Murray plan fights the constraints of history
Updated
Speaking at the University of Adelaide recently, former prime minister John Howard echoed the lament of generations of politicians who have tried to govern the Murray-Darling Basin – if only they hadn’t caved in at Federation.
Mr Howard delivered the Sir John Downer oration and, in paying homage to one of the fathers of Federation, noted the South Australian delegates to various constitutional gatherings prior to 1901 had argued for the Commonwealth to control the Murray.
Instead they signed off on a constitution which said power would be shared by the states through which the river runs.
“For someone who went through some dry gullies as prime minister on the issue of the Murray-Darling Basin, I can only say how frustrated I am that the views of the South Australians did not prevail over the views of the New South Wales delegates,” Mr Howard said.
As the most recent episode (the Water Act) of Murray-Darling Basin reform heads to Federal Parliament, its success could depend on South Australia following its forebears and agreeing to Commonwealth control.
In essence, the act which was initiated by the Howard government in 2007 is designed to find a way to keep growing food via irrigation without destroying the health of the river with over-extraction, salt and pollution.
If passed, the Commonwealth will decide where the water goes, with a prescribed volume reserved for environmental flows. The public process so far has seen book burning, threats and pleas but behind the scenes the Commonwealth has had to convince the states they will all be better off by handing over control.
South Australia has been seen to be the most stubborn, with its Premier Jay Weatherill arguing the state has the most to lose.
Although using only 8 per cent of the basin’s water, it is a critical supply for irrigation communities and drinking water for more than a million people when droughts set in.
The withering of dairies, destruction of orchards and ecological collapse of the wetlands of the Coorong during the past drought are etched in the minds of those living in SA.
Brandishing the threat of a High Court challenge to the process, Mr Weatherill said the proposed environmental flow of 2,750 gigalitres would not get the job done.
He wanted research on a flow of 3,200 gigalitres annually.
That modelling, released recently, suggested the increased flow would satisfy almost all the environmental targets.
Mr Weatherill said it justified holding out for a better deal and suggested High Court action may be shelved if the 3,200 figure were agreed to.
Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke said “in the life of the Commonwealth we’ve never been so close to agreement on running the Basin as a national system”.
However the modelling is based on an assumption that several river operating constraints are relaxed or removed. It means finding a more efficient way of releasing water for environmental purposes, such as flooding wetlands.
This could be easier said than done and will require more cooperation between the states than history suggests has ever occurred.
Ever since two Canadian brothers, George and William Chaffey, began irrigating their citrus trees at Renmark and Mildura in the 1880s, European Australians have loved fiddling with the river.
There are now so many culverts, weirs, dams, locks, hydro-electric schemes, barrages and channels that the Murray virtually runs in reverse.
During autumn and winter the river flows slowly as water is stored ready to be released in spring and summer to irrigate thirsty crops.
What was once a wild waterway in an unpredictable country of flood and drought has become a highly-regulated and productive irrigation system.
The proposal to remove constraints means some of these controls have to be manipulated so water can be released for the environment.
In the words of the MDBA report:
Many of these constraints are complex to address and will require state agreement and high levels of collaboration. Furthermore, the potential social and economic impacts of additional water recovery mean that there are important considerations to be addressed before the anticipated benefits of the modelled results can be delivered in the Murray–Darling Basin.
Mr Burke said he wanted to see work done on specific processes for constraints removal. Already tens of millions of dollars are being spent at the Hattah Lakes in Victoria and near the Chowilla wetlands in South Australia to create more flexible operating systems.
Those within the Murray-Darling Basin Authority who understand the fine detail of this complex system are optimistic they can make it work; the co-operation of state governments is beyond their control at the moment.
In its ideal world the Federal Government would like the water act to flow through the Parliament by the end of the year.
If it makes it all the way into legislation, John Howard’s legacy for the Basin may be reversing 111 years of history by handing control of the river system to those now occupying his former office.
Topics:murray-darling-basin, rivers, environment, water-supply, water-management, water, federation, history, community-and-society, constitution, government-and-politics, federal—state-issues, federal-government, states-and-territories, irrigation, rural, sa, renmark-5341, adelaide-5000, australia, nsw, albury-2640, narrandera-2700, qld, toowoomba-4350, wodonga-3690, mildura-3500, vic
First posted