Category: Water

  • Water industry set to repeat Telstra’s mistakes

    My arguments were primarily commercial. It seems to me that duplication of infrastructure, especially in a large sparsely populated country like Australia, lead to economic inefficiencies that must reduce profits. Stuart also had sound technical reasons that to my abstract mathematical mind, looked like technical versions of the same argument.

    Sixteen years on and those ratbag ideas are now a mainstream point of view. This is partly because of the huge waste of money invested in dual coaxial cable running past all metropolitan Australian homes – a 2 billion dollar homage to the fallacious altar of competition. It is partly because it is now obvious to everybody, what Stewart and I were predicting and industry insiders like Paul Budde were furiously denying, that it goes against the nature of any corporation to use its monopoly powers benignly.

    —–

    Professor Ian Lowe recently pointed out that population growth of over two percent per annum results in an every increasing infrastructure bill, because gross domestic product tends to track population growth (more on that elsewhere) where as infrastructure costs accumulate because of the maintenance bill for ageing infrastructure.

    The end outcome of this mathematical certainty, is that national governments facing ongoing population growth over extended periods of time, externalise infrastructure costs by privatising the infrastructure.

    This, of course, is a short term fix, because the corporations externalise the repair costs by avoiding them and the collapse of the infrastructure inevitably follows.

    As we set about privatising the water and energy infrastructure of the nation at exactly the point where our future depends on careful long term management of it, the experience of Telstra should remind us of the dangers.

    We need public investment in major infrastructure that takes the nation forward to a sustainable future based on higher energy costs and therefore very expensive water. While it is politically unpalatable to recognise a higher cost of living and a lack of economic growth, it is the only serious plan that will provide a secure and vibrant future.

    I only hope I am not referring back to this column in 2026.

  • Five myths about the Murray Darling Basin Plan

    1/ The cuts to allocations take too much water from farmers. They are unfair.

    The truth is that more water has been allocated than exists. Reducing the allocations is simply trying to get out of bankruptcy. Everyone has to give up a little so that there is enough to go around.

    2/ Farmers are being asked to give up water for the environment

    Only the National Farmers Federation and a handful of Federal Politicians who should know better are pushing this line and a misinformed media are buying it. The truth is that farmers depend on the environment for the basic elements they use to produce food. They are beneficiaries of the environment. They convert sunlight and water into biomass with the help of a little fertiliser.

    Across most of Australia, water is the limiting resource most of the time. Irrigation is a mechanism of taking water from the environment to boost production. If that is seen as a loan, then there must come a time when it is repaid. If that is viewed as a permanent extraction, then eventually the environment runs short and the farms fail. That is the situation in the Murray Darling at the moment.

    Farmers are simply being asked to stop stealing so much water that the system fails.

    3/ Reducing allocations will drive farmers off the land

    Farmers get a fraction of their allocation in dry years and during the drought got no allocation at all for many years. Reducing the allocations will only affect them in the wettest years in the cycle, when they have the least need for water. Their production may be curtailed somewhat in those wet years, but will not be devastated.

    The real challenge will be in those years when the rivers are still flowing strongly but the rainfall is reduced. Ie when the system is heading into drought. Farmers will want full allocations in those years but it is critical that the water be left to feed the wetlands, underground water systems and peripheral parts of the river system that help the communities across the landscape survive in dry years.

    4/ Reducing allocations will devastate the rural economy.

    Over the last century rural towns have shrunk and become shadows of their former selves as the size of farms have grown and the number of people living on the land has shrunk. The volume of food grown on irrigated plots may need to be reduced and individual farmers who have invested in irrigation infrastructure may need to be compensated but the communities as a whole will benefit from healthy rivers.

    5/ The guide does not balance environment, social and economic factors

    This statement does not take into account the decline in rural towns and the depopulation of the landscape already mentioned. Neither does it take into consideration the fact the damage done to the landscape and the social and economic infrastructure by extractive farming.

    What the guide does is attempt to develop a model that describes a sustainable level of water use. The politicisation of this debate has confused the issue and cast these aspects into competition with each other, when they are different legs of the same stool.

    There will need to be support in helping farms convert to cell pasture, deep rooted pasture cropping and other dryland techniques that help restore permanent water into the landscape but that is better than paying people to walk off the land.

  • Water Minister tries to shoot the messenger

     
    Dr Kaye said: “Minister Costa was unable to tell yesterday’s Upper House Budget Estimates committee if he had read Hunter Water’s Integrated Water Resource Plans for 2003 through to 2006.
     
    “He seemed to be unaware that these documents placed Tillegra as the second worse supply option.
     
    “He was unable to explain the sudden back-flip in late 2006 that converted the dam into the must-have water supply project.
     
    “Instead he tried to discredit the Greens and groups such as No Tillegra Dam for their opposition to the unpopular, expensive and unnecessary proposal.
     
    “The Minister was also deeply embarrassed by revelations from NSW Office of Water Commissioner David Harriss that his own experts had severe reservations about the dam.
     
    “The Hunter community would be better served by a water minister who spent less time attacking  his opponents and more time listening to the state’s water experts.
     
    “For the record, the Greens stand behind the evidence that Tillegra Dam is expensive, uneconomic, unnecessary, unjustified, environmentally damaging, opposed by a number of senior government water and environment experts, and exposed to price risk because of the complex geology of the site,” Dr Kaye said.
     
    For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455
     
     
    ———————————-
    John Kaye
    Greens member of the NSW Parliament
    phone: (02) 9230 2668
    fax: (02) 9230 2586
    mobile: 0407 195 455
    email: john.kaye@parliament.nsw.gov.au
    web: www.johnkaye.org.au
     

  • Henry lashes nation’s ‘disgraceful’ record on water

     

    In his speech, Dr Henry said water extraction from the basin this year amounted to 93 per cent of the average natural flow to the sea. In the past decade flows into the Murray-Darling had been below average. ”In three of these 10 years water extraction actually exceeded inflows.”

    Elsewhere, there had also been ”massive environmental destruction” as a consequence of fishing, hunting, forestry and farming practices.

    Evidence pointed to ”a disturbing conclusion: conservation arguments appear to have influence with decision-makers only when it is too late”, he said.

    ”If the history of our engagement with this environment has taught us anything at all, it should be that we have been blind-sided by our arrogance. It should have taught us humility.” There was a rapidly expanding body of research pointing to a hard-wired fallibility in human interaction with the environment.

    One of these was the ”free-rider” problem, where one factory might spew out noxious gas with negligible impact on air quality because other factories did not.

    The free-rider problem explained why it was ”virtually impossible to get governments to agree on global action to address climate change”.

    But more recent findings were adding a worrying aspect indicating that, psychologically, humans are unable to grasp the scope of big environmental dangers.

    This was shown by studies which found that, when questioned, people would be prepared to pay no more money to save 200,000 birds from drowning in an oil spill than to save 2000 birds.

    ‘The human mind does not cope well with ‘millions’ of things, so we ‘cheat’ by substituting a more accessible mental image of a representative individual.”

    That same mental image tricked people into thinking that the issue at hand, whatever it was, affected just that one individual.

    Dr Henry also cited the fate of the Tasmanian tiger, whose extinction followed the payment of bounties to exterminate it, but which in this century was the subject of a $1.25 million reward for the capture of a live animal and an attempt to clone one from a preserved embryo.

    ”A century ago we were paying people to slaughter these animals. Today we are prepared to spend millions to bring them back from the dead.”

    Dr Henry also spoke of the folly of the poisoning of quolls in the 1850s to enable the propagation of rabbits and hares in the Lake George area.

  • Brazil to build world’s third larest dam in Amazon

    Public opposition

    Previous attempts to start the project in the late 1980s failed after public opposition. A number of NGOs and indigenous populations remain opposed to the project, which will divert the flow of the Xingu River, devastate an extensive area of the Amazon rainforest and displace local communities.

    ‘No one knows the true cost of Belo Monte,’ said Aviva Imhof, International Rivers Campaigns Director.

    ‘The project would displace tens of thousands of people, and destroy the livelihood of thousands more. Even as Brazil argues that the international community should support rainforest protection, its government insists on promoting mega-infrastructure projects in Amazonia that are socially and environmentally indefensible.’

    Indigenous peoples

    NGO Amazon Watch said the project and other dams being planned for the region threatened the survival of indigenous peoples.

    One of those indigenous groups, the Kayapo, called on the World Bank to stop funding dam projects in the Amazon region.

    ‘If you lend money to the government of Brazil to pave roads and build other projects [such as] the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, you will be contributing to the destruction of our forests, and conflicts with – possibly even deaths – of our people,’ wrote Megaron, the new Kayapó chief in a letter to the president of the World Bank.

    ‘We want to make sure that Belo Monte does not destroy the ecosystems and the biodiversity that we have taken care of for millennia. We are opposed to dams on the Xingu, and will fight to protect our river,’ he said.

    Useful links

    Conservation
    International Rivers

    Amazon Watch

  • Food bowl faces stark future

    Prominent advisors such as Professor Mike Young are suggesting that parts of the landscape should be sacrificed to the desert so that other areas can be saved. People talk about moving Australia’s agriculture to the tropical north, essentially giving up and walking away from the Murray Darling Basin.
    What we are looking at is the mass failure of Australia’s food production. We could well become a nett importer of food.
    Two years ago the government faced the choice of evacuating Bendigo, Ballarat and Horsham or pumping water to those towns from the Murray Darling Basin. Now the Goldfields Superpipe speeds up the death of the Murray and Ballarat has been lifted of water restrictions.
    Two months ago, the premier, Nathan Rees, and the industry Minister Ian McDonald told journalists that coal is more important than food and farmers of NSW’s food bowl, the Liverpool Basin, were expendable. These statements will resonate historically with Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake.” The only problem is that “Let them eat coal” does not even have the benefit of naïve belief.
    In Victoria the options are using recycled water from Carrum, which is politically difficult; building a desalination plant, which takes some time; or taking the water from the Murray Darling. That plan came unstuck in parliament last week.

    Teasing out the truth

    “Give a farmer a megalitre of water and they will produce food, give a city a megalitre of water and they will produce sewage” said Greg Hoadley, a grazier on the western Darling Downs. It is true, farmers do recapture water that runs off their land and use it again. Compared to the cities, which use water once and then flush it out to sea, they consider themselves as very efficient users of water.
    Allen Gale, technical manager for Goulburn Water sees it differently. “Yes, farmers are productive but industry actually produces much more value for each megalitre of water they use and they do not lose water through evapotranspiration. Domestic users account for a very small portion of water use,” he said.
    In fact, leaks in urban water supplies use more water than domestic users in some Australian cities. In 2007, Perth significantly reduced the pressure in its water mains to reduce the quantity of water leaking out of the system. Some European cities have such leaky water supplies that they turn them off at night, relying on roof top water tanks to supply people in off-peak periods.
    Agriculture uses about 80 per cent of the water that is captured in Australia. Our agricultural use of water has increased significantly since water trading began. Water trading is the ability for a farmer to sell the water that he was allowed to take from the river, or irrigation system, to another user on another farm.
    As you can imagine, especially if you have seen the film Chinatown, it is a very complex and highly politicized issue. Many farmers express concerns that water trading allows large companies to buy lots of cheap land in remote areas and buy water rights from better quality land further upstream.
    Farmers are selling their water rights because times are tough and it is the one tradeable commodity that they have.
    Orchadist and cattle farmer in Shepparton, Gary Godwill, believes this is the beginning of the end for small farmers in Australia. He said that the pattern is identical to what happened with the farmers cooperative over the last two decades.
    “The cooperative was set up to provide marketing muscle for local farmers but when it became a public company it opened the doors to any grower and farmers began to sell their shares for extra cash,” he said.
    After the two largest fruit processors in Shepparton, Ardmona and SPC combined, the company was bought by Coca Cola Amatil. “Now there are truckloads of imported fruit coming in from China, sometimes in shinys (already canned), and the local farmers cannot compete. We are being driven off the land in the name of globalization,” Godwill said.

    What is this thing called modernisation?

    Deb Bertalli is a fourth generation grazier in Yea, Victoria about an hour out of Melbourne. She was arrested for obstructing the construction of a pipeline on her farm. “This farm has had permanent water for all of my lifetime and has been flooded two or three times every year. In the last ten years we have had no floods and for two years have not been able to cut hay. I wonder why I had children when I think about the future we face,” she told me.
    She has been a vocal opponent to a pipeline that will pump water out of the Murray Darling Basin to supply the city of Melbourne. “Melbourne has options, the river does not,” she said.
    The North South pipeline is being built as part of the Food Bowl Modernisation Project a project that will make irrigation in Victoria much more efficient.
    The basic concept of the Modernisation project is that better equipment will reduce the amount of water lost in the irrigation process and give the water authorities spare water to decide what to do with. The figures prepared for the Victorian government indicate that up to 225 billion litres of water can be saved each year through this process.
    Victorian water Minister Nick Holding has been busy since the government lost the vote to redirect the water to Melbourne pointing out that the plan is to direct one third of the saved water to Melbourne, return one third to the environment and give one third to the irrigators.
    There are a number of problems though.
    Everyone from the politicians, through the water authorities down to the local farmers accepts that changes to the irrigation system will drive many small farmers off the land. The difference is that some people think that this is the inevitable march of progress, others see it as the destruction of a way of life.
    From the river’s point of view, the supposed savings are meaningless.
    Victoria’s water minister Nick Holding has fallen for bureaucratic blather, according to lifelong water engineer turned river advocate, Steve Posselt.
    “I think he genuinely believes that the Food Bowl Modernisation project will save water but he needs to understand there are no savings. It is all funny numbers made up by water engineers to fund a multi-billion dollar project,” he said this morning.
    “The reason that farmers and greenies have united on this cause is because they are on the ground and have applied common sense,” he said.
    “You can’t just lose water. It goes into the ground or into the river, where it belongs. What the bureaucrats mean is that they have lost control of the water,” he said.
    Posselt has built irrigation control mechanisms and sewage treatment plants for 35 years. He has also traveled seven Australian Rivers from end to end in his unique, wheeled kayak.
    “It took me a long time, but I finally understand what a river system is,” he wrote in his recent book, Cry Me a River.
    Posselt was galavanised into action after paddling to the mouth of the Murray to find that it does not even reach the barrage built to prevent sea water flooding back into the fresh water Lake Alexandrina. “The river system is dying from the mouth up and now they are proposing to take another 750,000,000 litres out of it each year.”
    The Food Bowl Modernisation Project is predicated on figures provided to the state government that lining irrigation channels, replacing simple mechanical metering equipment and preventing water from flowing over the banks of irrigation canals (known as outfall) will save 225 billion litres of water every year. These are the figures referred to numerous times in the media today by Nick Holding, according to Mr Posselt.
    “From the river’s point of view, not one of those things produces more water,” he said. “Lining the channel stops the water leaking into the ground, remetering means the irrigation authorities keep a bit more water in the dam instead of giving it to the farmers, and preventing outfall simply stops the water going back into the system to be used by the next person down stream. None of this makes more water, it simply keeps it out of the environment and in the control of the irrigation authority. That does not help the river one bit”
    Posselt said that if the authority let all that water go back into the environment then we would be exactly where we are today, “well and truly stuffed.”
    “I hate to think where that puts us if any of the independent politicians who voted this down yesterday gets pressured into letting them go ahead,” he said.

    Future Options

    With the hard evidence from people on the ground that Australia’s food bowl is drying out and governments are indulging in knee jerk reactions that do not even take full account of the problem, people are desparate for more options.
    Farmers like Peter Andrews, featured prominently on Australian Story, or winner of NSW young farmer of the year, Graham Finlayson and many others have adopted practices that return permanent water to the landscape, eliminate the need for expensive external inputs and drought proof the property.
    “Farmers only listen to other farmers,” said Deb Bertalli. These farmers who are adapting to the reality of the landscape need to be promoted as heroes.
    People in cities need to understand that if they allow their government to pipe water from other areas, then those areas will dry out. Once the landscape changes, it is very difficult to get it back.
    In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond describes the demise of the Easter Islands. He writes that they cut down the forests and the water disappeared. Before they evacuated their only source of liquid was sugar cane that caught the mists coming from the sea. The corpses of the last generation of Easter Islanders all show major dental decay from this unsustainable diet.
    Australian’s may want to consider how we face the same crisis, before it is too late.
    Giovanni Ebono is an author, publisher and broadcaster. His Generator News can be heard on many community radio stations at 12.20pm on Tuesdays.