Federal Government last night released an independent interim assessment of the recent fish deaths. The report is damning, but you wouldn’t know that reading the press release from the relevant minister, David Littleproud.
Here’s my response, which I provided to the Australian Science Media Centre
The Report clearly describes the “antecedent conditions” which made the Lower Darling so vulnerable to large-scale fish deaths, all of which reflect policy failures of the current government: These include increased upstream extractive use of water, the decision to release water from Menindie Lakes in 2016 and the extreme climatic conditions which are the “new normal” as a result of climate change. The Minister’s statement ignores all of these factors, and focuses only on the immediate causes of the disaster.
The government has rejected water buybacks as a means of increasing flow, ignored environmental concerns in the management of the Menindie Lakes and rejected any action to mitigate climate change. This was a human-made disaster, for which the present government bears substantial responsibility.
50 thoughts on “The Lower Darling: a government-made disaster”
The government is responsible for global climate change? The premature and excessive releases from Menindee were partly due to expectation of increased subsequent inflows. Why were the releases made? To secure downstream environmental water? What happened was that unprecedented drought hit, water extractions above Menindee were low but still it went dry..
I read only the conclusions of the report but thought they had a different flavor than your admittedly brief post.
harryclarke – the releases from Menindee were made, entirely, to justify taking more water upstream. The specious argument was that with reduced water in Menindee there would be reduced evaporation and so less need for environmental water flow. This argument was false when made and has been proven false now. It wasn’t an argument for increased environmental water at all, though some political window dressing might have given that impression.
The drought is not unprecedented. Indeed, catchment rainfalls are low – but not in the bottom ten or so.
Water flows for environmental purposes were unsustainably low; water extractions were higher that any proper concern for environmental flow could allow; water of lower assurance of reliability was upgraded to higher assurance; water entitlements that had never been used were treated equally with entitlements used for long standing purposes.
Town water was also diminished.
Now the proposed additional pipelines are to substitute from Darling River extraction for several towns…to justify further decreases in Darling River flows, to support further upstream extraction.
hc, all denialists share responsibility for climate change. This government will deservedly be condemned by history, along with all those who supported its repudiation of responsibility to the planet.
It’s not only the MDBA; the rains in FNQ and subsequent flooding inland were unprecedented in scale and volume. Similarly the fires in Tas are in regions that have never had fire – a direct consequence of climate change.
We can blame many of our Govts but in particular the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison govt, for their attacks on and dimunition of any statutory authority that acknowledge climate change and their activities to support and promote carbon emitting industry.
Woops the name/email seems to have been reversed.
harryrclarke says: “were partly due to expectation of increased subsequent inflows.”
In a land – with or without climate change – EXPECTED to have drought more years than not. By your poor logic (I’m being magnanimous harry) that statement convicts the government.
“I read only the conclusions of the report but thought they had a different flavor than your admittedly brief post.”
We always reveal ourselves eh Harry. Don’t read too much, and it isnhard to think when your head is firmly somewhere else.
Thanks chrishod for bothering to explain to a brick.
And harry, you will be ” deservedly be condemned by history, along with all those who supported its repudiation of responsibility to the planet.”
JQ say it so much better. I won’t waste my time anymore pointing out what you obviously won’t see.
I feel conflicted here because I have rural roots and arent against government interventions but the farming lobby is too strong and Australia is just not a great farming nation – the quality of land is simply too poor for that. We are flogging a dead horse. Birdsville has had .6 mm rain this year and is getting a tsunami of flood water from Qld now ,a farmer there said in a good year they run 10’000 head on their half million acres ! What a terrible waste of a potential nature park, I lived on 160 acres in Vic that had 100. After driving past the massive and growing cotton farms in the Hay ,Griffith ,Denilliquin area recently I tried to find out who owns some of these operations ,they are certainly not mum and pop farmers ,there is a US hedge fund manager involved. These companies are only interested in soil as a growing median ,like hydroponics, just something to hold water and keep the plant upright , the nutrients are from fertilisers. Crop dusters are constantly in the sky.
The Herald Sun is currently running a strong campaign for government help for farmers after hounding the car industry out of the country. One wrote a letter to editor saying that farmers were a proud people that didnt want welfare or handouts , he concluded by saying all they needed was their rates waived this year and some deliveries of hay and water ! The ‘Welcome to Griffith’ sign declares it ‘an Irrigation Wonderland’.
I’ve been living on the Murray for nearly 26 years.
I’m so effing angry and despondent over the damage that has been wilfully and knowingly done to this river by irrigators, Murdoch [and other] media and politicians of the right that words just simply fail me.
It should be remembered that the water that enters the Barwon and Upper Darling is that which escapes the flood plain harvesting in Queensland. It is as if this water is fair game, perhaps there may be a case for that if was about to enter the sea but it is the life source of a thousand or more km of river system. The flood plains are rivers in the same sense as the watercourses. Water harvesting blunts the surges which sustain the riverine ecology.
I found a source which claimed;
“The Darling and its tributaries drain the northern half (of the Murray-Darling) basin. They contribute 12% of the flow to the Murray River;
“The Murrumbidgee and its tributaries drain central and southern NSW. They contribute 13% of the flow to the Murray River.”
“The Murray and its tributaries above the Murrumbidgee drain central and northern Victoria and southern NSW. Uncer average conditions, this region contributes 75% of the Murray’s flow.”
On these numbers, who is to blame for the major part of over-drawing the river? NSW and Victoria would bear 88% of the blame if all states were over-drawing their sections to the same degree. Mind you, the Queensland cotton farmers are definitely in on the act too.
The problem on first blush appears to be that water buybacks are not police-able. The buy-back system is scammed and the water is stolen anyway. Same thing (arguably worse) has happened in NSW. I don’t know much about Victoria in this regard. The deeper issue though is official corruption.
In my observation, large-scale crime and corruption always relies on official corruption enabling at some level. The question is this. Where is the official corruption in relation to M-D water? We already have one clear answer from the S.A. Royal Commission.
I can only speak about irrigators supplied by Murray Water (Deniliquin etc). Water usage there is heavily monitored. Much of the monitoring system has been replaced by automated systems and the old paddle wheel gauges are gone. My impression is that there is a culture amongst irrigators there that would not tolerate theft of water. Besides it would be much more difficult to do so compared with remote pumps etc on the Upper Darling and the quasi legal diversions of high flow that I allude to above. The Murray does contribute a large percentage of the water to the MD system however there is a fixed demand in the lower Murray that has to be made up if the Darling does not contribute.
“My impression is that there is a culture amongst irrigators there that would not tolerate theft of water.”
As an irrigator for 20 odd years out of the 26 I mentioned above I can assure you that that impression is not correct.
The menindie lakes, of course, are on the darling, not the murray.
In fact… pretty much all the problems — the fish kills, the water thefts — have been on the darling, not the murray. I am not entirely sure what relevance the small contribution the darling makes to lower- murray flows has to ecological problems on the darling above the jumction: I was told in primary school that water rarely flowed uphill.
“..extreme climatic conditions which are the “new normal” as a result of climate change. The government has … rejected any action to mitigate climate change. ”
Earth may be 140 years away from reaching carbon levels not seen in 56 million years
Date:February 20, 2019 Source:American Geophysical Union
Summary: Total human carbon dioxide emissions could match those of Earth’s last major greenhouse warming event in fewer than five generations, new research finds. A new study finds humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate nine to 10 times higher than the greenhouse gas was emitted during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a global warming event that occurred roughly 56 million years ago.
Comparing past with present
…Projecting current emissions into the future, Gingerich found that if emissions continue to rise, we could be facing another PETM-like event in fewer than five generations. The total carbon accumulated in the atmosphere could hit the lowest estimate of carbon accumulated during the PETM — 3,000 gigatons — in the year 2159. It would hit the maximum estimated emissions — 7,126 gigatons — in 2278, based on Gingerich’s calculations. Humans have emitted roughly 1,500 gigatons of carbon as of 2016.
“The fact that we could reach warming equivalent to the PETM very quickly, within the next few hundred years, is terrifying,” DeSantis said.
The findings suggest scientists may not be able to predict the environmental or biological changes that will happen in the coming years based on what happened during the PETM because today’s warming is occurring so much faster, according to DeSantis. What makes predictions harder is that today’s climate starts from a cooler baseline than the PETM and the species that inhabit Earth are different than those of 56 million years ago… (emphasis added)
” all the problems — the fish kills, the water thefts — have been on the darling, not the murray.”
Really? The Murray almost stopped flowing at the mouth. The Darling contributes 12% of the Murray flow. Lack of flow on the Darling is related to actions in the Darling catchment. Lack of flow in the Murray is 88% related (about) to actions in the Murray catchment.
What has happened has been the triumph of economic greed and sectional interests over science. The science was clear on what level of environmental flows were needed. This science was shunted aside and the pressure of the farming lobby won. Now, they have the river system they wanted.
This is actually not a government problem. It’s a private enterprise problem. The private enterprise system (capitalist system) pushed for the current setup. The private enterprise system controls our governments and tells them what to do.
The problem goes so deep, systemically speaking, that it amounts to the fact that the private enterprise ownership system is not adapted to farming on a continent like Australia and it cannot be adapted to it.
Reports are coming thick and fast on the problems of the MDB. Too much to read and absorb at once. it appears that none of the inquiries has asked the fundamental question whether a prescriptive Plan was the best way to resolve environmental problems associated with too much irrigation in Australia. Several spatial, temporal and environmental attributes have to be reconciled. An unsatisfactory aspect of the MDB Plan is that it does not face squarely the fundamental difference between the environmental issues of the Murray mouth and Lower Lakes and those upstream. Ikonoclast, I hesitate to tell you this. Arguably, irrigation represents one of the clearest cases of government failure, in Australia and overseas. There is a substantial literature on the topic. A good place to start is the writings of Karl August Wittfogel on hydraulic societies. Further, the ‘science’ is not, and cannot, be clear on what level of environmental flows is needed for the MDB.
What percentage are the badnapples please from your experience? Any examples?
“On these numbers, who is to blame for the major part of over-drawing the river? NSW and Victoria would bear 88% of the blame if all states were over-drawing their sections to the same degree. Mind you, the Queensland cotton farmers are definitely in on the act too.”
Serious problem… the source! Where did propaganda news get it. I had a quick search but no river %’s.
“This has extremely serious effects on native fish populations and other native aquatic life and has led to serious siltation, stream contraction, fish habitat loss and other problems. The Murrumbidgee where it enters the ACT is effectively half the river it used to be.” We have know this since 1960. Is annon irrigator aware of this?
And my favorite stomping ground. I lived, overlooking Lake Eucumbene in “the shack” – actual name – and in Old Adiminaby for 2 years -forever ago! Fantastic area. No work locally and commute to canberra a bit much.
Fun fact. Macolmn Fraser was going to buy a property on the murrumbidgee just outside Adaminaby – and therefore seal road to “can-bra”. Fell through and still not sealed.
I got lost-ish and I destroyed a motorbike tyre width of “the wet heath and bog at the foot of Peppercorn Hill situated along Long Plain”. Sorry and never again. Bloody brumbies!
“The river’s headwaters arise from the wet heath and bog at the foot of Peppercorn Hill situated along Long Plain which is within the Fiery Range of the Snowy Mountains; and about 50 kilometres (31 mi) north of Kiandra. From its headwaters it flows to its confluence with the Murray River.
The reaches of the Murrumbidgee in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) are affected by the complete elimination of large spring snow melt flows and a reduction of average annual flows of almost 50%, due toTantangara Dam. Tantangara Dam was completed in 1960 on the headwaters of Murrumbidgee River and diverts approximately 99% of the river’s flow at that point into Lake Eucumbene. This has extremely serious effects on native fish populations and other native aquatic life and has led to serious siltation, stream contraction, fish habitat loss and other problems. The Murrumbidgee where it enters the ACT is effectively half the river it used to be.””
I asked my son in law who is a third generation irrigation farmer in the Murray area regarding the local attitude to water theft. He replied.
“Frowned upon yes. But the fact is that we are so regulated through modern metering that it is almost impossible. Why is this not the case for all irrigated areas?”
FEBRUARY 23, 2019 AT 3:43 PM
My apologies Ikon… I was in no way disparaging your worthy comment and calculations.
I appreciate your post.
I was blissfully carried away by reminiscing about the snowy mountains! And being seriously interrupted by whippersnappers. No ecuse tho.
My original source for flows data was slide show. I’ll see if I can find the reference again. There was no reference to any study or academic source.
Meanwhile, I’ve found this. I am not sure how to read it in full yet. In particular, I can’t identify the irrigation “take” out of the system. Maybe others can read this flowchart better than I can. But in particular it shows Darling river flows are a tiny fraction of Murray flows. Maybe the takeaway from that is the Darling River should only be used for stock (and town water?) and not for irrigation AT ALL. So that says that Qld and NSW should take 0 M/L from the Darling for irrigation.
And also for % contributions of basins, this is useful.
Set on Upper Murray but you can navigate (pun!) to check other basins.
“Maybe the takeaway from that is the Darling River should only be used for stock (and town water?) and not for irrigation AT ALL. So that says that Qld and NSW should take 0 M/L from the Darling for irrigation.”
As it was not so long ago. Cubby Station was a cattle property, Hay was known for Merino wool, not cotton. If my recollections are correct John Elliot was in early on the conversion to irrigation.
Here’s my colleague Fran Sheldon on the MDB crisis.
I’m going to sort of but not actually answer the question posed above twice concerning water theft in a very roundabout and allusive manner.
Otherwise I’m breaking omerta.
A large majority [60-70% of respondents] of Australia’s farmers believe the following:
Climate change is occurring
It is affecting their properties.
They are changing farming practices to meet ‘the #1 challenge facing farmers today” [paraphrase but near verbatim from the NFF president more than 10 years ago]
Climate change impact on farm properties is mainly negative – lost production etc
Farm managers rated the problem more seriously than absentee owners
All from an ABS survey of 150,000 farmers 10 plus years ago [except the NFF cite].
More accurate summary here:
Recently the NFF President, from memory Fiona Simkins, has pretty much reiterated the essence of the above above.
What has this got to do with water theft?
Of the hundreds [ very roughly] of irrigators i have talked to in all sorts of social situations, formal and informal, over the last couple of decades you could count on the thumbs of your feet those that would agree with the above.
Instead some. usually majorities, too often often virtual consensus, would state things like the following – I’ve heard them all – frequently:
Climate change is a government/greenies/Greens/scientists conspiracy
Water flows out of a pipe
Water that is not being used for irrigation is ‘unproductive’ – has no economic value – is ‘wasted’
Water that keeps ducks happy is wasted.
Water that flows to the sea [you hearing this South Australians?] is ‘wasted’ – and anyway it never used to in the past so why the fuss now.
All water belongs to irrigators, we own it – see, we have legal water licences – give us our water.
We are the food bowl
Water that evaporates from natural sites – rivers/lakes- is ‘wasted’
Bloody city slickers.
Its all the fault of the upstream/downstream irrigators it couldn’t happen here.
In such a cultural context water ‘theft’ is not theft.
Sorry about the length.
fred [aka anonymous irrigator – dunno how the name disappeared from the previous comment]
Clearly, Australia needs to REDUCE its agricultural production or parts thereof. If current levels of production, especially irrigated production, are non-sustainable in ecological terms, then the patently obvious requirement is to reduce production. Claimed efficiency gains just seem to evaporate, pun intended. Water extractions are entirely “non-fungible”, it says in the relevant literature. As a non-economist, I take this to mean that agricultural water needs cannot be replaced by any other resource or material. In addition, ecological water needs cannot be replaced by any other resource or material.
The over-production and excessive exporting of Australia agricultural products must stop. The arrant nonsense that Australia can be “the food bowl of Asia”, is exactly that… arrant nonsense. In ecological and sustainability terms, we have barely enough water to support our current population of 25 million.
Economics (capitalist economics) CANNOT be permitted to make the leading decisions about overall production amounts nor about overall extraction amounts. These decisions must be made by science and science only, with margins of allowance in favor of the environment, not in favor of production, to allow for scientific error and uncertainty. Market economics has a secondary role after the primary decisions are made scientifically.
This is exactly the same as the case for reducing coal use. Too much production and burning of coal damages climate and environment. Too much extraction of water damages environment and even to some extent local or micro-climates. These sort of considerations illustrate that far from growth being the answer, de-growth for certain strategic sectors of the economy is the only sustainable answer, in particular controlled de-growth of the fossil fuel and agricultural sectors. Fossil fuel use must be phased out altogether. Water use must be reduced. Irrigated crops in particular must be reduced.
Controlled de-growth will be challenging. Uncontrolled growth followed by uncontrolled collapse (the one naturally follows the other) will be catastrophic on our arid continent. We have few reserves and little margin for error now. The entire continent is already seriously degraded.
Alatair, What do you have vin mind instead of a plan? What are the lvers? How would usage be managed?
I just bought $62k’worth of UNMETERED water (hypothetically)! Anonymous Irrigator.
UNMETERED EASYWATER Water
Anon Irrig Said… not us. And read my next comment re how long this has been going on for…
I agree many humans involved in producing my food – thanks – are great. But is there any double dutch irish sandwiches,? Who pays for all that capital – hint – Blackrock. Bond holders?
And I just bought $62k’worth of UNMETERED water! What the expletive really is going on? Care to explain? Please.
“EASYWATERWater AllocationsSchedule of ChargesPricing CalculatorContracts
How many connections (access points) to the network do you have?
Please select the design size of your connections:Connection
1:– Please select –UnmeteredMechanical
2:– Please select –UnmeteredMechanical
How many DEs do you hold?
What is your forecast usage for the season (including any unmetered allocation)?
Fixed Charges 3132
Usage Charges 59346
Shareholder Fact Sheets
Directors and the board
Register of foreign ownership
Shares and shareholders
“We are one of the largest private irrigation companies in Australia serving over 3,260 landholdings owned by over 2,300 shareholder customers”
Q. Does one company hold 960 landholdings?
Q. Drop in employment on irrigated landholdings?
Q. I was going to ask about ——-rate above national average, but you may find the question abrasive or triggering. I’ll ask in a round about way … how many calls to L—line? Does M
AND Murrumbidgee Irrigation or same directors, different guises, have FIVE people here: “The Murrumbidgee Customer Advisory Group: “exchange information with WaterNSW so that a positive, constructive and efficient service provider/customer relationship can be maintained.”
Skew wiff. Please explain.
Ikon. I searched too and.. cry. Keyword: determinism**
MDBA must BE GONE. And wiers. And itrigators ”
“exchange(ing) information with WaterNSW so that a positive, constructive and efficient service provider/customer relationship can be maintained.”
“Yarrawonga Weir wins 2018 Collings Trophy as River Murray’s best
“The judges also praised the structure refurbishment and new security fencing at the Lake Victoria inlet regulator, and work being done to rehabilitate the lock chambers at Torrumbarry and Overland Corner.””
Here is the mdba problem. I can’t bold or italisize etc so I’ll just para mark…
“Senator JS Collings Trophy
“”The Senator JS Collings Trophy is awarded annually to the most effectively maintained asset in the River Murray system. The award was established to acknowledge the contribution made by lock managers and their staff in taking good care of the weir and lock structures, and in making improvements to their surrounding areas–including beautification schemes and bank protection works.””
They were beautification-ing waaay back… Here is Collings in his heyday. And we took 76 YEARS to have a royal commision!
“Newspapers: Browse Murray Pioneer (Renmark, SA : 1942 – 1950)
Thu 20 May 1943 Page 1
“” MURRAY COMMISSION
! Locks Inspected by
Minister and Members The River Murray Commission, headed by Senator the Hon. J. S. Collings (Minister for the Interior and Leader of the Government in the Senate), president, reached Renmark on Saturday afternoon in the course of a tour of inspection of the river conservation works. Commencing at the Hume Reservoir, the commissioners had come downstream calling- at the various locks and other works enroute. Included in the party coming on to South Australia were Mr. T. Hill, OBE, M, VIE, MIE. Aust (chairman, representing the Commonwealth). Mr. J. O. H. Eaton, ISO, M, Inst CE, MIE Aust (South Australia), and Mr.D. P. Israel, AICA, AAIS (secretary).
They had been joined at the Lake Victoria Storage on Saturday rooming by Mr. H. T. M. Angwin (Engineer-inChief, SA) and Mr. H. T. Garde (resident engineer, Barmera) . They were also joined at Renmark by Mr. E. R.Lawrie (Engineer for Irrigation and drainage). The New South Wales and Victorianj members, Messrs. F. H. Brewster and | L. R. East respectively, left the party at Wentworth. The Minister expressed himself as very pleased at. having the opportunity of seeing what had been and was being done in the way of water conservation along the Murray. He also said that he was particularly impressed by the enterprise shown by the lock masters in the planting of trees and general improvement and care of their surroundings. He had witnessed the passage of a steamer through a lock for the first time when the p.s. Marion went through Lock 10, and was very’ interested in the operation.
Assurance That S.A’s Position Safeguarded
In view of the doubts expressed in some quarters of recent years, particularly during seasons of small flow, that the quantity available for South Australia had reached a dangerously he doubts expressed in some quarters of recent years, particularly during seasons of small flow, that the quantity available for South Australia had reached a dangerously low level, “The Pioneer” representative questioned the commissioners on this point.
Assurance was given in reply by both .Messrs.. Hill and Eaton that there had always been “plenty of water “available for this State. Though the amount coming down to South Australia had often been less than the “minimum monthly discharge under Clause 49 of the River Murray Agreement,” it was pointed out by the commissioners that ample for present requirements had always been made available. Until such time as the State’s requirements reached the maximum stipulated under the Agreement, it was. obviously unwise to draw unnecessarily on the reserve supplies up stream during periods of poor intake.””
And again we knew in 2011…
“”Basin Futures Water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin
25. Planning as Performance: The Murray–Darling Basin Plan
Ray Ison, Philip Wallis
**The Emerging Performance
The performance that is emerging following the release of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan at 4 pm on Friday, 9 October 2010 has been scripted since the creation and passage of the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) and the associated creation of the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). What is unfolding is a tableau that is the product of the structural determinism** of its design.”””
[kt2 Ed. (lost tabs) Words as weapons or wealth]
”Table 25.1 Some of the main metaphors employed by Gittins in his article entitled: ‘Don’t think you can keep on neglecting me, Darling’
Having a wonderful ring to it?
Dripping with virtue?
Able to fail
Humans are not natural
A product of human design
Ecosystems as Healthy Sickness and health knowable
Having tipping points Behave as complex adaptive systems
Like flogging a horse Can be killed
Politics as Heads in the sand Not open and adaptive Exaggerating claims Rhetorical practice
Country towns as Declinable Viability knowable”
Anon Irrigator: this was written in 2010. Not to worry eh, T’Burk will be back in charge. He doesn’t do triple bottom line. He will – again – just oil the squeaky gates – with water!
“One of his tasks is to soothe the anguished and outraged response of irrigators to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s ”guide to a plan” to restore the river system’s environmental flows by reducing water allocations by 27 to 37 per cent.”… “But politics as usual – create such a fuss the pollies back off – remains dominant. And the standard tactic is to hugely exaggerate the amount of pain that would be suffered. The authority’s guide says its plan could lead to long-term job losses of 800. Just one irrigation lobby has ”modelling” showing that 17,000 jobs will be lost in NSW alone.””
That was a knockout presentation.
sunshine says: FEBRUARY 23, 2019 AT 9:12 AM – thanks for reminding us sunshine, of the many externalities anon irrigator didn’t mention.
We love to be proven wrong anon irrigator.
“they are certainly not mum and pop farmers ,there is a US hedge fund manager involved. These companies are only interested in soil as a growing median ,like hydroponics, just something to hold water and keep the plant upright , the nutrients are from fertilisers. Crop dusters are constantly in the sky.”
“Albert wonders about the cause of his illness. He remembers his days in the fields, holding up a flag for the crop dusters, “and you were covered in chemical all day long, you were”.
And the sheep troughs. “When the sun shines on ’em they get blue-green algae and you gotta clean ’em out every now and then. Sometimes, if you didn’t have a shovel, you’d just get your hands in and rake it out. No gloves on, sort of thing.
“They’re doin’ a lot of research in it, but we won’t find out. Probably someone else will, later on.”
“But that’s about all I know about that motor neurone. Well, I’d never heard about it until Tim [Trembath] – the bloke you met in town the other day – he wrote a bit in the local news and I said, ‘Geeze, I hope I haven’t got that bloody disease’. But that’s what it was. Most farmers diagnose themselves. They say, ‘I’ll be right. She’ll be right, mate.’ That’s the saying, isn’t it? ‘She’ll be right.’ But it’s not right.”
When it came to his diagnosis, Albert – like Tania Magoci in Griffith – appreciated the straight-shooting of his neurologist, Dom Rowe.
“He told me it was a f—wit of a disease.” …
…”Motor Neurone Disease is killing too many people in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. SBS travelled to Australia’s fruit bowl with a leading neurologist who is attempting to solve a tragic medical mystery. The answer, or part of it, lies in what humans are doing to the environment.”
By Rick Feneley, Will Reid
Source: The Feed
Stay safe anon…
The continuance of a cotton industry in Australia’s dry farming landscape, is an irresponsible abuse of political power. Apart from the smaller rice industry in lower regions of the Murray-Darling basin, the allocation of irrigation water to the cotton industry is non-optimal. In times of severe drought such extensive users of water must be denied access to valuable fresh water. This is both an economic necessity as an environmental need.
It’s taken us, as settlers and immigrants, just 230 years to ecologically destroy the Australian continent and its surrounding seas and marine life. We clearly have no idea how to manage any of this, or ourselves, sustainably. The results of our arrival have been genocide and ecocide. If this isn’t a sign that we need make radical changes then I don’t what is. Otherwise, business as usual will become collapse as usual.
Half the Barrier Reef is dead. The ecology of the Murray-Darling Basin is collapsing. Clearly, disasters which affect the natural world alone are not enough to motivate us. Disasters which affect poor or isolated people or people with different skin tones are not enough to motivate us. Clear warnings from the scientists don’t motivate us. What will motivate us? Only when the effects of these collapses impact severely and directly on us, en masse, and we are all in mortal fear of death or ruination will we act. Given the lags in the real economy system and even more importantly in the natural system, we are left only with the hope that, by this juncture, it will not be too late.
Gregory is that not simply a reflection of water not being priced correctly?
Gregory, The issue is how much water you divert to these users – not the crop that farmers grow. Then, as Homer says, if you get the allocation right – or the water pricing right – people will make good decisions. The nonsense talked about the evils of rice and cotton misrepresent the problem.
nottrampis – here are some value statements as opposed to deformed market prices…
Thanks Gregory J. Mckenzie says:
valuable fresh water
Re VALUE-able fresh water nottrampis: ( wasted time finding austnfigures – here is the god ‘ol usa)
If the world’s water supply were only 100 liters (26 gallons), our usable water supply of fresh water would be only about 0.003 liter (one-half teaspoon).
In actuality, that amounts to an average of 8.4 million liters (2.2 million gallons) for each person on earth.
But where is that 8.4m litres?
Water Use in the U.S.
8% domestic use
Over 600 gallons per day per person in the U.S. is being diverted for farm irrigation and livestock use from natural aquatic sources.
600 gal x 300m x 4.54609 = 818,296,200,000 litres of fresh water per day. Or 298,678,113,000,000 litres per year. 300 trillion liters per year? 300 billions tonnes sounds like it ALSO takes a lot of power – coal – to push around.
More than half the people in the U.S. get their water from groundwater. Lucky Flint.
To produce a Beef Steak 8 ounces takes1,232 litres
A gallon of paint or a quart of motor oil can seep into the earth and pollute 250,000 gallons of drinking water.
A spilled gallon of gasoline can pollute 750,000 gallons of water.
The woman at the Griffith tourist information place told me they have the highest cancer rates in Australia. My brother did that holding the flag job for the crop duster but only for two days, I imagine they have GPS for that now. A friend used to regularly put his arm up to the shoulder into a roundup tub to clear blockages. Those cotton farm dams are an awesome sight, there is plenty of laser grading and channel digging currently going on for new fields .On the plus side they employ some locals and probably even occasionally pay some tax. I expected to see more sheep around Hay ,we only saw 3 from the road ,we saw 4 emus. I was assured there are still plenty of sheep there somewhere. I dont think I’ve ever seen more kangaroo bones by the road than we did from Deniliquin to Hay, there wasnt a clear 20 meters .Farming Roos would be a good idea.
that anon above was me.
Last post! A lot [salt] of grief.
Hello salinity, as a negative feedback loop strengthens which I’d not thought of until reading…
‘Lot of grief’ as acute water shortages threaten drought-hit NSW towns
“Towns like Coonabarabran, on level 5 restrictions, have only avoided tighter curbs because of a rush to drill new bores.
From having four before the drought, the town got $2 million funding for eight more, six of which are now operating, Roger Bailey, general manager of Warrumbungle Shire, said.”
And this fell out trying to find salinity details… $26m of ours and $38m private CRC did for “us”…
The program focuses on research for improved river health and sustainable use of groundwater while sustaining cotton profits”
Says. It. All.
Unless negative externalities (ecosystem damage etc.) are correctly priced, how can we know, economically speaking, whether we should or should not be growing cotton in Australia?
How can we price these externalities completely, with regard to human and natural values and to the short and long term?
If scientific studies and models suggest certain environmental flows, how can we implement them when vested interests repeatedly and successfully demand the science be ignored?
Does the undue political influence of private vested interests in the political process and hence in the construction of markets suggest that free market theory itself is fraught with contradictions?
Iconoclast. If the negative externalities are related to water extractions then reduce extractions increase water prices. This has nothing to do with the crop grown. If the negative externalities are related to cotton production per se (I have not seen such discussed above) then tax cotton production.
Harry is correct. No different to carbon emissions. Put a price that reflects the negative externality and allow the market to work.
Those industries that need a lot of water either go away or change
It’s all very well to to ‘put a price on it’ and expect stakeholders to sort it all out. Those advocating environmental flows don’t have the same resources as irrigators and irrigators can lobby with hard cash. Politicians are sensitive to funding.
You did not answer my precise questions.
Question 1 used the plural “externalities”. I meant it to indicate I was asking about all externalities, not just water extraction. However, given the context of the debate (water extractions), I should have been clearer.
Question 2 essentially asks how well can we price externalities, really? Pricing of externalities is dependent on our state of knowledge at any point in time.When we learn something new, pricing of externalities (typically) increases. New knowledge on the environmental side is usually bad news these days. Any decaying system exhibits greater and greater measurable problems over time. Our climate, environment and ecology are decaying from the Holocene norm. It follows that new knowledge in these fields is always bad news. Thus some extra pricing would have to be built into negative externality pricing just as health premiums or life insurance go up for a decaying (ageing) person. When multiple sub-systems are decaying there is, in addition, a compounding effect on the decay of the whole system.
You haven’t addressed my questions 3 and 4 at all.
And sorry for raising another issue at this point. There is also the issue of positive externalities. If cotton (as it owned and grown in Australia currently ) presents less positive externalities for local and regional communities, per unit water used, than other activities then that would be another strike against cotton growing.
Iconoclast, What externalities do you have in mind?
All externalities. That’s the short answer. It’s not intended to be a frivolous answer although it may come across that way. I do understand that “all externalities” in toto presents something unbounded and not measurable. I was trying to hint, with what little subtlety that I have, that conventional economics is inadequate to analysing the problems we face.
The dominant paradigm of conventional economics insists that unbounded economic growth is fueled by positive externalities. There are some thinkers who indicate a counterpoint: “We … emphasize the role played in the growth process by negative externalities: the expansion of consumption erodes the quality and reduces the endowment of resources to which all individuals have free access, thereby forcing them to increase their dependence on private goods in order to satisfy their needs. This boosts production and feeds the growth process.” – S. Bartolini and L. Bonatti.
That takes some thinking about and some unpacking. That it is correct, thermodynamically speaking, is easily demonstrable. Increasing order in the economic system (growth and growth in complexity) is purchased at the cost of increasing entropy (disorder and a collapse of complexity) in the natural environment. That it implies a necessary end to growth economics is also clear (as endless economic growth collapses the sustaining environment) and then leads to economic and civilizational collapse.
Since identifying and calculating “all externalities” in toto is impossible both economically and scientifically (the problem is too complex with too many ramifications), then we must relinquish the illusion that there is a math solution to the entire problem either economically or scientifically. Economics has an extra issue of course in terms of the “The problem of value”. The physical sciences deal only with physical values. Economics deals with physical values (the real economy) and notional (money) values of both physical values and “intangibles” which are always greatly imperfect measures of “real value”, whatever “real value” is precisely.
To cut a long story short, we must employ science, not economics, and even with the best of science we are thrown back on heuristics. The best example perhaps is E O Wilson’s statement that we should set 50% of the earth aside for nature reserves. From Australia’s point of view this would mean at least 50% of all environment types for nature reserves. The practical difficulties are immense of course. Fifty percent of the Murray-Darling basin would be very difficult to set aside now. Is a patchy 50% a functional 50%? That’s another question to ponder.
I don’t know the answers to these conundrums but IMO the answers are not to be found in conventional economics. Conventional economics has been tried for about 150 years, in classical and neo-classical forms, and can now be seen to have comprehensively failed. It has become clear since about 1975 that it is leading us into deeper and deeper trouble both in social and environmental terms.
If general externalities then split into two clases. Those stream flow related: Restrict extractions to irrigators (preferably using water pricing) and then let them do what they choose. Externalities specific to outputs: Restrict the outputs – again preferably by pricing/taxes. You cannot estimate the optimal size of the restrictions exactly but making a stab is generally better than doing nothing. Generally we know enough to be able toi believe that total bans on extractions or production are inferior to allowing something.
I agree with part of what you have said there. The category split into inputs and outputs is ontologically sound. Your last two sentences acknowledge the heuristic nature of the solution. Under the current system (regulated, mixed economy capitalism) the best way to operate is as you have outlined: centrally plan total inputs of environmentally critical inputs (water), utilise pigouvian taxes and allow the market to determine the rest.
Of course, the difficulty is in the detail and in getting vested interests to listen to issues of science, environmental good and public good, all of which seems impossible to achieve under the current system of private ownership. Private ownership is an enclosure system which is particularly unsuited to managing a connected system like the M-D basin.
Where we part company is in the assumptions inherent in “let them do what they choose”. This is turn is bound up with the issue of private ownership of productive resources and one’s faith or lack of faith in markets.
If water allocations were cut to those required for drip irrigation, plenty of water would be available for environmental flows. Israel does quite nicely using drip irrigation and so can we.