I've just sent off my submission, with John Abbot, on the Proposed Basin Plan. You can download the document [10MB] here:
https://climatelab.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MDBA_Submission_Marohasy_Abbot_April16_2012.pdf
We conclude:
The Proposed Basin Plan is seriously flawed because it has been developed from false assumptions that there is always a shortage of water in the Murray Darling Basin, there is no potential for significant flooding within the Murray Darling Basin and that any change to natural flow regimes are detrimental to ecosystem health within the Murray Darling Basin.
The Proposed Basin Plan is ostensibly about the environment, yet there is no plan to restore the Murray River’s estuary. A vast coastal lagoon, Lake Alexandrina, once dominated the estuary but since the building of 7.6 kilometres of sea dyke in the 1930s this area has been managed as an artificial freshwater reservoir to Lock 1. The reservoir is completely dependent on freshwater stored over 2,000 kilometres away in the upper Murray and Murrumbidgee catchments and is arguably the most degraded of all environments within the Murray Darling.
There are no plans to restore the estuary because the Murray Darling Basin Authority now claims Lake Alexandrina was never part of the Murray River’s estuary and has always been a freshwater lake. This claim denies a significant scientific literature concerning not only the origin of Lake Alexandrina, but also similar Holocene formations around the southern Australian coastline. A consequence is that best practice management developed in other parts of Australia for other intermittently open and closed lagoons is ignored. The current political solution of using water worth several billion dollars to keep the Murray’s Mouth open would be dismissed as absurd if suggested for the management of any similar barrier estuary system.
G'day Debbie,
I think the accounting for and determination of when and where the environmental flows will occur is in Chapter 7 but my question was "How much of the environmental flow that is said to be required for the Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth will have already been returned to the River for similar wetland needs in Vict and NSW"? ie another way to understand my question is that the same environmental water can be "reused" for several wetlands along its journey down the river. Also what portion (if any) of the transmission water at the SA border that is required to carry the consumptive requirement along the river is also to be used for the SA environment including the Lower Lakes? My brain is failing me on finding and/or understanding these matters.
On relooking at chapters 6 & 7 I don't think we'll get an answer on this until all the SDL regions complete their environmental watering plans to enable an overview summary can to be presented. Sort of begs the question though on how did the MDBA arrive at an environmental flow requirement?
On another matter I am surprised at your comment to Ian that "SA is just as guilty as NSW on over allocating unregulated flow". Please advise your source for this statement as I strongly disagree with it, as you may have already noted from my second submission to the MDBA.
Ian,
You're outlining one of the glaring inconsistencies in this whole process.
There is NO PLAN to deal with the opposite side of the coin.
In fact the plan is to just dump stored water on top of flooding events in a vain attempt to imitate an 'airy fairy' long term average event.
The silliest part is that the storages were not designed to do that and are in fact physically incapable of re creating a 'long term average' flooding event.
Peter...just to supplement....downstream does not mean just SA....downstream means below the storages and the purpose built irrigation networks linked to those storages.
The NSW State govt is just as gulity of 'over allocating' unregulated flow as the SA state Govt.
The drought has just highlighted their duplicity.
That is why we need a proper cross border discussion amongst all the affected communities.
So please....stop trying to pretend that I have it in for SA communities and irrigators....I don't!
Your duplicitous State Govt and the bi polar rhetoric from the ACF et al is another matter entirely.
Whether you like it or not....and it is geographically impossible to change it....SA is downstream!
If your Govt will not get off the 'us or them' mindset....then SA's geographical position is going to be an even larger problem for SA.
As Ian points out here....it can also be the opposite problem as well as the one we are discussing at the moment.
Hi Peter,
Your statements that the upstream storages were built for diversion of water is true, but symptomatic of the fairyland beliefs of many South Australians is the lack of knowledge about what is being diverted and from where. Not to mention your blind faith in someone's ability to 'manage' water so no SA overbank flows occur.
The point I was trying to make, was that recently large post drought floods have been avoided throughout the southern parts of the system- thanks to the foresight and experience of those who made these diversions possible. BUT, like the bucket on your kitchen floor catching the leak from a hole in the roof, under extreme circumstances it all may overflow.
You probably do not know that some major tributaries are unregulated -( eg Ovens and King ).
If the major storages are at capacity and we get a spring rain dump, with a big thaw, you can 'manage' it all you like. Good luck with the rowing.
Eildon is also full incidentally . Just imagine if the 22 inches which recently fell near Ivanhoe NSW were to land in the southern catchment, when these storages are already full.
It did not miss by much.
Try downstream of the storages & purpose built areas and it might make sense.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Any good ‘downstream’ ideas are mostly rejected out of hand which is rather odd as that is clearly the water that has been over allocated” now you are blaming downstream of over allocation what a joke try to be fair.
Alan,
I read your submissions to the MDBA.
It was good to see some level headed analysis of the situation and also your willingness to spot the real culprit which is of course the enactment of poor policy and then the even worse implementation by a succession of govts, State and Federal.
Your point about instream is also valid and of course that was exactly what was done during the depth of the drought and one of the main reasons why the southern MDB did not have empty rivers.
Unfortunately, this knee jerk stuff we are being subjected to at present is attempting to solve the wrong problem and is intending to use the wrong resources to do it.
Storing 'environmental water' when the environment clearly doesn't need it will not solve the problems we have in years of low flows and drought.
Any good 'downstream' ideas are mostly rejected out of hand which is rather odd as that is clearly the water that has been over allocated.
As you point out it looks like there is a lack of accountability.
Unfortunately Alan, your question about the way the 2750GL will be acquired and accounted for in upstream vs downstream environmental outcomes is answered in chapter 6 and you will not like the answer.
2750 GL will still be taken from consumptive use for end of system flows, regardless of how many good ideas are implented.
Hi Debbie,
Good bye Debbie,
Hi Alan,
Re, No 1. You are correct that is why the payment for maintaining the Barrages and the Weirs and other River infrastructure is shared between the main Basin States - NSW - 38%, Victoria - 35%, South Australia - 27%.
Re, No 2. That would probably be a good idea.
Re, No 3. Correct.
Re, No 4. 00% is the Governments who made the decisions who must be held accountable.
Re, No 5. I don’t think no matter how many times you read the plan will you gain the information you seek and as the 2750-Gigalitres is for the entire Basin who knows? I suppose what is not used/consumed/able to be held in storages will as is the case now will continue to flow out through the Barrages. But of course what will happen during the next drought is any body’s guess.
Re, No 6. I agree some, “open discussion on how this is going to be managed thru the whole system” and all options on the table.
Re, No 7. As of now ‘environmental needs’ are not a requirement as Debbie puts it the environment has recovered and is thriving. The problem with ‘willing sellers’ is most times they are ‘willing sellers’ by necessity.
Re, “keep more water in stream and thru wetlands for longer stretches of the system and could reduce the need for Commonwealth Govt environmental buy backs” Mike Young has always pointed out in times of low inflows keep the water in the Rivers.
G'day All,
Have been in the bush for a week and missed all the "fun", and now seek to stir the pidgeons a bit myself.
1. I think it needs to be made clear that the Barrages are part of the historical River Murray Commission and now MDBA system and it is they who have to answer for the Lower Lakes and have been very shy about this over the years. And all the relevant States and the Commonwealth were participants in the Commission. But good on us for raising these matters because whatever additional amount of water is made available for the environment in average flow years or perhaps short droughts it will not be available in a severe drought.
2.As I previously suggested (see my 26th March comment on Jen's Honest Politician Needed etc---contribution), the Lower Lakes issue can be separated from interstate equity issues.
3. In my view, debate based on parochialism or on accusations thereof are non arguements. Debate based on relevant factual information is justified. (See my 3 comments on the MDBA Plan, no. 3 yet to appear on their website).
4. IF!! water has been over allocated then those who made these decisions need to be held accountable and should be required to pay or somehow compensate for their sins. This should be the faceless Govt agencies and their Govts who along with the MDBA have hidden behind their communities until the last few weeks, having effectively transferred the debate and inflamed communities in the process.
5. Maybe I have not read the proposed Plan thoroughly enough at this stage as I need to know what the 2750Gl or whatever no. is appropriate is needed throughout the system eg if x Gl is needed to rejuvenate wetlands in Vict and NSW then if this water ends up at the SA Border without being consumed subsequently in those States does this make up part of what is argued to be required for the Lower Lakes ie what part of 2750 Gl to the bottom of the MDBA system is needed anyway for environmental needs in Vict and NSW? And how does this relate to the MDBA transmission Gl figure at the SA Border?
6 The debate over the Lower Lakes can then be more appropriately debated regarding Mundoo Barrage removal or more flexible operation thereof. This debate needs to take place involving a wider consideration of drought intensity. Hydrologic modelling can show the probability and range of expected drought intensity which would cover short period droughts, and long sequences like the very infrequent drought we have just experienced. Realistically we cannot expect water to be available for other than critical human needs in such a drought and it is time that information is presented showing the frequency and attenuation of the "magic" figure of 2750Gl or whatever is going to be available over the years within various severities of drought, and start doing some serious and open discussion on how this is going to be managed thru the whole system. This may also help take some heat out of the Lower Lakes debate.
7. If the environmental needs are so CRITICAL (and I'm not making that case), Govts could in the extreme compulsorily resume water licences, and land for waterways like they do in metropolitan areas when land is needed to build or widen freeways. Short of going to that extreme, buying up water licences from willing sellers and seeking waterway easements has been occuring. A BETTER OVERALL SOLUTION COULD BE TO REQUIRE THAT TRANSFER OF CONSUMPTIVE WATER LICENCES SHOULD GO ONLY DOWNSTREAM -- nowhere downstream in particular, just downstream either intrastate or interstate. This would keep more water instream and thru wetlands for longer stretches of the system and could reduce the need for Commonwealth Govt environmental buy backs.
BUT DO YOU PROPOSE WE DO NOTHING???????
You must be kidding?????????
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Your comprehension skills are now very seriously under question!!!!!
As if any post of mine and just about everyone else here has EVER EVER proposed we do nothing!!!!!!
NOTHING ABOUT WHAT IN PARTICULAR?????????? THE EPHEMERAL ENVIRONMENT??????????
Seriously Peter????????
hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
If nothing else you have just managed to make me laugh very very very loudly.
This discussion is over.
Your assumptions and your attempts to just score silly pedantic points are parochial and adversarial and counter productive in the extreme....as well as being very funny.
All you can manage to say is CRAP!...... I I I I I I .....ME ME ME ME.....MY SA MY SA MY SA......
You most obviously cannot accept that many of us so called greedy and ignorant (that means we don't understand) eastern state producers do actually care very deeply that all affected productive communities in the ENTIRE basin should be able to have the cross border debate that will create sensible, sustainable and practical win/win solutions.
Peter Smith OAM Mannum seems to think he is the only person in the whole wide world that understands and cares and if everyone doesn't listen to him and just him....we'll all be rooned...said hanrahan!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
I'm deeply sorry that is an unkind response.... but Peter Smith OAM - Mannum...... you seriously need to get a grip and wake up!
Re, “If the farmers thought it was worthwhile and it had long term benefits, they would go ahead and do it” yes of course and that is why many people are investigating the options now.
Re, “You seem to falsely believe that ‘buying licences’ would guarrantee the type of water security that enterprises like dairy farming would require to successfully operate” what a load of crap I know what the problems are and also a license doesn’t guarantee water.
Thank you for reminding me once again, “the Murray River is NOT a high pressure pipe that can be switched on and off at the bottom.”
Re, “SA should also have learnt that ‘buying licences’is not a ‘quick fix’ for the problems that have developed there” I understand that thank you.
Re, “You didn’t answer my question because you’re assuming that there is actually secure water attached to those licences” once again what a load of crap, of course I understand that there is no guaranteed security of delivery.
By, “There isn’t, especially in SA” do you mean we will get ours and stuff you!
Maybe it isn’t, “Is it wise to re instate dairies after what we have learned” but all options for that land must be explored as the land still has to be stopped from degrading and cracking and collapsing.
As I have said before you don’t understand the LRM that particular land is hard black soil only good for certain uses.
Re, “As far as stranded assets go, you are not understanding the basin wide implications of that problem” like bloody hell I’m not as I travel the Basin as much as possible and see the millions of dollars of stranded assets and can’t imagine the thousands of hours put in by people on the land to just pack up and leave and I have been working with people in this situation for over a decade.
And it is not, “a much, much bigger issue than you are indicating” I have counseled people throughout the Basin over that more than a decade.
I agree, “There is no way our storage and irrigation networks can assist or manage our natural ephemeral wetland environments. They were not in any particular trouble as the spectacular return to plenty has proved” but do you propose we do nothing because if you are SA will be the winner accept under severe drought conditions!