On the face of it, it may have seemed that all the dreams of the environmental movement had been realised: the MDBA’s guide to the draft to the plan was recommending water entitlement cuts of between 3000 and 4000 GLs, even mentioning cuts of above 7000 GLs to restore the river basin to full environmental health.
But the reaction of the irrigators, the townspeople in affected communities and Tony Burke, the Minister, will have put a dampener on their initial enthusiasm. Moreover, the explanations of the Chairman of the MDBA at the regional consultation meetings have hardly helped. Rather than singing the praises of the proposed cuts for the environment, he seems to have spent a lot of time apologising for the modelling (undertaken by a government agency, ABARE), stating that the financial and employment impacts of the proposed cuts are likely to be underestimated, as well as expressing concern for the plight of irrigators.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has hit back, releasing the results of a national poll of some 1500 people that appears to confirm that over three-quarters are in favour of the problems of the Murray-Darling being fixed (they would probably also be in favour of world peace). One always wonders what knowledge and technical expertise the respondents bring to bear when answering these surveys, apart from the understandable tendency to appear worthy and well-meaning. The results remind me of the supposed public support for the ETS – I always thought a prior question should have been: Can you outline the key features of the ETS? before asking for their view on it.
Anway, the Australian Conservation Foundation press release reads as follows:
New polling shows more than three quarters of Australians (77 per cent) agree that degradation of the Murray-Darling needs to be fixed now and 75 per cent are worried that if we don’t put water back into the river system it will be irreparably damaged.
A large majority of respondents to the survey agree that governments have failed to set adequate rules for water usage (68 per cent) and that economic mismanagement is damaging the Murray-Darling (67 per cent).
“This polling shows Australians are in no doubt about what’s behind the Murray-Darling Basin’s problems: economic mismanagement and taking too much water out of the rivers,” said Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry.
“Everyone knows the way we’ve been sharing water in the Basin isn’t working.
“Just like Australian households have got used to water restrictions, which set rules about how much water we can use in our houses, we need limits on how much water irrigation industries can take from our rivers.
“We need to restore the balance between irrigation and the environment by putting more water back into the Murray-Darling, which is one of the major life support systems for the country.
“A Basin Plan that is based on science can help deliver a healthy Murray-Darling for all Australians.
“The terms of reference for the new Parliamentary Inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should look at the costs of not acting to address the overuse of water.
“And the Murray-Darling Basin Authority needs to look at the benefits of returning 4000–7600 billion litres to the rivers of the Basin, as the science says is needed to return them to health.”
Note the reference in the Press Release to a minimum of 4000 GLs cut rather than the 3000 mentioned in the MDBA’s Guide.
And tonight, there is news that the legal advice sought by Tony Bourke has revealed that the MDBA can take an optimising approach to determine the SDLs, rather than give primacy to the environment. It would seem on this basis, Bourke clearly thinks that the MDBA has over-shot in terms of the proposed cuts to water entitlements and needs to go back to the drawing board.
THE legitimacy of a controversial guide to water cuts in the Murray-Darling Basin is being questioned after the release of legal advice. Water Minister Tony Burke released the advice about the Water Act, which spells out how the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) should work out a plan to restore the river system’s environment.
A guide to the MDBA’s draft plan proposed 27 to 37 per cent average cuts in water use, which so angered irrigators they set the report alight at public meetings.
Under pressure from such nasty scenes and lobbying from farmers’ groups, Mr Burke sought legal advice on the act’s so-called “triple bottom line” – or balancing the environmental, social and economic outcomes.
The advice from the Australian Government Solicitor confirmed the need for all three factors to be “optimised”.
Mr Burke denied that the release of the guide, prepared without that legal advice, had been a painful, futile exercise.
“To the extent that it has added to their (irrigators’) angst, it hasn’t been helpful. There’s no doubt about that,” he told Sky News.
“Anything that’s been done so far in terms of working out what does the river need to be healthy has been worth doing.”
Mr Burke cast doubt on whether MDBA chair, Mike Taylor, had all three effects in mind.
“Some of the comments that the authority have made would say they’ve been getting the balance right, some of the comments that have come out would imply that they’ve weighted it very differently,” he said.
The MDBA would have a chance to respond to the advice, he said.
“I’m not at the stage at the moment of showing any lack of confidence, but I do want to see how they respond,” he said.
Both sides of the debate on the food bowl’s future claimed the legal advice as a win.
National Farmers Federation president David Crombie said it would confirm to basin communities they had “copped the brunt of a flawed process”.
“Had the MDBA dealt with us upfront over the 18 months it took to come up with its flawed assumptions, we could have headed off this debacle and saved a lot of people undue fear and anxiety,” he said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation urged the MDBA not to “underplay the environmental benefits and over-emphasise the socio-economic costs” of returning water to the river system.
Dr Arlene Harriss-Buchan said returning the minimum 3000 gigalitres of water annually would not help the environment in the expected drier climate of the future.
“It’s time to focus on all the opportunities available to put the basin and its communities onto a sustainable footing, rather than politicise the process and back away from changes we all know are needed,” she said.
Opposition water spokesman Barnaby Joyce ridiculed Mr Burke for “bucketing” the guide.
“I think he likes the font size and the photos and that’s about it,” he told the Senate.
So who’s winning: you be the judge?
I caught part of an interesting speech by Ian Macfarlane in the House today. I will link to it when Hansard has it online. His argument was that the Act, passed under the Howard government, was quite reasonable and that it was lousy implementation by the Gillard government that got them into this mess.
I must say that what he said sounded believable but I want to read the whole debate.
ken n
25 Oct 10 at 8:58 pm
So what is your problem with world peace?
rog
25 Oct 10 at 9:16 pm
ken n – Rudd passed some changes that really mangled it and gave the political emphasis on environment rather than equity.
the issue is this – you cannot set up towns and local economies based on certain businesses producing realibly, and then, almost without notice and only compensating source income producers, yank it all away.
No wonder people are up in arms.
They really need to all take a breath.
eg in qld St George area, they are talking about a 40% cut. Well St George was a ocean about 6 months ago, and almost none of the water made it into the lower lakes district, let alone down to the basin. and yet they want to remove this entitlement on the basis the system eneds it. The system needs another 2-3 flooding events before any river changes have any impact,and that could take decades.
Elsewhere, the cause for cuts on the Murray itself seem clearer, but phase it in FFS. The river is as dead as it will be, so another few years to allow for adjustment after 40 years of this misn’t going to harm.
pete m
25 Oct 10 at 9:24 pm
Dunno who will ‘win’ but I know what will lose.
With the greens apparently drunk on their first taste of actual power, the loser will be good policy, and the public purse.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
25 Oct 10 at 9:35 pm
Not so quickly Mark.
I’m not so sure the government and the Green movement are going to come out of this fight with their limbs still hanging.
The poll taken by that organization is a dud.
Another poll showed the mirror opposite of what they claim.
JC
25 Oct 10 at 9:39 pm
The ACF haven’t released the questions to that poll. I wonder how the questions were worded.
daddy dave
25 Oct 10 at 9:51 pm
With the greens apparently drunk on their first taste of actual power
And gillard desparate to hang onto the top job – she has already demonstrated that she will pander to the greens to appease in this delusion of ‘control’ over them. This ever-present Sword of Damocles hangs over her head. The greens will win this round.
Gab
25 Oct 10 at 10:13 pm
I would guess they weren’t asked like the poll showing the mirror opposite where respondents said they did not want the people in that area to be adversely affected against higher environmental values.
The cited above was a bullshit poll.
JC
25 Oct 10 at 10:40 pm
Dad
The poll I’m talking about was in the OZ which I can’t find. I think it was in the paper towards the end of last week.
JC
25 Oct 10 at 10:41 pm
Here’s another poll, Dad, just published in the OZ.
The government is being trounced over this.
One bit of humble advice to the Australian Liars Party. Don’t listen to inner city voters as you will be sorely disappointed.
JC
25 Oct 10 at 10:45 pm
That latest poll shows exactly what happens to a party that sucks up to the Greens. They are electoral poison.
JC
25 Oct 10 at 10:51 pm
Gillard: worse than Rudd.
C.L.
25 Oct 10 at 11:23 pm
And that’s not hard Lad
tal
25 Oct 10 at 11:24 pm
While I believe you are right, JC, it will be a costly green panderfest on the part of Gillrudd. Costly to implement, and costly to repair.
I’ll see if I can’t scare up some comments from contacts at DCC this week. See what they think.
I have found that inverting what they think is a reasonably accurate description of teh reality. And that’s a shocking thing to say in the public policy area.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
26 Oct 10 at 7:06 am
Is’t it quaint that the green vote rises the closer you get to the City. Why do people listen to these fascists? Ignore the fuckers.
Rococo Liberal
26 Oct 10 at 8:36 am
Apparently the Green vote also rises with annual income. Weird.
TerjeP
26 Oct 10 at 9:21 am
“Greenies versus Irrigators: Who’s winning?”
Well, I know who’s losing. As long as the “debate” is framed like this, we all are.
FDB
26 Oct 10 at 9:28 am
This is not clear cut. Irrigation channels and inefficient distribution recreate a system of hydrology more clearly resembling pre white settlement.
This is such a bizzare debate. The lower lakes are not naturally freshwater, yes the conservationists are trying to get them back to this engineered state.
.
26 Oct 10 at 12:13 pm
Yea right FDB. How am I losing exactly if the farmers use the water that eventually runs into the sea.
Explain yourself and no more of these religious comments please as this is a science/logic based site. IF you want to have a religious experience there are other places to do that.
JC
26 Oct 10 at 12:51 pm
What are the odds of Windsor & Oakeshott being elected, if there was another poll in the next six months??
Perhaps FDB would like to back them
Bill
26 Oct 10 at 1:02 pm
I’d like to hear some simple answers too.
What is so wonderful about all that river water running out to sea?
What is so evil about trapping it and using it to grow food?
What will happen if this plan isn’t implemented, according to the conservationists? Why should I care? Why does the government care?
daddy dave
26 Oct 10 at 1:15 pm
“What is so wonderful about all that river water running out to sea?”
Nothing. Our rivers are not meant to flow freely except in floods.
What we have now are effectively excised drains devoid of any ability to distribute nutrients to the landscape and recharge the water table.
.
26 Oct 10 at 1:28 pm
so then, have I got this right: excessive irrigation in one place causes desertification in other places, because the river no longer has the ability to ‘recharge the water table’. Is that right?
And if so, is there evidence that it’s happening?
daddy dave
26 Oct 10 at 1:46 pm
Dad
My bet is that 90% of the so-called science going into this stuff is total bullshit.
It’s like we were being told that the entire Mexican Gulf was going to be a wasted desert as a result of the oil spill..that it would be irrecoverable and that no life would be be able to stomach it (no pun intended). These were pronouncements from senior oceanographers.
8 weeks later and not a fucking peep. Not even a peep that nearly all the oil has disappeared and that things are back to normal.
This shit should have been easier to figure out than more complex stuff like the acidification of the oceans.. and the fuckers still got that wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with being wrong by the way, because a good part of moving ahead in science is actually being wrong.
But wheres the fucking humility?
We keep hearing how the Murray Darling is a huge problem and it’s as though the decade long drought had nothing to with it.
Science should no longer be government supported.
JC
26 Oct 10 at 1:56 pm
Well, because the rivers are basically drains and not wetlands any more, and we have a silly goal of making a saltwater estuary freshwater becuase it has been engineered like that recently (helped by the change of our rivers from chains of ponds to incised gutter channels).
We blame irrigating famrers for the endangerment of the barmah forests for example – whereas inefficient irrigation goes someway to reverse the gutter-channel hydrology our rivers have been subjected to since the leaky channels replicate old paleo channels and intermittent floodings of the plains.
.
26 Oct 10 at 1:59 pm
Hmm. There’s a hell of a lot of worry at DCC. I have not heard my contacts there saying stuff like ‘the wave of public interest has crested’ befroe.
At least they are still blaming Howard for all the world’s ills, though. Lots of ‘wish he had thrown a knife/brick/hand grenade and not a shoe’ comments.
It’s a really weird department.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
26 Oct 10 at 3:31 pm
Hopefully it has been done and has just passed me by, but I was wondering on what basis does “everyone know” the MDB has been “overallocated”, is in “crisis” and we need to restore it to “health” and the “cure” is to let [insert volume here] run out the mouth of the river ?
I hope that the “science” has been dismembered line by line, by the NFF or whoever is taking money from people on the premise that they are doing something about it.
Make no mistake, the greens are all about shattering irrigation and they are playing the long game.
The CSIRO or the government(s) and their cronies are not unimpeacable sources of wisdom. Their estimates and assessments must be scrutinised.
I recently had a week long experience with duelling hydrogeologists, hydrologists, ag scientists and departmental bureaucrats in a water related matter. At once fascinating and infuriating.
They really haven’t got a clue, only pet theories and best guesstimates.
This is fine, but when they purport to elevate these necessarliy imprecise predictions to holy writ using “sustainability” and a mangled interpretation of the “precautionary principle” then they deserve what they get.
The science in respect of water management and allocation has been infested by the same corrupting influences that we see in other areas.
The responsible department couldn’t run a chokoe vine over a shithouse and is infested with incompetent green idealogues directed by incompetent executives lorded over by worthless and unnacountable politicians.
The MDB covers a vast area and is a complex maze. To posit that letting [insert amount here] run over the Goolwa barrage is a measure of the health of such a complex system is an insult, a joke and a national disgrace.
Having said that, flood irrigating grape vines at Griffith in 2010 is also an insult, a joke and a national disgrace.
Pickles
26 Oct 10 at 4:08 pm
I’m really freaking shocked. In fact Jawdropping shocked.
JC
26 Oct 10 at 4:10 pm
Pickles, you might be interested in this new paper.
dover_beach
26 Oct 10 at 5:05 pm
The fact that it is happening is not the jawdropper JC, but the “yeah, so what, watcha gunna do about it, you can’t do nuffin about it” response is what makes the dentures venture.
They know, they know we know and they don’t care cause when they get caught the legislature will mop it up retrospectively.
Pickles
26 Oct 10 at 5:09 pm
Is a fun read.
[That link is broken. Can you repost please? Sinc]
Sir Les
26 Oct 10 at 5:59 pm
“Having said that, flood irrigating
grape vines at Griffithanything, anywhere in the MDB in 2010 is also an insult, a joke and a national disgrace.”Fixed!
FDB
26 Oct 10 at 6:42 pm
Anything, anywhere eh FDB? How much do you know about irrigation? Fact is that under certain conditions flood irrigation (particularly border check) can be the most efficient form of irrigation under certain circumstances
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/v/82140F8211781423CA25741800120718/$file/Border_check_Irrigation_Design.pdf
rebel with cause
26 Oct 10 at 7:15 pm
FDB’s knowledge of agriculture is limited to the fungus he’s grown in his Reg Grundys.
Infidel Tiger
26 Oct 10 at 7:21 pm
Sure – the most efficient (read: only) way to grow crops which should not be grown in the MDB (milk, cotton, rice, etc) because they use too much water.
Got an actual counterargument, or will this be a procession of reports from dairy, cotton and rice peak bodies?
FDB
26 Oct 10 at 7:45 pm
Another amacha expert. Cotton gross margin $/ML ? /ha?
Pickles
26 Oct 10 at 7:59 pm
Have you got an actual argument FDB? What crop should they be growing if you know so much?
If an irrigator has a 50 ML entitlement, he is entitled to take 50 ML regardless of what crop type he is irrigating. You seem to be under the illusion that if they were not irrigating cotton or rice or whatever the water would go unused. That is not the case
rebel with cause
26 Oct 10 at 8:08 pm
“Got an actual counterargument, or will this be a procession of reports from dairy, cotton and rice peak bodies?”
These peak bodies have skin in this game. Beyond your pathetic, never ending, lame, Utopian intentions, what do you have FBD?
You whine, you drum, your ex thinks you suck and your cat has chosen to keep its maiden name.
Where is your skin in this particular game?
DavidJ
26 Oct 10 at 8:10 pm
your ex thinks you suck
That’s a bit rude. exes, by definition, usually think you suck, and the feeling is usually reciprocated. It certainly has been my experience.
daddy dave
26 Oct 10 at 8:14 pm
Not always DD.
It was FDB who articulated his relationship status on the Cat and quite frankly, who shares that level emotional depth here?
To my mind it is a pathetic person who really wants others to support their own internal want to say “come on hang in there”, “things will work out” type of bullshit. At that point there is no reciprocation of suckiness.
DavidJ
26 Oct 10 at 8:29 pm
When life gives you lemons, FDB chooses to suck them.
Infidel Tiger
26 Oct 10 at 8:39 pm
I’m no expert on this but I know a few experts (that is, life experience men of the land – not hairy Greeny biol academics) and they hate cotton’s guts and want it shut down completely. The way they tell it, it’s the David Boon of liquid intake at a bar of variable supply.
C.L.
26 Oct 10 at 8:55 pm
I honestly don’t know why cotton was ever grown in the lower part of the country. There’s plenty of water up top though.
JC
26 Oct 10 at 9:06 pm
…crops which should not be grown in the MDB (milk,…
Milk is grown crop in the MDB? Who knew?
There’s not an overly huge dairy industry there and in any case, the relevant ‘crop’ involved is improved pastureland, AKA grass.
Most of the rice I’ve seen out there is dryland, although there is some padi. I am not sure what variants of cotton are grown there, but it’s not the original, which was indeed a swamp plant.
In any case, the MDB is a primary food producing area. it is to be denied water at our pweril, no matter what teh luvvies think.
Do not forget the recent decline in world food reserves to circa 35 days (down from circa one year.
We are used to the idea of plentiful food supplies. We should be aware that this is no longer the case. If we can stop the idiocy of paying subsidies to convert food to damned fuel, the world’s poorest would have more and face far less threat of famine.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
26 Oct 10 at 9:11 pm
Irrigated cotton is the most profitable irrigated crop in the northern Basin by a mile.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/farm-business/budgets/summer-crops
In any case, irrigators have a legal entitlement to the water they use so for anybody who thinks that growing cotton is stupid and something else would be better the solution is simple – put your money where your mouth is and buy them out.
rebel with cause
26 Oct 10 at 9:13 pm
FDB we grow cotton and rice because we have a variable climate.
Cotton and rice are opportunistic crops. You only put them in if the water is there, perfectly suited to our variable climate.
Paradoxically trees, vines and cows may be “higher-value” per ML but the need water every year so are thirstier in droughts.
None of the economic models at the moment properly factor in this important feature of agricultural markets.
Rebel is right. If there were better, more-efficient crops, farmers would grow them.
bianconieri
26 Oct 10 at 9:48 pm
To my mind it is a pathetic person who really wants others to support their own internal want to say “come on hang in there”, “things will work out” type of bullshit.
In general, or here in particular? Seems like it’s pretty normal to seek emotional support from time to time, but the Cat is not that kind of forum.
daddy dave
26 Oct 10 at 9:51 pm
I’ll say.
JC
26 Oct 10 at 9:53 pm
““Having said that, flood irrigating grape vines at Griffith anything, anywhere in the MDB in 2010 is also an insult, a joke and a national disgrace.”
Fixed!”
Except that flooding is a regular feature west of the Naas River, paticularly as the land is by definition, a series of floodplains from that point on.
Of course the most fair, economically and environmentally responsible thing would to be charge market prices for water everyhwere.
.
26 Oct 10 at 10:42 pm
Hmm.
Interesting. The climate backdown appears to have commenced.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/25/what-will-the-climate-climb-down-look-like/#more-26959
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
26 Oct 10 at 11:15 pm
have a go at this one JC.
Pickles
27 Oct 10 at 8:55 am
Jesus what a bunch of cunts.
Thanks for trying DD.
FDB
27 Oct 10 at 9:01 am
Don’t be nervous
Pickles
27 Oct 10 at 10:01 am
The advice from the AGS – we’re screwed at paragraph 2.
Pickles
27 Oct 10 at 5:41 pm