The Macquarie Marshes is a large non-terminal wetland in central western New South Wales (Australia) recognised internationally as an important breeding site for migratory birds. The marshes are degraded and the popular perception is that upstream irrigators are to blame.
Most of marsh lands are privately owned and used for cattle grazing. There is a southern and northern nature reserve which together comprise 12 percent of the Macquarie Marshes and the only areas where grazing is excluded.
In my last blog post on the Macquarie Marshes entitled 'Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes' I showed how a levy bank running across the southern boundary of the southern nature reserve is stopping water flooding into the nature reserve.
Some water does flow through the southern nature reserve by way of Monkeygar Creek.
Monkeygar Creek then flows through more private land before flowing into the Macquarie River and then the northern nature reserve.
Up stream of the northern nature reserve there are more levy banks and a rock wall across Monkeygar Creek, diverting more water to private grazing land.
It's all much easier to understand on a map, which is exactly what Chris Hogendyk has sent me today in the following pdf file, CLICK HERE [3 MB file].
The pdf file includes pictures, published for the first time here today, of the illegal system of levy banks upstream of the northern nature reserve.
Chris Hogendyk was mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald article of two Saturday's ago entitled 'Fat Ducks, Fat Cattle - Fat Change'. The article included the following comment:
"Hogandyk is chairman of the 600-strong Macquarie irrigator collective and a man who says saving the marshes is his great passion - "I think this is the one thing in my life where I can really make a difference to history.
... Hogandyk says the marshes still receive an average annual inflow that has only decreased by 15 per cent since Burrendong was built.
"A lot of the marshes were actually lost pre-dam due to grazing and channelisation. We are in danger of losing the marshes because the wrong solutions are being advocated."
It's easier to understand on a map and with pictures so CLICK HERE.
Its a 3 MB file, scroll down beyond the map to see the many aerial shots of the levy banks.
It is not because wealth consists more essentially in money than victoria secret new years myspace layouts have already observed, frequently signifies wealth and this fvwrjutois
I have read with interest and enlightenment
Sometimes it is important to leave our positions that were taken from the past behind. Positions that represent culturally historic practices and also mindsets that are egoic , emotive , all of which collectively impedes ones progress to enlightenment.
Mr Mott , i trust you do not take this personally as it is for you it is the only way to provide the freedom to a clear mind , that will take you onto a new journey that will bring happiness to every thing that always deserved it .
Message to the Hogandyks.
If you really want to correct the misconceptions that threaten you water allocations then you should correct the fallacy that the pre-irrigation runoff into the marshes was 460,000 megalitres which has since been reduced to 395,000ml by irrigation.
The pre-settlement runoff into the marshes would have been much less than 460,000ml and most likely less than 395,000ml because much of the upper catchment has been cleared for pasture. And this has substantially increased the catchment yield.
But don't expect the MDB Mafia or the Land and Water audit people to concede this willingly. The work of Robert Vertessy and the CRC for Catchment Hydrology makes it very clear that the switch from forest to pasture increases water yield.
So your group has to determine the exact amount of clearing that has taken place in your catchment and overlay the rainfall data so you can find out the real historical water footprint for the marshes.
There is not the slightest room for doubt that the volume of water taken out of the system by irrigators, given that extractions are only 14% of current runoff, is less than the improvement in yield produced by clearing.
My understanding is that the upper Macquarie is not subject to widespread thickenning like the mulga and brigalow country so cleared land has been more likely to stay cleared.
Let the truth set you free.
I did read what Anthony said and it was clear that he was leaping to protect a sacred cow.
He appears incapable of getting his head around the fact that wherever a park is located near grazed pasture the pasture will be grazed by animals, insects and birds from both sides of the fence.
And as fodder is consumed, especially if there is a full moisture profile, the resultant re-sprouting of grasses and forbes will be even more attractive to all species. This will continue in a diminishing cycle until nothing is left.
The fauna in the park may roost and shelter there but there is no doubt that they know exactly where the best feed is to be found, on the farmland.
The end result is that the illinformed then look at the difference between the two ground covers and hammer the farmer for supposedly unsustainable practices. It is knee jerk stuff based on image rather than reality.
And Chris has continued with this line above with the assumption that these so-called new wetlands have all been consumed by stock with no benefit being enjoyed by the wildlife who, it appears, are also assumed to reside solely within the park boundary.
I note that Chris has said, "As 90% of the marshes are on private land, this extra water simply increases the capacity to graze. Seems wrong to me".
And to this one must ask, did the downstream graziers get the benefit of the water prior to the building of the Dam? Did the dam take away part of their existing flows? Did the downstream graziers actually get an allocation when the dam water was allocated? Or do the irrigators take the view that Dam water in excess of environmental flows are for the exclusive use of crop growers?
My comments stand. You and other readers can reflect on them, research them, judge them, accept them or dismiss them ... but I don't believe they need explaination.
You might also read what anthony had to say at the other thread https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001473.html#comments
Please substantiate wrt offense and misleading.
Ian,
And I have found your remarks at this thread to be both offensive and misleading and I found your comments at the earlier thread also on the marshes (see https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001473.html#comments ) to be very misleading.
So clearly we don't see eye to eye on this one.
Jennifer, I find your imputation that my continued questioning is unreasonable and not being honest to the evidence highly offensive.
What has been presented here is a number of photographic innuendos. The critical information of relevance to this case is the actual height of the overflow from the bunded land. For that will determine, if we are given the courtesy of a scale, the actual volumes of water involved and the actual volumes that flow through the site to the park downstream.
And given the absence of input from the landowner, I have every right to test the assertions being made, on his behalf.
And it is a matter of serious scientific and policy debate that we determine which animals, wildlife and domestic, have contributed to the absence of pasture. And it is particularly important to contrast conditions in the wetlands with conditions outside during the same drought and to get an understanding of 'roo movements from the dryer land into the marshes.
It is also a very important point to recognise that in terms of edible biomass delivery to all dependent species, the grazed pasture has made a greater contribution to getting all the exploiting species through the current phase of their life cycle.
Yet, Mr Hogendyk would never dream of taking photos of his neighbour's post harvest crop stubble and using the absence of biomass as some sort of 'proof' of an ecological crime, of unsustainable agriculture. Why the double standard?
Is this a serious blog or an extension of your ego with a few intellectual glad rags tossed in?
Pinxi,these banks (and the one pictured is one of many!) do have a serious impact on where the water goes and ultimately for what purpose it is being used. The impact will be very minor in large flood events and major in smaller flows, particularly such as the environmental releases in 2002,2003, and 2005.
In a strange twist, it is more important for the irrigation industry to secure and protect a sustainable thriving marsh, otherwise people will, under the current paradigm, continually look for more water to fix the problem. On the other hand, the bleaker the picture that can be painted by the other side leads to more water to be thrown at the problem. As 90% of the marshes are on private land, this extra water simply increases the capacity to graze. Seems wrong to me.
If Chris H says these banks don't have a serious impact on the amount of water flowing through, ie that he's making a point on principle more so than magnitude (which is fair enough) then it takes us back to square 1 in terms of 'saving the marshes'?.
If the marshes could be in better condition by reducing grazing pressures and unapproved diversions as Chris says, it's an argument for irrigators to retain "current water volumes". This is situation normal then: each interest group is pointing the finger at the other.