In May 2005 Chris Hogendyk became aware of a small 260ha property located in the heart of the Macquarie Marshes that was for sale. The property had been used for cattle grazing for over 150 years, and was in a rather sad state after 5 years of drought and overgrazing.
Chris motivated a group of 30 residents of the Macquarie Valley to chip in to buy the property, which they named ‘Burrima’, the local Aboriginal name for ‘Black Swan’.
The group formed a unit trust, the Macquarie Marshes Environment Trust (MMET), and elected a Committee of Management to handle the day-to-day management of the property.
Since the MMET has owned ‘Burrima’:
1. It has been de-stocked, with spectacular regrowth of reeds and other plants
the block in 2005
the same area a few years later
2. An eco-toilet has been put in to cater for visitors
Chris Hogendyk is the man with the wide brimmed hat.
3. Walkways have been put across major channels to make the wetland walk more accessible
4. A total of 1,170 native trees and shrubs, including 600 saltbush, have been planted. Revegetation with native grasses has been planned for this spring.
5. Local traditional owners have been granted access to map scarred trees and Aboriginal middens
The MMET has hosted hundreds of visitors to ‘Burrima’ including local community groups, schools, politicians, birdwatchers, universities, research scientists, and many more.
Chris has also become increasingly determined to expose the environmental water theft and politics that are destroying the two nature reserves in the Macquarie Marshes.
He has been lobbying for policy change through his role as Chairman of Macquarie River Food and Fibre.
Chris is also the General Manager of Auscott Macquarie - a large cotton growing enterprise with a farm and gins in the Macquarie Valley.
Chris is passionate about farming and the environment. His wife Gill Hogendyk is Treasurer of the Australian Environmental Foundation and an active member of the Wildlife Information and Rescue Service (WIRES).
Ignorant armchair environmentalists at the popular blog Larvatus Prodeo criticize Chris on the basis he grows cotton and Gill on the basis she is married to Chris (see comment posted at 4.43pm on October 5). And at least some of those guys and gals wear cotton jeans and t-shirts! If the folk at Larvatus Prodeo want to learn something about wetlands and cotton growing they could volunteer to chip weeds at ‘Burrima’ or in the upstream cotton fields.
Thanks Chris, If the largest is entirely lawful then it cannot be termed "stealing". One must also be careful about assuming that the Reserves were once in good condition. If this land was available as reserve land 100 years ago it is almost certainly the case that it was not as productive as the other land. Settlers were not stupid. They knew the value of a flood in those landscapes and the best land was always taken up first.
Can you advise us what the original area of the marshes was so we can see the portion of total marsh area now in reserves?
Ian
As Chris has said "The banks and diversion works vary in age but many of them have been constructed in the past 10 years". There are multiple banks and diversions-at least 30 and up to 50- which are increasing each year. As most are illegal there is no record of them so one cannot be precise. They can be spotted by flying over the area. Perhaps the worst one (10kms long)is legal and was put in in the early 1980s just upstream of the South Marsh Nature Reserve. Surprise surprise the South Marsh has become a virtual desert over the last 20 years (see Jennifer's blog post on this bank).I will send Jennifer a few photos of some beauties that have been put in upstream of the North Marsh.
I don't disagree with your comments on runoff, and it seems that erosion is probably just as important a player in the demise of the South Marsh as these banks-ie the stream feeding the reed beds became badly eroded and started to act as a drainage channel, draining the wetlands.
The Nature Reserves were reserved very early in the piece- around 1900.
"from my conclusions", Rojo?
Which part of "until this major factor is properly considered", do you not understand? I have consistently not drawn conclusions, because the information required for proper consideration of all relevant facts is not present. And in the hope of gaining this information I have asked some provocative questions.
Ian, from your conclusions the marshes have enough water and the irrigators can therefore resume extractions in the next flush, and need not concern themselves with further water reductions.
"universally uninformed bollocks"
I don't recall making any excuses for anyone. I do recall outlining what information I think needs to be available for us to form an opinion on the matter. You have showed us some impressive "before and after" shots of the property, including one photo with enough water to paddle a canoe in, and another with water right up to the top of the creek bank. And that certainly indicates that neither the reserves nor your property is in a parlous condition due to water deficit.
And at this stage we still do not know if the diversion works pre-date the establishment of the reserves themselves.
I have also made it perfectly clear on past posts that clearing in the upper catchment has most certainly increased total run-off in the system and this increase in water yield is likely to mean that even after irrigation removals have been accounted for, the current flows may not be much less than the historical range of variation.
And until this major factor is properly considered I simply don't give a toss about any "universally accepted solution" because it is based on universally uninformed bollocks.
Wow Ian we could spend all week arguing with you as you think up excuse after excuse for the blatant theft of environmental water.
No we didn't start a campaign- the graziers that are pinching the water are involved in a long running campaign to increase the marsh's water so they can divert it- have a look at the latest Ecos article- one of many many many similar.
No we aren't complaining about this for our benefit- we're complaining about the theft of water from YOUR property- the Nature Reserves are 20,000ha of publicly owned wetlands. So that is why you and everyone else should care (we don't expect the world to care about the Hogendyks!)
Another reason you should care is that the solution to the marsh's woes has been universally accepted as the purchase of more water for the marshes- millions and millions of dollars worth of YOUR money is being spent on this solution in NSW. This is without any public knowledge of what happens to this water once it has been sent to the marshes (ie it doesn't get there).
We think this is important, and its great that people like you and Luke and Jennifer care enough about such issues to take an interest.
So you bought a property in 2005, at a price based on certain drainage characteristics and water entitlements and are now in the process of a political campaign to improve the water entitlements to that property, and others, at the expense of other land owners?
Ian, have found the following response from a Department of Water and Energy spokesperson
“An inter-agency task force has already been established to investigate and provide advice on allegations of unauthorised banks and diversion channels within the Macquarie Marshes. This task force includes representatives from the NSW Government departments of Environment and Climate Change, Water and Energy, and Primary Industries, State Water, and the Australian Government Department of Environment and Water Resources.
The task force has applied for $400,000 in funding from the Federal Government’s National Water Initiative Wetlands Recovery Program to undertake an audit into the operation of the Macquarie Marshes. This audit will include investigations into water diversion structures and the clearing of native vegetation such as Red Gums.
The findings of the audit will be used to ensure that remedial action is appropriate and targeted at the right structures.
In addition to the planned audit, the Department of Water and Energy is undertaking strategic compliance action in the Macquarie Marshes in the coming weeks.
More information will be provided once these investigations are finalised.”
The Watersharing Plan contains no "budget" or mention of these banks as no one was aware of them and their impact until we discovered what was going on. The Water Sharing Plan is public knowledge and can be accessed on the web.
Our property is on the western side of the Northern Nature Reserve (in fact shares 3 common boundaries with the Reserve).
A series of temporal remote sensed images ought be able to determine the age of the banks to at least a particular year of construction i.e was not in one image but was there in 12 months time. Perhaps a good request for a university remote sensing dept.
The banks may be be a blatant diversion of water - - but theft ?? - their legality vis a vis the water sharing plan, their inclusion or mention within the plan, and their individual time of construction are vital to determine if the issue is legal, ethical, ecological or heated opinion.
Again we are interested, the cause worthwhile, but need to know some more to see where the issue lies.