Murray river. Save or forget ?

[Big John]

Realistically there needs to be cuts to the amount of water taken out for irrigation.

Part I find interesting is that most farmers have probably been recieving less water for the past 10 years than what the proposed reductions have been. Will be interesting to see how it plays out, both in the parliament and for the actual result.

 

[GuruJane]

A bunch of farmers going ape isn't a problem; it's a regular occurance.

Obviously Burke's thinking too.

 

[Caesar]

- Lose jobs. Australia has an excess of jobs, so an impact of 1000 or so wont make much difference.

Ivory tower much?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

if that is the case, which it isn't in all cases then the government should be responsible for the piping to the point of supply to the farmer.

And you are right, once it is on their farm then so be it. But using a channell distribution method by a government is actually quite disgraceful and given the country we live in laughable.

Depends how much you want to the government to spend. There are litterally thousands and thousands of miles of channels. Just one irrigration area like beriquin stretches over 150km and is around 50-80 km wide. That would cost a fortune to pipe.

Who is going to pay for it. Farmers. Doesnt sound like they are two keen. City tax payers? No thanks, I think I'd rather the farmers just used 25% less.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Ivory tower much?

Pragmatic approach, rather than romantic.

 

[Caesar]

Convenient position to take for a tertiary-educated city dweller.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Not sure if the liberals have officially come out against the water buy backs or not yet, but what do my fellow bigfootians think of the proposal.

I used to live near the river as a kid, and last year went back for the first time in 10 years and did a 3 day kayak trip down the old man murray. Things didnt look good, but amazing how the people's emotions were tied to the state of the river.

Anyway, the main arguments against restoring the rivers health seem to be:
- Lose jobs. Australia has an excess of jobs, so an impact of 1000 or so wont make much difference.
- Small town shrink - They've been shrinking for ages
- Food prices go up - Probably, but if it aint sustainable, they are going to go up anyway eventually.

It will obviously be a nasty short term impact, but seem to me the real fault lies in the over allocation of water in the first place. This lead to the false hope that everyone could get more water out than was avaliable.

I'm baffled by the Murray Darling situation. On one hand irrigation is needed for many many farmers, but I don't know how much they need, if the amount is more, then the system can give, then something radical has to happen. If nature can't supply the amounts of water, then sacrifice has to be made . Farmers, I suppose, in this area know nothing but irrigation to grow crops and expect this to go on forever. If the river system can't keep going then it will be destroyed eventually if we keep irrigating..
Problem is, maybe my lack of knowledge, I don't know if the water has dissappeared or
whether a water delivery system is manipulated . I've heard that sometimes the Murray can be brought back to life by water being released by the authorities who control it.
Where does it get released from . Maybe the Snowy scheme dams . As you can see I am ill informed, I don't fully understand what is happening .I would like someone to explain exactly how the Murray Darling system and control of water works. This place is called the breadbasket of our nation, well what the effing hell is going on. Who's telling the truth and who is not, are the farmers taking too much irrigation water ? Is there enough water to sustain irrigation systems, where has the water gone? I lived in Mildura as a child over 50 years ago, the mighty Murray was a BIG river, wide and dangerous .
4 years ago I drove through the Corowa area and the river and its trees looked dead.
After seeing that I couldn'tunderstand how any farming went on in that area at all.
I am seriously asking the question. I don't know too much about the usage of water and land, but I know this country and I love it, and have family in it . Forget the politics what is really going on, are we really having a climate change "stuff up" in the Murray Darling basin, or are we having a water distribution fight ?

 

[JoondalupJ]

Undecided at the moment TBH.

My thoughts:

- prefer to save/keep the environment where possible.
- relocate food growing districts to areas nature can support them.
- undecided about cotton producing... 1st thought was "WHY COTTON?" before reading some comments that it has since been breed to be drought-tolerant... not sure what to believe here. Interested in seeing more info.
- definitely don't think we should be growing RICE in australia though... I refuse to buy Australian rice.
- I also think that the grape growers/wineries could be scaled back accordingly too if they're heavy drawers of the Murray.

* Resource definitely needs to be controlled Federally though.

** Needs to be remembered that Adelaide/SA draws a majority of its drinking water from the Murray. As an Adelaidian I am now proud of that fact. We are building a desal plant (but again I don't like the idea of that... heavy power required, brine by-product and expensive to build). I wished our State governments invested heavier in storm water capture (rainwater tanks compulsory and re-use (as they've been using in Europe for decades). This would lessen SAs dependence on the Murray.

Great post . WA to needs to introduce laws for installation of water tanks in homes as well.
There is a wine glut, so maybe wineries could cut back . But that always brings out the
same argument that every one else comes out with, that is, that, you will ruin some ones town or busuness or job, well yes, that is true and who has the answer.Who knows?

 

[JoondalupJ]

Buying water is a cost to the economy, reduced food production is a cost to the economy and building wind farms is a cost. Hard to see them doing all three.

It seems to come down to how you view rivers:

1) Are they simply a naturally created "drain" for excess water. In which case, any water sent down a river is wasted water.

2) Or are we trying to preserve the river to the state it was (or near) before irrigation farming took off. The mighty red gum forests grew where they grew because the river regularly flooded. The coorong was freshwater because freshwater flowed into it. Both arent totally compatible with a "water is a commodity" culture. Are we fighting against common sense here ? Should we just accept that the new state of Australian rivers is that substantial red gum forests are not viable, and the coorong is salty. ?

Gee doc there is no answer.

 

[GuruJane]

Exactly. Burke is actually very very good. They knew what the reaction would be

But there wouldn't have been such a vehement reaction if they had had announced measures to address the socio-economics at the time they released it.

- hence the delay in releasing it[/B].

Just makes the point. They knew there'd be opposition, they either didn't care or because "it was just farmers and they don't vore for us anyway" it didn't matter. Labor spinmeisters good at opportunistic political ambushes, useless at media management to advance policy.

Because its not "just farmers" - any group in this country will ark up if they are scared their livelihoods are gonna be affected by govt policy.

Why inflame opposition when its not necessary? Makes the government look incompetent - again.

 

[Relativity]

The biggest mistake that Labor made was to announce in SA, a week before the election, that they would implement the reports recommendations in entirety regardless. No doubt done as a last minute attempt to shore up their SA vote. Attempts to "water down" the recommendations will be met equally ferally by the downstream users. They have put themselves in a no win situation. My guess is it will disappear in a series of committees/reviews until after the next election.

 

[Chops_a_must]

But there wouldn't have been such a vehement reaction if they had had announced measures to address the socio-economics at the time they released it.

Ahhhh... because that's already been covered on a much larger scale, over a multitude of issues.

It would just be re-writing that.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

You on drugs? How many wheat farmers use flood irrigation? They generally soley rely on rainfall.

Typical ignorant response.

Farmers will irrigation infrastructure, grow crops using that infrastructure.
Including wheat. And the return per acre is about 5x that (per tonne) of farmers without irrigation.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Convenient position to take for a tertiary-educated city dweller.

Are you claiming to speak for the rural year 10 dropout ?

If so, what do you propose be done ?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Gee doc there is no answer.

I believe most farmers believe the river to be a drain (from their farm downstream of course). Having lived in that environment, the government actively encouraged farmers to minimize all waste water.

Here's a classic example. In around 1980 a significant drainage channel was dug around the beriquin area which drained all the excess water from farmers land back into the river. At the time this was desperately needed. Farmers were concerned with rising ground water tables their irrigation was causing. Irrigation was inefficient in those days, Flood type, simply following the contures on the land. Id say a good 10 to 20% of the water used was wasted. If not for the new drain, it would find itself in small man made swamps before seeping into the ground.
In that year, I recall the drainage channel flowing like a small river itself. And for a few years after. But by the mid 90's it had all but dried up. Now days, even floods dont cause it to flow, because farmers capture any water in their own storage. Irrigation has improved that farms just dont waste any water now days.

So even if allocations hadnt changed since 1980, the flow of the river is 20% less, simply because farmers practices have improved to use and keep excess water.
By their own efficiency, they have made the problem worse for those downstream.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

But there wouldn't have been such a vehement reaction if they had had announced measures to address the socio-economics at the time they released it.



Just makes the point. They knew there'd be opposition, they either didn't care or because "it was just farmers and they don't vore for us anyway" it didn't matter. Labor spinmeisters good at opportunistic political ambushes, useless at media management to advance policy.

Because its not "just farmers" - any group in this country will ark up if they are scared their livelihoods are gonna be affected by govt policy.

Why inflame opposition when its not necessary? Makes the government look incompetent - again.

thats all very well, but the question of the thread is not what the government is or isnt doing. It what would you do (without just towing the party line) ?

 

[Caesar]

I don't claim to speak for anyone. It just annoys me when inner-city numpties make idiotic statements like "Australia has an excess of jobs, so an impact of 1000 or so wont make much difference".

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I'm baffled by the Murray Darling situation. On one hand irrigation is needed for many many farmers, but I don't know how much they need, if the amount is more, then the system can give, then something radical has to happen. If nature can't supply the amounts of water, then sacrifice has to be made . Farmers, I suppose, in this area know nothing but irrigation to grow crops and expect this to go on forever. If the river system can't keep going then it will be destroyed eventually if we keep irrigating..
Problem is, maybe my lack of knowledge, I don't know if the water has dissappeared or
whether a water delivery system is manipulated . I've heard that sometimes the Murray can be brought back to life by water being released by the authorities who control it.
Where does it get released from . Maybe the Snowy scheme dams . As you can see I am ill informed, I don't fully understand what is happening .I would like someone to explain exactly how the Murray Darling system and control of water works. This place is called the breadbasket of our nation, well what the effing hell is going on. Who's telling the truth and who is not, are the farmers taking too much irrigation water ? Is there enough water to sustain irrigation systems, where has the water gone? I lived in Mildura as a child over 50 years ago, the mighty Murray was a BIG river, wide and dangerous .
4 years ago I drove through the Corowa area and the river and its trees looked dead.
After seeing that I couldn'tunderstand how any farming went on in that area at all.
I am seriously asking the question. I don't know too much about the usage of water and land, but I know this country and I love it, and have family in it . Forget the politics what is really going on, are we really having a climate change "stuff up" in the Murray Darling basin, or are we having a water distribution fight ?

I didnt see this post before I made my earlier reply about improved practices.

Unless you are talking about SA, the murray and darling systems are quite different. The Darling takes flood waters from inland QLD down to the sea.
The murray drains the more "reliable" mountains of NSW (on one side) and Victoria on the other. Both have significant rivers of their own which end up in the murray.

The big problem the darling faces is all the big farms in northern NSW/ QLD like cubbie station which have built massive on-farm water storages to capture these qld floods, so they rarely make it down the river as they used to. In a sense, they have made an irrigation area by playing god with the river. But you can see their point. If the rain falls on their land, why cant they keep it ?

Murray has similar issues, but more of 1000's of smaller implementations achieving the same net impact. And state governments acting independently. its been a long standing issue (even back in the howard era) to get some centralized governance over the whole basin.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I don't claim to speak for anyone. It just annoys me when inner-city numpties make idiotic statements like "Australia has an excess of jobs, so an impact of 1000 or so wont make much difference".

Why ?

Every solution is going to have some winners and losers. If you minimize the losers you get the better solution.

 

[Caesar]

Australia does not have an excess of jobs. An impact of 1000 rural job losses will make a massive difference to the families and communities affected.

It's just an ignorant statement, clearly made by somebody to whom unemployment is little more than a number.

 

[rayven]

Farmers maintain there truck that takes there produce to market.........but they dont maintain the source of life that his product requires......the river
Goverment maintains the roads to that market.............but not the river that feeds the produce at the market....

Incompetant buisness/administrive practises...........its a no brainer...Football players manage injuries otherwise they will no longer be a footy player........
Its silly really all this arguing.....culpable

I remember a movie or 2 that speaks about democracy/capatalism..........How things never get done.How greedy people complicate simple basic matters........people get lost in all the bullshit..agenda's..................until it all comes crumbling down.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Australia does not have an excess of jobs. An impact of 1000 rural job losses will make a massive difference to the families and communities affected.

It's just an ignorant statement, clearly made by somebody to whom unemployment is little more than a number.

Im sorry mate but we do. we have very low unemployment, and are having to import labour from overseas.

No more so do we have an excess of jobs than regional australia becuase of the mining boom. Its so dire mining companies are offering $120,000 wage for someone to drive a truck.

Listen I know their will be some pain for farming based people, but this is by far the best economic climate to make the transitions necessary if we want to save the river. Far better to do it now than if we are in a recession with 15% unemployment.

 

[Caesar]

Grab an atlas and tell me how far the Murray-Darling basin is from the Pilbara.

 

[GuruJane]

thats all very well, but the question of the thread is not what the government is or isnt doing. It what would you do (without just towing the party line) ?

Well the Murray has been drying up then filling up since time immemorial in line with the El Nino/La Nina "droughts and flooding rains" cycles. What is different today is the increasing number of upstream farmers from different states taking water for irrigation and the expansion of irrigation-dependent riverside communities.

So I support in principle the Howard legislation that was supported by the entire parliament except Tony Windsor, that brings it under Fed control.

What I will find interesting is if the take out of water from the irrigators does not appear to affect the river during this La Nina cycle? If so, the issue will disappear from the table and the chance to take the river management out of state control will be lost.

 

[GuruJane]

Ahhhh... because that's already been covered on a much larger scale, over a multitude of issues.

It would just be re-writing that.

Cop out.

Answer the question.

What benefit did the government see in deliberately setting the farmers alight instead of neutralising the issue at the same time it released the guide?