Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Murray-Darling Plan involves a huge waste of water and money

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Friday, 15 November 2019


The stated aims of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan include improving water quality in the Lower Lakes, and "restoring" the health of the basin's rivers. To achieve this, about 20 per cent (2,500 GL) of the water that was available to consumptive users a decade ago, has been diverted to the environment.

Despite this taking away of irrigation water, the plan is not achieving its aims, and many of the basin's major rivers have now stopped flowing. Increased "environmental flows" (especially in the lower basin) have mainly been a wasteful investment in evaporation and in watering the sea.

Every year over 800 GL (Sydney Harbour only holds 500GL) of fresh water is lost through evaporationand seepage from South Australia's Lower Lakes (reflecting that their average depth is only 2.9 metres). Thus with trades of Murray River water recently reaching a high of $970 a mega-litre and exceeding $500 since mid 2018, you are talking about freshwater losses valued at $500 million to a billion dollars annually at recent prices. The loss of water for irrigation resulted in reduced agricultural production and in the ruin of some local communities in upstream irrigation areas. (The Gross Value of Irrigated Agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin was $7.2 billion in 2016-17.)

Advertisement

The vast (140,000 hectare) Lower Lakes would be far healthier if their natural estuarine system was allowed to function (by removing or strategically opening the barrages built to block tidal flows). In times of drought, opening the barrages to allow sea water in (instead of using valuable Murray freshwater) can stop the lake levels from dropping to environmentally disastrous lows, and from accumulating excessive levels of salt. During the droughty period from 2006 to 2009, the level of the Lower Lakes fell to 1.1 metres below sea level.

Evidence shows that, before European settlement, the Lower Lakes were predominantly fresh the majority of the time, because inflows of freshwater were generally sufficient to prevent seawater from creeping too far in. Following dry spells, when flows are low, the Lower Lakes get saltier. (For example, in 1830 Captain Sturt recorded that water in Lake Alexandrina was undrinkable.) The Murray river itself was recorded as having ceased flowing on at least three occasions since white settlement.

There are five barrages that separate Lake Alexandrina from the Goolwa Channel and the Coorong. Back in the 1930's, the construction of these barrages was opposed by many South Australian graziers and fishers due to the expected impact on fishing as a livelihood, the loss of low lying grazing lands through inundation, and expected increased siltation of the Murray mouth.

Back then the Lower Lakes had healthier water and a thriving commercial mulloway fishery. (Mulloway travel between the ocean and fresh water as part of their lifecycle.) Prior to the barrages in 1938/1939 almost 600 tons of butterfish (mulloway) were caught in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. Since the closing of the barrages in 1940, the mulloway catch plummeted to less than 70 tonnes. Desirable freshwater species such as silver perch and Murray cod, once common in the lower lakes, have now also become rare. The commercial catch from the (now permanently "freshwater") lakes is dominated by other species including low-value European carp. Carppopulations (being less adapted to drought) boomed in the Murray Darling Basin following artificial environmentalriverflows.

Evaporation losses also occur in upstream (short-term) swamp areas, which should be low priority areas for watering during severe drought. It has been reported that the Basin Authority was running the Murray River at "hideous levels", losing 6200 megalitres a day for 141 days straight (last spring and summer) to over-bank flows. It is claimed that, by running the river over capacity (to replace missing flows from the Darling), the MDBA was responsible for losses exceeding 870,000ML of water into surrounding forest wetland.

The Barmah Choke, which was once a restriction that could carry over 9000ML a day, can now only carry 7800ML, because the banks are collapsing and the river has partially silted up. In addition to environmental flows, another major cause of high flows in the lower Murray is the transfer of water from upstream use to almond growing farther downstream, flows which the Murray struggles to deliver.

Advertisement

All this begs the question of what state our rivers and lakes would be in, if Australia had been left in its natural state without storage dams or irrigation. This can largely be determined by looking at recent and historic water flows.

Currently much of the Murray system (in Victoria and southern NSW) has plentiful water. In Victoria the main dams currently are nearly all high, with many 80 to 100 per cent full following a wet winter and spring.

NSW is a different story. In the Murrumbidgee catchment Blowering Dam at the end of October was at 55 per centand Burrinjuck only 33 per cent. In the Lachlan system, Wyangala was only 19 per cent full. In the Macquarie, Burrendong was down to only 4 per cent, while in northern NSW most of the major dams are also at levels below 5 per cent.

In central, northern, and western NSW and south west Queensland dams/irrigation cannot be blamed for the current state of the rivers because the dams are largely empty and irrigation from river water has been minimal for a couple of years.

During most summers, the Darling River typically dries back to a series of deep waterholes. Similarly, the lakes at Menindee and on the Great Darling Anabranch dry up for many years between floods. The Darling River at Menindee ceased to flow 48 times between 1885 and 1960, and the river did not flow for 364 days in the 1902–3 drought. Most of the other creeks and rivers on the plains in the far west of NSW are also ephemeral.

The Menindee Lakes are a natural, shallow, short-lived system fed by the Darling, which were engineered into a regulated water storage system in the 1960s. Their total storage volume is 1,731 GL, and they may lose up to up to 700 GL a year in evaporation. Heavy winter rains flooded the Menindee Lakes in 2016, and large flows of Menindee water were released downstream in 2017.

Many Lower Darling residents blamed the Basin Authority for releasing this water, arguing that, had it been held back, the 2019 fish kills might have been avoided. The reality, however, is that the claim has very limited basis because, had the water not been released, it would have mostly evaporated by now anyway. The fish kills at Menindee were an inevitable effect of the drought, and further kills in the Darling are likely this summer in the absence of good rain.

The Macquarie River had not run dry since Burrendong Dam was built in the 1960s but has now stopped flowing to the marshes. The last significant water inflows into the (200,000 hectare) Macquarie Marshes (one of the largest remaining semi-permanent wetland systems in inland Australia) occurred in December 2018, and there's been no significant rain in the catchment since. The marshes are now bone dry (which happens periodically) and last month experienced large bushfires (historically not uncommon). Estimates suggest 90 per cent of the wetland's main reed bed has been razed by the fires.

In 2018 (in the middle of one of the worst droughts in recorded history) 132,000ML of water for the environment was delivered into the Macquarie River from Lake Burrendong. It only succeeded is postponing the eventual drying out of the marshes, which experience extreme evaporation levels.

Those inland rivers in NSW still flowing despite drought in their catchments are in fact, for the most part, those fed through controlled flows from large irrigation dams (e.g. Wyangala, Burrinjuck, Blowering). Much of their water is used downstream for irrigation and town water.

The Namoi system is one of the systems most devastated by the drought, and without stored water in Keepit Dam, the river would have run dry much sooner. Because of the releases from Keepit Dam over the last two years, the flow in the system has been three times what would have occurred under natural conditions.

In Queensland, because the bulk of Cubbie's water licences are high-flow licences. Cubbie (and smaller irrigators in SW Queensland) can only begin storage when rivers are in flood and above a certain height. Cubbie's storages are currently empty, and Cubbie has not harvested crops for two years. The station has no effect on Darling River flows during a drought.

Overall, and counter to popular opinion, the presence of large river dams does not reduce river flows during a severe drought. The severe drought itself is the culprit for current low flows. Dams actually protect river flows in drought years through regulated water releases, though stored water can eventually run out.

City Australians (commonly due to misinformation) are often hostile to irrigation from river systems, and often (unrealistically) blame the presence of irrigation dams for inland rivers and creeks not flowing continuously. The reality in inland Australia is that, even on the higher rainfall tablelands, most creeks do not flow year round and a "permanent" creek is one that merely has year-round waterholes (sometimes spring fed). It is claimed (including by greenies dressed up as "scientists") that the building of dams for irrigation has caused thelong-term ecological decline of rivers, wetlands and floodplains. A more realistic assessment is that such dams mitigate major flooding in very wet years and provide a source of more assured flows and income from irrigated agriculture for long periods during dry spells.

The Basin Plan is supposed to be a $13 billion reform to reset the balance between environmental and consumptive use of water and to establish a new sustainable water management system. According to the Productivity Commission about $6.7 billion has been spent to recover about 2000 gigalitres from farmers. Each year, South Australia (SA) is entitled to receive up to a maximum of 1850 GL, depending on the water availability. This does not include water that would flow to SA during floods or as a result of trades and environmental watering actions. According to the SA EPA, SA's total water consumption (excluding evaporation losses) is just 1000GL a year, of which agriculture consumes three-quarters.

According to the Productivity Commission (2018) the $13 billion plan risks all-together failing due to poor governance, "unrealistic" deadlines and budget blow-outs. About $6.7 billion had been spent to recover about 2000 gigalitres (GL), and there is still $4.5 billion to be spent. In the Commission's view, the significant risks to implementation cannot be managed effectively under current institutional and governance arrangements, and reform is required.

There have been other criticisms of the implementation of the Basin Plan:

  • An ABC Four Corners report on water rights buybacks in July 2019 quoted several spokespeople saying the multi-billion water infrastructure buyback scheme was a "national disgrace" and a complete failure for the environment with no known benefit to the river systems.
  • It is widely believed that the Government paid far too much for the water it bought off farmers. For example, an analysis by the Australian Financial Reviewshows the federal government paid at least a $40 million premium for the Twynam water licences in the Lachlan valley.
  • The purchase of water in the Lachlan catchment does not assist the Lower Lakes. (The Lachlan River, under average flow conditions, terminates in ephemeral wetlands and distributary creeks around Hillston and Booligal, and only after a one in 50 year major flood does its water reach the Murrumbidgee, and flow onwards to SA.)
  • The plan to take 450GL more water for environmental flows is one of the most controversial policies remaining in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and is now (for political reasons) unlikely to go ahead.
  • There is widespread bitterness among irrigators because they feel that large amounts of water are being drained down to South Australia for no real benefit.
  • Through changes in trading rules, irrigation water is increasingly going to cotton and nuts, which are becoming dominant commodities in the Basin. This, along with reduced water for irrigation, is causing a real loss of family farms, especially in dairying and fodder production.

There are two underlying factors distorting water policies for inland Australia. Firstly, such policies are heavily driven by national and state politics. Secondly, policies have been diverted in a major way by political attempts to buy votes in South Australia (just like defence acquisition programmes for new submarines and frigates) and by efforts to appease city-based environmentalists.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan grew from a $10 billion pledge by John Howard at the height of the millennium drought in January 2007. Under the Rudd/Gillard governments the commitment to the environment grew to 2,750 GL, which was to be either bought from irrigators or created by water saving measures. The plan was finally adopted under the Gillard Government in November 2012, when it received bipartisan support in Parliament. Victoria, South Australia and the ACT signed up relatively quickly but NSW was the big holdout. Queensland and New South Wales have finally agreed in February 2014. Why NSW ever agreed to a plan so obviously against the State's interests is unfathomable.

The Morrison Government has recently struck a deal worth almost $100 million so that the South Australian Government can turn on its desalination plant to service Adelaide, leaving 100 gigalitres to be used to grow fodder upstream. While details are unsettled, the water apparently will be sold to irrigators for $100 a megalitre).

The deal presents itself as economic insanity because the real cost of the water (including subsidy) is $1000 a megalitre, a price at which irrigated fodder production is totally uneconomic. It is also uncertain whether the drought will break prior to such production coming on stream. (In such a scenario, you could end up with a glut of unwanted fodder.)

Even though the Basin Plan has been greatly discredited, it will be very difficult politically for a federal Government to walk away from it (especially a Government with a one-seat majority). Given the irregular rainfall patterns to which our continent is subject, unrealistic notions of making ephemeral rivers (filled with fish) flow all the time, converting estuarine systems to freshwater lakes, and trying to turn semi-permanent wetlands into permanent ones were never viable long term options. Governments are destroying our irrigation industry to achieve the unachievable.

People ignorant of Australia's natural history have been driven to panic through sensational reporting of the drought and recent climate events. This has resulted in a "something has to be done" mentality, which nearly always results in expensive policies that won't work.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy