-to-Goolwa-Freshwater-Classic—Large-fleet-celebrates/93157
One of the things they say there is the following:
‘In what has been hailed as a sure sign that the river has recovered, a fleet of 194 yachts from around Australia lined up for the start yesterday.’
A sure sign the River has recovered.
It would seem that food production ranks second to having the ability to stage yacht races, which by the way, seems to be the more important story in all this.
Tony.
The fundamental problem is politicians who care less about their county than they care about their political career. If Australia is like the rest of the world, it has become increasingly urban over the past 100 years. The majority of the voters in the country do not produce anything. If asked where bread comes from, they would likely say “Safeway”. All they know is that food just appears on the supermarket shelves. What is important to them is that they have a pretty lake. An ugly lake is “bad” and any politician who doesn’t vote for a pretty lake gets booted from office and their political career ends. The people casting the votes won’t learn their lesson until they get their way, get their lakes, and suffer a food shortage. Then, of course, they will blame the government for the food shortage and demand more “spending” on water as if simply throwing money at problems makes them go away.
They don’t understand that they have a choice between a pretty lake and affordable food. If food becomes unaffordable, their answer is to simply have a government assistance program to make up the difference.
Sometimes the thought crosses my mind that if I were China and I wanted to weaken my economic rivals’ economies, the most efficient way to do so would be to pour billions of dollars into “environmental” movements in these countries because the primary aim of these groups seems to be to destroy the economy of their country.
“The majority of the voters in the country do not produce anything.”
Meant: The majority of the voters in the country do not produce any food.
Jen,
We are broad acre irrigators in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA). Our yearly entitlement (as opposed to allocation which was actually in negative during 2007) is 3200 ML (not GL ).
In a reasonable season with decent access to our entitlement, we produce approx 2,000 tonnes of winter cereals (wheat, canola, oats &barley) approx 2,000 tonnes of summer cereal (rice & corn) usually about 200 tonnes of hay or haylage and approx 600 store lambs. That is on about 840ha. Others in this same area grow cotton, soy beans, onions, tomatoes, nuts, grapes, faba beans, sunflower, citrus,stone fruit, melons, potatoes, pumpkins and numerous other grain, legume, fruit, vegetable and fibre crops. Also every type of livestock that is not reliant on coastal/tropical areas, including fish farms. There are also several successful value add manufacturing enterprises including juice factories, olive oil, a 50,000 hd cattle feedlot and abbattoir, Sunrice, vegetable processing, Freedom Foods (organic foods). cotton gins etc & etc etc& etc!
That water produces a great deal!
It is the water from this area and also water from the Murray Irrigation Area and(MIL) Northern Victoria and The Goulburn
George B
No need to correct, we got the message, crude and rude but the old saying is still true and will remain to be true forever:
“if the farmer doesn’t crap the city folk don’t eat!”
In more polite form, if there are no farmers the is no food.
Good luck to convey that message to the ignoramus.
sorry, technical hitch!
That is the water that is tagged for the lower lakes.
Last time I checked, the total entitlement for the MIA is approx 1,000GL. (1,000,000ML). That is still decreasing due to government & trading purchases. There is also a bit extra as conveyance, but that changes from season to season.
Editing facility is sorely needed on this blog.
“farmers the is no food”
farmers there is no food
Debbie,
thanks for that information, and what a wonder it is to have sites like this with contributors like it does have, people who can give accurate information like this.
Now, I know that different farms have different allocations, but using using the info you have given here, with your allocation and then extrapolating that out to Jennifer’s total of 2500GL, we can )in an average manner) work out what may be required to sustain farming and grazing in the Riverina MIA area.
If you have an allocation of 3200ML (3.2GL) to produce what you produce, then that 2500GL can support around 800 farming properties.
800
I know that this is a generalisation, but gee, surely there must be more than 800 farming properties in that area, and if the allocation of only 2500 GL is all that might be proposed to support all of that, it would lead to an unbelievable disaster if that was to be taken away.
I wonder if the general Australian public is actually aware of what it means to take that water away from what is keeping them alive.
Surely there’s more than 800 farming properties in this area.
‘Kill’ them off and there’s nothing.
Tony.
Jen – you might want to work on something other than the average (mean) – usually the average in rainfall is way above the median. So you really need to know what any strategy delivered over the 120 or more years of rainfall record you have. nThe whole distribution.
Don’t you really want to know how many years in 100 there’s not enough water to go around with any particular strategy.
Luke,
It is neither that simple or even realistic to view the MDB system that way.
The reality is that the MDB has never ever respected long term averages. If it did, we would not have needed to build the storage and irrigation networks in the first place.
Your point about the 1 in 100 is valid.
We have just learned that we can’t cope with that anymore. It is statistically unlikely that we will have another one like that anytime soon, but statistics are just useful tools. If nothing else, you can bank on our rainfall being rather unpredictable.
As Ian Mott pointed out in one of Jen’s recent posts, we won’t be prepared for the next battle if we’re still trying to win the last one.
I think we need to learn the real lesson we have been taught.
I also believe Jen is correct and this whole water reform process has just about zip to do with the MDB environment.
Jen is also on the money that there can’t really be a magic number or a magic set of centralised rules.
Tony,
In this area there are over 2.000 irrigation farmers. Some of the farming enterprises are smaller than ours and some are larger. One of the magic aspects of this area is its diversity.
However, if they were all the same as us the lost production for our type of enterprise is (very roughly) 1.6 million tonnes of winter cereals, 1.6 million tonnes of summer cereals, 480,000 tonnes of lamb & 160.000 tonnes of hay or silage. There is quite a significant ‘knock on’ effect via manufacturing and employment as well.
Remember however that there is significant diversity in commodities in these areas. Remember also that the MIA, although definitely a significantly productive area, is not the only area under threat. There is also the Coleambally area, The NSW. Murray, The Victorian Murray area, The Goulburn River area and even SA’s own Riverland area.
Some of the northern valleys are also under threat.
Debbie,
If you look at Schedule 1 of the Proposed Basin Plan – for consultation (under the Water Act) there is a table with MDB Baseline diversions (GL/y) and it has 2,501 GL/year against the Murrumbidgee.
Luke,
An average might work for the Murrumbidgee because unlike other regions much of the water supply here is snow-fed here and unusually reliable. That is why the Murray Darling Basin Authority is planning to take much more of the water for the Lower Lakes from this region, rather than, for example from Queensland.
Tony,
It would be wonderful if you could apply yourself to this problem/question I have asked. Debbie has given us an idea of what is produced, ABARE must have some figures for gigalitres of water used in their production.
Then do we calculate a caloric value for this food and divide this by the population of Australia and then a time unit?
Regarding the yachting, I’ve got no problems with them yachting on the lake. They could have done it all through the drought if they had been prepared to open the barrages and let the area flood with saltwater as once happened naturally each autumn and for longer periods during drought. What is wrong was to make these lakes dependent on freshwater from upstream – remove the 7.6 kms of concrete barrages, bring back the tide!
Jennifer,
Some oldish figures from the NSW Irrigators Council which might help.
Productivity of the Murrumbidgee Catchment (2000)
Irrigated agriculture in the Murrumbidgee produces (1):
• 25% of NSW total fruit and vegetables
• 90% of NSW potatoes
• 80% of NSW carrots
• 42% of NSW grapes
• 50% of Australia’s rice
The total value of irrigated production in the Catchment is in the order of (1):
• $200 million for rice
• $150 million for fruit
• $80 million for grapes
• $60 million for vegetables
• $10 million for dairy
The “farm-gate” value of irrigated production in the Catchment is in the order of(2):
• $98 million for rice
• $190 million for horticultural and other crops
• $20 million for livestock products
(1) Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Board
(2) Murrumbidgee Regulated River Draft Water Sharing Plan, 2002.
Website: http://www.nswic.org.au/pdf/catchment_profiles/Murrumbidgee.pdf
That first group (% figures) shows what a huge contribution the MIA makes. Too much to risk losing a slab of it.
Got to go to bed now but will continue to explore tomorrow.
Pikey might be good for a comment too.
David Joss
Appreciate this. Virginia is leading a delegation of women from the Murrumbidgee to Canberra. And I’ve said to her, that they can’t talk gigalitres they must talk a food equivalent or something else more meaningful.
Hi Jennifer,
Delighted that you are asking this question.It is very similar to the question I have often asked,that is,how many people have to give up eating for each gigalitre taken out of production.I only wish I could help with the answer.Even if a megalitre can only feed(or feed and clothe)one person for a year, taking 2,500 gigs out of production starves a lot of people.Of course the starvation will not occur in Australia.You could count on one hand how many people have starved here since Burke and Wills.However in a world with one billion malnourished it doesn’t matter where production is reduced it still adds to the sum of human misery.
Jen,
My 1,000GL fig was for the MIA only. The Murrumbidgee valley also has the Coleambally area, as well as river pumpers, the lower bidgee and numerous towns and cities (including Canberra which will not be contributing).
I believe conveyance is also part of that figure.
There is no doubt that it is the secure storages that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has its eyes on 🙂
“An average might work for the Murrumbidgee because unlike other regions much of the water supply here is snow-fed here and unusually reliable.”
I would still go with median, though, rather than mean for things as fickle as water that relies on amounts of precipitation (of any sort).
We’re talking about water so here’s Bolt’s latest article on our rainfall record and some of those barking mad predictions backed up by some people from CSIRO and BOM and others like Flannery, Brown etc.
Remember these predictions are very recent indeed and how wrong they were.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmists_washed_out/#commentsmore
Jen,
Can’t find any more meaningful figures than above, except this paragraph from your recent collaboration with Ron Pike:
“Proud locals boast that despite the drought, and because of irrigation and the vertical integration of the food industry, 160 semitrailer loads of quality, fresh food ready for the supermarkets of Australia leave the towns of Leeton and Griffith each day, and a further two and a half trains of containerised food for markets around the world. Not all is produced on irrigation farms, but the certainty irrigation provides has facilitated the development of the food industry with value adding occurring locally to an industry now worth between$2.5 and $3 billion annually.”
A 20% reduction in productivity will mean 32 of those truck won’t be needed.
There are of course some who would turn that into a plus.
David
From Bolt’s article a link to an AGE column “It’s not Drought it’s climate change” covering a CSIRO, BOM collaboration and using US Climate Models.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html#ixzz1exV8ooUb
Interesting post by Bolt?
It seems our land of drought and flooding rains is maybe just behaving normally?
The Australian climate isn’t suffering from some type of man induced catastrophe, but we do have some type of man induced catostrophe on our horizon.
Reductions in access to irrigated agriculture based on long term averages that pay no attention to what really happens in the highly variable MDB is definitely a looming catastrophe for many inland communities.
AND after the 3rd wettest year on record and an absolutely ginormous repeated flushing of the ‘end of system’ what are we STILL hearing?
If we redefine the water resources as ‘environmental’ and then base management of storages on those 1 in 100 figs, we will be trashing 100 years of or proud history of inland development.
Why are we doing that?
A political knee jerk plan based on that philosophy and the panic that was milked by the likes of Brown and Flannery, is not a good plan.
Jo Nova’s husband Dr. David Evans outlines the sceptic’s case.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#more-19931
Thanks Neville,
Those links demonstrate just how hollow the scientists claims of catastrophe really are.
Another:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html
Good morning
This is an interesting statement ‘Because of the sea dykes across the bottom of the Lower Lakes, they are totally dependent on water from upstream. In drought years this makes the Lower Lakes completely dependent on water in upstream storages.’
South Australia, regardless of where in the system, has always been dependent on upstream flows as a consequence of the low rainfall and a small catchment. ‘Ownership’ of water appears to be one of the most intractable issues relating to the management of the system; but in reality it’s folly! no one really ‘owns’ water.
Perhaps the answer is to completely reengineer the system at the bottom of the Murray (the lakes) to creates a series of constructed wetlands and ponds that will reduce water surface area and water volume whilst providing habitat and recreational opportunities and improved water quality. I am not generally a fan of engineering solutions, however there are some excellent examples of constructed wetland systems, albeit on a smaller scale, that are producing fantastic outcomes that ‘all’ are happy with.
Marc, The engineering to date has been woeful. What is needed is to let the seawater back in and let the system become fully tidal. Give natural coastal processes a chance.
Marc?
No one really owns water?
Which water are you referring to?
Have you ignored the fact that we have built extensive water conservation and storage systems and very successful inland irrigation networks? That water is paid for every single year even though access is highly variable.
What is your definition of ‘ownership’?
You have also apparently ignored the fact that our climate has decided to NOT co operate with the panic merchants and the associated knee jerk political reaction.
Quite obviously, your input is an intellectual and ideological comment.
You may not be a fan of engineering solutions but to pretend that technology and engineering should not or is not a major factor in the sothern basin is completely ignoring reality.
Also Marc,
considering that state and federal govts and through bodies such as the ACCC & CEWH have ecouraged water trading on both a permanent and temporary basis, how can that match with your assertion that nobody can own water? How can you trade something you don’t own? For that matter, how can the Water Act allow the Commonwealth govt to ‘buy back’ water and claim they are only buying from ‘willing sellers’ if nobody owns it?
You are however correct that SA is very vulnerable in low inflow sequences.
That has more to do with govts of all flavours relying way too much on long term averages and excess inflows. It has very little to do with ‘ownership of water’.
In generic terms- 1ML of water produces 1-1.5 tonnes of grain
– grain contains 12-15000KJ/kg of metabolic energy
– Humans require about 8-10000kg/day on average.
2500GL should grow 3 million tonnes of grain, at 1.2 tonnes/ML.
That 3 billion kg of grain will supply a meal to everyone on earth, with most of the western world able to have their usual two.
Or feed 12 odd million for a year.
Water is not ‘real property’
Neville – like you – Bolt has not read the SEACI research has he ? – his response is simply sophistic. You both have no idea. Additionally AGW celebs are NOT the science.
The research does not say “it will never rain again”. It does say there’s a influence by STRi in southern parts of the MDB that will amplify natural drought events -why do you continually and willfully misrepresent the research in broad outcome and detail? Simply because you’re now an irrational head kicker.
One swallow doesn’t make a summer. And a few Las Ninas ain’t climate.
Marc,
You will have to do better than that.
Real property?
Seriously?
If we put it into simplistic terms, I could equally claim that even though you pay for a houseful of furniture (including the transport infrastructure…in this case a truck), that furniture doesn’t really belong to you if someone can forge a successful environmental/ political intellectual/ideological argument that it’s not ‘real property’ because part of it began as a tree (or something similar)?
Actually, that could also apply to your house as it is also made up of the use of natural resources. Actually that can apply to just about everything you think is ‘real property’.
The water we are discussing is water conserved in storages and earmarked each season for designated uses which are paid for EVERY SINGLE SEASON regardless of availability.
Of course it is real property. The access is just variable (just like you might have to wait for a differently designed chair in your houseload of furniture or maybe a particular type of wooden door for your house).
However….if we are discussing EXCESS INFLOWS that are not stored or conserved or paid for by anyone….there is a different argument altogether.
They are certainly USED by various govt departments….but you could definitely find yourself in trouble if you pointed out they don’t OWN them 🙂
Luke,
I have read all the SEACI research. It is useful and informative.
It is however merely a tool that needs constant updating and corrections. It is NOT prophetic. It does certainly help us to understand SOME of the influences.
You are correct that Flannery and et al are NOT the science.
What you keep failing to recognise is that it is these types along with our current Govt (but definitely not only them) who have HIJACKED the science and attempted to use it for something else entirely!!!!!
They are hitching a political agenda and creating policy that relies on people believing the science is unassailably prophetic and that it is ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’.
The climate has just recently decided it is not going to co operate.
Of course that would be assuming that the climate makes human like decisions based on human behaviour and political aspirations 🙂 Because remember, the basic assumption is that governments can control the weather by controlling human behaviour.
I sincerely hope the SEACI research is updated and adjusted correctly. I will continue to regard it as a very useful tool if that is the case.
Exclusive ownership of Australian water resides with governments. Private ownership only extends to a (property) right to use (obtain access to) a specified volume of water over a specified period of time.
Rojo
Much thanks!
So 2,500 GL of water can produce enough grain to feed 12 million people for one year.
Does anyone want to dispute this or add to this?
*****
Others, please stay on topic or I’m going to start deleting comment.
Update: I’ve just deleted 5 OT comments. If you want to argue over water property rights send me a blog post and if it is good enough I will post it as a new thread.
More relevant info from an SA citrus grower:
“I reckon that 2500 gigs would produce approx 12.5 million
tons of citrus. 10 meg/ha 50 ton ha.Check my calculation. Regards Mark
Doecke Waikerie SA”
So can someone tell me how many individual oranges this represents? How many children could be given an orange if 2,500 Gl was used to grow orange trees?
Good point Jen,
We need to remember that a mere kilo of rice can feed many mouths…a kilo of oranges approx 3.5 (?), while still a valuable food, cannot sustain as many. I do not know the formula but 12.5 million tonnes of oranges will unlikely feed as many mouths as 3 million tonnes of grain….I also believe the world market for oranges is rather limited. At the moment our domestic citrus market is being threatened by South American imports.
At the end of the day, I think you’re correct…in this exercise, it is about the number of mouths that can be fed, not the number of tonnes that can be produced per ML of water.
The other issue is that cereals can be easily warehoused and transported….long term….for future use… unlike other foods such as fruit and vegetables….including oranges.
We also need to remember that rice and wheat are up the top of world food staples followed closely by corn and other cereals we grow successfully in this area…that market is not diminishing or limited as far as people who could be fed by it is concerned…..but… their ability to pay is another argument altogether.
But….I love the fresh citrus we grow in this area….I also love the fact that we have easy access to food sources like that. I have nothing whatsoever against citrus farming on any level. Does it even need to be an either/or approach?
Debbie, Aren’t you curious to know how many oranges are in 12.5million tons of citrus? What if there were a billion oranges? Let’s just focus on some interesting statistics without limiting options at this stage.
I agree with Rojo assessment and it is practical for argument.
If we used the 2,500,000 megalitres half on rice production and half on corn production we would produce around 1,200,000 tonnes of rice and 1,700,000 tonnes of corn.
Both of these are staple foods and widely used around the world.
Playing around with other less basic foods in my opinion clouds the basic issue.
For the record my calculations result in 12.5 million tonnes of oranges being about 2.5 billion oranges.
Pikey.
Hi Jennifer,
I would just like to point out that, “the figure quoted by “Virginia Tropeano” 5,000 gigalitres” is an exaggeration and even the figure by the South Australian Premier is high.
If SA received 3,500-Gigalitres per year (that 3,500-Gl amount including our entitlement and conveyance water) over the border with no infrastructure upgrades the River and Lakes would function as we would like and also we could probably keep the Murray Mouth open without dredging.
Also aren’t the irrigators who source water from the Lower River Murray entitled to operate?
Hi Peter,
Unlike the prevailing SA attitude to us, we do not wish to kill you off.
We want to find a way where you are constitutionally guaranteed a reliable , equitably priced, source of irrigation water.
The point is that it can be done without senselessly pouring fresh water into a rightly saline pond.
If lucid people, such as you, were to jump on board all the politicians and City Greens would be sidelined.
This needs leading from the front and you are there. Otherwise the next major drought may totally decimate you.
Surely you must realise that all the water you relied on last time would already be gone in ‘environmental flows’ by the time you need it ?
Or do you trust the fools who already are mucking it up.
What is currently proposed is unworkable nonsense , that water MUST wreck the rivers to get it to your lakes.
Can we please get back on topic. As regular readers of this blog know, many threads wander, but every so often I would like some focus. I’ve asked for this above. Any more comments from Smith and others that are not focused on finding a way to explain how much 2,500 gigalitres represents will be deleted.
So with 2,500 Gl the Murrumbidgee could feed the entire Australian population for six months.
Jennifer,
Well why did you bring this up :-
I thought point two of the petition read :-
2. The estuary should be restored by re-engineering or removing the barrages in part or whole to allow inflows from the Southern Ocean.
Principal Petitioner
Kate Jennings
NOT
2. remove the 7.6 kms of concrete barrages, bring back the tide!
IF IT IS SHOULDN’T YOU CHANGE THE PETITION
Sean,
I raise all sorts of issues at this blog that have nothing what so ever to do with the petition which respresents the combined efforts of the Myth and the Murray Group… not my opinion.
Now back to the topic of this thread… Your good at maths Sean and probably have a balance in your kitchen… how many oranges do you think are in 12.5 tonnes of citrus equivalent?
*****
More off topic posts will likely be deleted from this thread. But as I have indicated to Peter Smith in reply to his emails, if he send me something interesting I’m happy to post it as a new thread.
I’ve just been sent an email explaining that of the 2,500 GL baseline allocation for the Murrumbidgee, only 400 GL of this is high security and so only 400 GL were available during the recent drought. So we can’t reliably produce 12.5 tonnes or tones of oranges in the Murrumbidgee.
In particular:
“Rice, wheat, corn, oats, soya bean and several other cereal and oil crops like barley, canola, sunflower etc are grown by broad acre irrigation on General Security water entitlements and allocations. So are other fibre crops and livestock like cotton, hay, silage, wool (sheep) cattle (including a 50,000 head feedlot and abattoir), pigs, a large chicken enterprise (formerly known as barters) and other niche stock and fruit and veg like alpacas, onions, garlic, pumpkins, melons etc. These enterprises also underpin food/fibre manufacturing companies like Sunrice, Juice factories, Rockdale Beef, Riverina Stockfoods, Cotton Ginning, vegetable/fruit marketing and processing etc…..
Citrus, Grapes, olives, nuts, stone fruit etc are mostly on High Security entitlements in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area as they are permanent plantings.
It would not be possible to maintain 12Million tonnes of orange production because the water source is not reliable enough to do that. Only approx 400,000ML of the Murrumbidgee total entitlement is High Security. Oranges are permanent plantings and must have High Security water.”
****
I’m still receiving emails from people complaining that I have highjacked this thread. So, I have! And I reply, put some time into turning the comments I have been deleting into an interesting blog post and I shall post it as a new thread. Alternatively spend the time thinking about this question that I have posed: how do we make 2,500 Gl meaningful to the average Australian woman.
“how do we make 2,500 Gl meaningful to the average Australian woman.”
A loaf of bread for everyone on earth – although I really don’t know how much wheat (guessing 500g) is used in a 700g loaf, ie. how much is wasted? .
Admittedly the Murray/Murrumbidgee regions may not produce high protein bread wheats, so let them eat cake.
Debbie,
I will try another approach.
By building Lock Zero and automating the Gates on the barrage we can reduce the Lakes pool level of 0.75 M AHD to achieve a fairly stable water level around 0.5 M AHD and operate the Mouth like a estuary. While out on my ride this evening along the river I caught up with my friend blind mullet and according to him the difference in GL’s between the old and the new pool levels is 694 GL. Debbie
if you have an allocation of 3200ML (3.2GL) to produce what you produce, then that 694GL can support around 217 farming properties.
The Murray & Murrumbidgee do grow high protein bread wheats as well as biscuit wheats.
All varieties grow well here, so we can eat bread or cake 🙂
You are probably right Sean, reconfiguring the management there would support a further 200+ broad acre irrigaton farms when inflows are tight. That would be approx 80,000 tonnes of staple cereal crops.
How many extra mouths does that feed?
Also, as a bonus, the LRM and the lower lakes could be run as a functioning estuary & SA could use the unique advantave they have over the rest of the MDB.