Worst drought ever

[bel532]

Absolute bull.

Us in WA really aren't Australian. We get ignored, underfunded for everything and would be far better off if the secession had of happened in 1933. If you bastards had let it!

We don't get our fisheries protected, we don't get any royalties from Gorgon and other massive projects. We just get left with the problems. So why the hell should we do anything?

WA has always funded the commonwealth with its mineral wealth. Our economy was also booming before the commodities bull began charging:



And for the record, WA is NEVER mentioned in the pre-amble to the constitution in regards to the Federation. WA would be well within its rights to break away. If our resources keep getting raped with little re-investment, it may well come back to be an issue as it did in the 70s, when development here was stifled from the peoples over east.

Do you know that SA has a constitutional right to an allocation of water...guaranteed since federation.
There must have been some inspired foresight there.NSW kept giving out irrigation licences until the Commonwealth took over earlier this year.The NSW premier was only too happy to cede water powers to the Commonwealth after the inept mess that NSW has made of water allocation.
In SA they stopped issuing new irrigation licences in 1973.
I read figures in one newspaper that NSW uses nearly ten times as much water from the Murray-Darling as SA,and Victoria six times as much......I spent last year living in the Riverina.I found some amazing attitudes in NSW.The shire that I was in sold water for $50 a meg when the market rate was $350....but no matter ...it would rain next year and people would forget about it!
The mayor of one shire,I think Wakool,was advocating stopping the river flow at the SA border,because the irrigators in his shire were facing hardships.
In the big picture ,they were Johnny-come-latelies that should not have been there in the first place...or just misled by governments ?
The current state of the river is caused by drought,but there are lot of bad attitudes and over allocations to be addressed.

I think we ALL need to rethink our attitudes towards water usage in this country. I was appalled recently to be told that people living in Deniliquin in rural NSW were stilll watering their gardens in the middle of the day. And why do we still allow cotton and rice farming in this country? let those countries in SE Asia with an abundance of water grow these crops.

On a recent trip to Perth my wife was also appalled at the amount of water being wasted in a city that has seen a steep decline in its water storages for nearly two decades. One person told her that there was plenty of water but the Government was hiding it! Even their aquifers are drying up.

In my own neighborhood I am simply amazed at the number of people who don't care about the water problem and take the attittude that the 'the Government should fix it'.

 

[Aussiejeff]

I think we ALL need to rethink our attitudes towards water usage in this country. I was appalled recently to be told that people living in Deniliquin in rural NSW were stilll watering their gardens in the middle of the day. And why do we still allow cotton and rice farming in this country? let those countries in SE Asia with an abundance of water grow these crops.

On a recent trip to Perth my wife was also appalled at the amount of water being wasted in a city that has seen a steep decline in its water storages for nearly two decades. One person told her that there was plenty of water but the Government was hiding it! Even their aquifers are drying up.

In my own neighborhood I am simply amazed at the number of people who don't care about the water problem and take the attittude that the 'the Government should fix it'.

Unfortunately, only 'the governments' have the power to regulate the REALLY BIG users of water - eg: all the massive multi-national companies involved in the mining and agricultural sectors that are right now still profligately using their 'water rights' to drain our dams dry in an effort to maximise their profits.

As has been often stated so far, the general public accounts for very little water use in % terms, and is currently paying FAR more for what volumes it uses than any large company does. Until 'guvments' get off their collective A**E* and make some HARD decisions that will obviously cost some jobs, livelihoods and INCOME, then we are ALL going to sink slowly down the proverbial gurgler.

IMO the 'general public' hasn't got ANY real hope of significantly improving this situation by so-called 'saving water' without some BIG decisions being taken by the aforesaid 'guvments' (err... short of marching in great numbers upon said guvment houses etc...)

Cheers,

AJ

 

[bel532]

Unfortunately, only 'the governments' have the power to regulate the REALLY BIG users of water - eg: all the massive multi-national companies involved in the mining and agricultural sectors that are right now still profligately using their 'water rights' to drain our dams dry in an effort to maximise their profits.

As has been often stated so far, the general public accounts for very little water use in % terms, and is currently paying FAR more for what volumes it uses than any large company does. Until 'guvments' get off their collective A**E* and make some HARD decisions that will obviously cost some jobs, livelihoods and INCOME, then we are ALL going to sink slowly down the proverbial gurgler.

IMO the 'general public' hasn't got ANY real hope of significantly improving this situation by so-called 'saving water' without some BIG decisions being taken by the aforesaid 'guvments' (err... short of marching in great numbers upon said guvment houses etc...)

Cheers,

AJ

I agree that large corporations and agriculture are the biggest users (although in Victoria the State Government is running a campaign denying it), but we must all set an example. Dont' forget that these corporations are run by people who are also householders and their mindset at home impacts on their approach in the workplace.

I once worked for an organisation whose CEO couldn't care less how much water we consumed and, once when I visited his home, I was astonished to see how much water his garden consumed. Interestingly he had the same attitude to energy consumption.

You need to change people's attitude to water consumption before you can change the mindset of corporations, large and small.

The recent decision by the Victorian Government to set the metropolitan water restrictions at level 3A, whilst regional centres have been set on level 4 and higher for some time, demonstrates that the problem is also a political problem.

Footnote: The water restriction levels standard set by various State Governments do not mean the same in every state eg level 5 in Queensland I believe is only equivalent to level 3 in Victoria.

 

[Smurf1976]

You need to change people's attitude to water consumption before you can change the mindset of corporations, large and small.

The recent decision by the Victorian Government to set the metropolitan water restrictions at level 3A, whilst regional centres have been set on level 4 and higher for some time, demonstrates that the problem is also a political problem.

Footnote: The water restriction levels standard set by various State Governments do not mean the same in every state eg level 5 in Queensland I believe is only equivalent to level 3 in Victoria.

There's a need to be careful here since water per se isn't the problem. Rather, it is over use of water where supplies are limited that is the issue.

If you've got some water guzzling industry using water from a river that still only manages to take 1% of the supply and there is no downstream use then it's not an issue. But that same industry using the same amount of water may be totally inappropriate in a different location where fresh water is scarce.

It's the same with most things. If you live in a small town then there's no real reason to worry about, say, traffic jams since there aren't any. It's no big deal and not worth worrying about since the capacity of the roads vastly exceeds the demand placed on them. Now that's very different if you're in central Sydney etc.

Zinifex in Hobart uses about 10 million litres per day of fresh water. They did look at using recycled water some years ago but ultimately there was no point. Over 8000 megalitres flowing down the river every day and Zinifex takes 10 megalitres. So what, no big deal and not worth worrying about.

The resources used to purify the recycled water to the standard required plus the hassle of having drinking quality and non-drinking quality water on site would outweigh the benefits both environmentally and economically. But if the same plant was located somewhere else then it would be a very different story and recycled water would make a lot of sense.

As for the restriction levels, there's a proper way to determine the required level of restrictions and it's got nothing to do (in theory at least) with politics and the imposition of restrictions becomes absolutely "automatic".

What you do is a proper simulation of the catchment using all available inflow data supplemented by synthetic data analysis techniques. And set some reliability criteria for the annual % chance of reaching a critically low level.

You just run 1000 separate simulations starting from the present storage level which will all produce different results. Then you just count how many of these at any point result in levels reaching the defined "critical" zone.

If more than 20 (or some other defined number - the higher the reliability, the lower the net annual system yield of water will be) of the 1000 runs result in critical levels being reached then you cut back the water consumption in order to keep within the accepted reliability criteria. That's when you impose the restrictions - all determined by the numbers NO politics required. It's not absolutely certain to work, there is always the 2% chance of failure, but it's worked pretty well where it's been applied properly.

Money management and system backtesting in share trading is essentially the same exercise by the way, just using money and the results of trading instead of water and the results of rainfall. Only difference with water is the need for synthetic data since we don't have 1000 years of actual rainfall records. The approach is more reliable with a multi-storage system than a single dam but it has application in either case.

 

[bel532]

There's a need to be careful here since water per se isn't the problem. Rather, it is over use of water where supplies are limited that is the issue.

If you've got some water guzzling industry using water from a river that still only manages to take 1% of the supply and there is no downstream use then it's not an issue. But that same industry using the same amount of water may be totally inappropriate in a different location where fresh water is scarce.

It's the same with most things. If you live in a small town then there's no real reason to worry about, say, traffic jams since there aren't any. It's no big deal and not worth worrying about since the capacity of the roads vastly exceeds the demand placed on them. Now that's very different if you're in central Sydney etc.

Zinifex in Hobart uses about 10 million litres per day of fresh water. They did look at using recycled water some years ago but ultimately there was no point. Over 8000 megalitres flowing down the river every day and Zinifex takes 10 megalitres. So what, no big deal and not worth worrying about.

The resources used to purify the recycled water to the standard required plus the hassle of having drinking quality and non-drinking quality water on site would outweigh the benefits both environmentally and economically. But if the same plant was located somewhere else then it would be a very different story and recycled water would make a lot of sense.

and the imposition of restrictions becomes absolutely "automatic".

What you do is a proper simulation of the catchment using all available inflow data supplemented by synthetic data analysis techniques. And set some reliability criteria for the annual % chance of reaching a critically low level.

You just run 1000 separate simulations starting from the present storage level which will all produce different results. Then you just count how many of these at any point result in levels reaching the defined "critical" zone.

If more than 20 (or some other defined number - the higher the reliability, the lower the net annual system yield of water will be) of the 1000 runs result in critical levels being reached then you cut back the water consumption in order to keep within the accepted reliability criteria. That's when you impose the restrictions - all determined by the numbers NO politics required. It's not absolutely certain to work, there is always the 2% chance of failure, but it's worked pretty well where it's been applied properly.

Money management and system backtesting in share trading is essentially the same exercise by the way, just using money and the results of trading instead of water and the results of rainfall. Only difference with water is the need for synthetic data since we don't have 1000 years of actual rainfall records. The approach is more reliable with a multi-storage system than a single dam but it has application in either case.

I disagree with your statement that 'As for the restriction levels, there's a proper way to determine the required level of restrictions and it's got nothing to do (in theory at least) WITH POLITICS' (my emphasis).

Politics is a very important aspect of water management. Politics is the very reason we have allowed rice and cotton growing in this country and why the State pollys are reluctant to allow water from the Clarence river in Northern NSW to be partially diverted to SE Queensland. However before this occurs, the Federal and State Governments should ensure that the Queensland Government has taken ALL possible steps to reduce water consumption in that part of the State Here is where politics come into play. Does the Qld. State Government have the 'belly', for instance, to restrict or ban residential swimming pools or immediately raise water restrictions to an 'emergency' level? I don't consider the new level,which is still below the level of many regional centres in Victoria, as an 'emergency' level.

The Vic. Government's decision to impose level 3A water restrictions, when it should be at least level 4, is a prime example of the impact Governments can have on water management, or lack thereof.

You must be very careful to ensure that people and/or industries are not using their water resources wisely at the expense of others further downstream, which could be many hundredrs of kilometres downstream, eg Adelaide. We must change people' s mindset in terms of water utilisation in this country. Example is very important.

I don't agree with all those who crave for 'State Rights' as I consider myself an Australian first and being Victorian as secondary and I really despise this 'dog in the manger' attitude adopted by pollys in some states.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1901202.htm

Murray-Darling farmers face water shut-off
Prime Minister John Howard says irrigation water for farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin will be cut off if there is no significant rain in the next six to eight weeks. Mr Howard says the basin is suffering from an "unprecedentedly dangerous" water shortage but water will continue to be available for "critical urban" water supplies. The Prime Minister was speaking after receiving a report from experts which was sent to him and to state premiers.

The expert committee was set up after the emergency water meeting Mr Howard held with the premiers on Melbourne Cup Day last year. "I just want to say that this underlines the critical situation that we face if there is not significant rainfall over the next few weeks," he said. "It's a grim situation and there's no point in pretending to the Australian public otherwise. "The report is confident there'll be adequate water for basic human consumption and other needs," Mr Howard continued.

Mr Howard says it could be devastating for crops like grapes and stone fruit as well as the dairy industry. He says all farmers in the basin are eligible for drought assistance and he is urgently looking at what extra help the Government can offer.

Victoria's Water Minister John Thwaites says the Prime Minister is not being alarmist and describes the situation as critical. "It is horrendous. We're facing the worst stream flows we've ever faced," he said. "Just to put it into perspective, over the past year when you expect the dams to be filled we've had only half the amount of stream flow that we got in the worst drought of 1982-83."

Farmers react. The National Farmers Federation says the outlook for irrigators is catastrophic, with chief executive Ben Fargher warning of a massive financial impact on farmers. "For high security users and those irrigators with tree crops, crops like almonds, citrus, olives, to name a few, if those crops actually die because there's no water then that has a significant impact for many, many years to come because it takes so much time to establish new crops and so much money to do so," he said.

New South Wales Irrigators Council chief executive Doug Miell says permanent plantings of citrus trees, wine grapes, olives and almonds will not survive next summer without water. Mr Miell says the lack of irrigation will be devastating for thousands of producers.

"The quality of their produce, if there is any will be a lot lower than it ever has been and I would suspect most of them would be struggling for income and struggling to survive," he said. "You might as well say [it will be] almost a total loss of income for them, not just for this year, you're talking for high security permanent planning, it's a loss of income for perhaps the next four or five years."

 

[Aussiejeff]

....and no decent rain within the next week either...

Oh well, I can content myself with some beautiful, fine... err.. *coff, coff* ... smoke polluted autumn days ahead. Inside the house (rather than touring into the even more smoke polluted alps areas to spend any moolah on their attractions).

More warnings today by local health authorities in NE Vic on the severe pollution from burn-offs. Again, I can't help wondering what the cost/benefits to all this semi-controlled burning off REALLY is. Apparently, one of the burns has already gotten out of hand.

NE Vic grape growers were unhappy with the pollution of their crops from the last round of fires... now they can have some more spoilage of what crops they have left.

People with asthma and respiratory illnesses are advised to seek medical advice (helping to clog the health system further) - goodness knows what the actual health costs imposed on society from endless days/weeks of smoke pollution are..

*coff*...

AJ

 

[2020hindsight]

AJ - never thought of that sort of side effect - asthma - I'm sure you're right. Priorities apparently :-
a) humans get the water (presumably drinking water first ranging down to gardens and pools etc)
b) animals
c) agriculture

There will be countless more side effects of course - industries both directly affected ( agriculture) and indirectly affected (anything that relies of a local population with a "critical mass" of financial health to sustain everyone

What about fires? Other threads have been discussing that lunatic in Virginia. No doubt we will still (yet again) have pyromaniacs lighting fires here knowing that the consequences will be .. unspeakably disastrous

 

[Smurf1976]

I disagree with your statement that 'As for the restriction levels, there's a proper way to determine the required level of restrictions and it's got nothing to do (in theory at least) WITH POLITICS' (my emphasis).

Politics is a very important aspect of water management.

I would argue that politics is a dominant aspect of the way water has been managed historically. But it most certainly is NOT a proper way to manage the operation of a storage.

Does the Premier of Victoria (for example) actually do a proper long term system analysis and run 1000 simulations before making an announcement on water restrictions? I seriously doubt it.

But what has me more worried is that I strongly suspect that NOBODY is actually doing that sort modelling work for most of the major water storages in Australia. It looks like they're just guessing and hoping for the best in the same manner as a share trader who hasn't done any back testing and doesn't understand money management. Sooner or later a failure occurs.

Would you fly on a plane where politics was used to decide how much fuel to have on board? Personally I'd rather leave that decision to pilots, engineers or others who actually know something about planes. And it's the same with water management - do the proper math and use that to operate the system.

 

[chops_a_must]

Oh great, now we are going to be overrun by Okies.

Stop being so parochial.

WA (and to varying degrees other states) have been HEAVILY subsidised by NSW and Victoria until the advent of the resources boom in the mid to late sixties. This subsidy has continued to varying degrees (every investor in the resources sector knows how much that sector has fluctuated in that period) until recent times. Until the advent of the mining boom WA was a very poor state economically and it was agreed at that time, that it and other states, would be subsidised by the then richer states namely NSW and Victoria.

Remember in these very uncertain times we all need to pull together and help each other and not have 'a dog in manger' attitude. We are a very small pond (from a population aspect) in a very big pool.

Wrong again Bel:

Western Australia, with about 10% of Australia's population, has historically generated approximately 30% of Australia's export revenues, however the recent commodities boom has pushed this figure to now exceed 40%. The State now generates more export income than New South Wales and Victoria (Australia's two most populous states) combined.

It might be news to you, but an economy in WA did exist prior to 1970. A good one. Lol!

We have produced more than 3% of the world's gold, since 1890. And have helped out Australia in good times and bad, referencing the 1930's boom here. That's how the secession drive got started.

I know you said elsewhere that it was labor's fault the commodities boom in 70's stuffed WA up. But... now look who's doing it. The feds are cutting funding to WA's UNI's... and not giving us any royalities from some huge projects... yet asking for a huge outlay from us at the same time. Why should we? It's not like we need the jobs. lol!

You guys are all looking fat at the weigh in aren't ya?

Anyway, I'm off to Hutt River!

 

[bel532]

Oh great, now we are going to be overrun by Okies.


Wrong again Bel:

It might be news to you, but an economy in WA did exist prior to 1970. A good one. Lol!

We have produced more than 3% of the world's gold, since 1890. And have helped out Australia in good times and bad, referencing the 1930's boom here. That's how the secession drive got started.

I know you said elsewhere that it was labor's fault the commodities boom in 70's stuffed WA up. But... now look who's doing it. The feds are cutting funding to WA's UNI's... and not giving us any royalities from some huge projects... yet asking for a huge outlay from us at the same time. Why should we? It's not like we need the jobs. lol!

You guys are all looking fat at the weigh in aren't ya?

Anyway, I'm off to Hutt River!

Please stop being so parochial and remember you live in Australia and not in one segment of only.

I repeat for the large part of last century WA and Queensland were supported by the economically strong Eastern States (excluding including Tassy, of course). I never said that an ecnomy never existed in WA prior to the 1970's, but, on a comparative scale, it was small compared to Victoria and NSW. That is the reason that Commonwealth Government funding, until fairly recently, was slanted in favour of WA (and Queensland).

I don't know about the Feds cutting funding to WA's universities., but I hear the same complaint from universities all over Australia. Maybe they should all get rid of their 'Mickey Mouse' courses and utilise their funds better.

Incidentally my understanding is that the State Government levies royalties on the mining coys. So what's the WA Government doing with those funds, paying off Burke and his mates perhaps?

Footnote: If you visit the Margaret River wineries, have one (maybe two) for me!

 

[Smurf1976]

Please stop being so parochial and remember you live in Australia and not in one segment of only.

I repeat for the large part of last century WA and Queensland were supported by the economically strong Eastern States (excluding including Tassy, of course).

Agreed about the not being parochial bit. That nonsense is just ridiculous - we're one country not 8.

But as for Tassie, I must point out that the state has historically done somewhat better than NSW or Vic when it comes to export revenue. 40 years ago the state had just under one quarter of all heavy industrial processing in this country despite having 3% of the population. The West Coast mines and various heavy industrial plants have generated a small fortune in exports for Austalia over the years.

Of course, Tasmania's performance isn't so great these days but in that context it must be remembered that the Commonwealth made many of the decisions that lead directly to this outcome.

That said, generating a lot of exports doesn't change the reality that the small population states lack economies of scale in the provision of most services which is the reason for financial support from NSW and Vic.

But we are ONE country so let's get on with the job and fix the nation's water problems rather than worrying about which state we're in. Actually I think parochialism is really holding us back when it comes to water. Just look at the various state government attitudes towards cloud seeding...

 

[chops_a_must]

Agreed about the not being parochial bit. That nonsense is just ridiculous - we're one country not 8.

But we are ONE country so let's get on with the job and fix the nation's water problems rather than worrying about which state we're in. Actually I think parochialism is really holding us back when it comes to water. Just look at the various state government attitudes towards cloud seeding...

Well, we don't appear to have any problems. Hurry up and do something everyone else, in the "emo" states. :

I'm pretty sure most people in WA are sick of hearing about the water problems. Funny how WA is the driest state, yet we seem to have the least problems.

 

[Aussiejeff]

I would argue that politics is a dominant aspect of the way water has been managed historically. But it most certainly is NOT a proper way to manage the operation of a storage.

Does the Premier of Victoria (for example) actually do a proper long term system analysis and run 1000 simulations before making an announcement on water restrictions? I seriously doubt it.

But what has me more worried is that I strongly suspect that NOBODY is actually doing that sort modelling work for most of the major water storages in Australia. It looks like they're just guessing and hoping for the best in the same manner as a share trader who hasn't done any back testing and doesn't understand money management. Sooner or later a failure occurs.

Would you fly on a plane where politics was used to decide how much fuel to have on board? Personally I'd rather leave that decision to pilots, engineers or others who actually know something about planes. And it's the same with water management - do the proper math and use that to operate the system.

Your point about system failure being an inevitable result of systemic mis-management by un-qualified "experts" (read - politicians of all persuasions) is right on the money Smurf1976...

Think about all the systemic "stuff-ups" and "failures" around the country caused by gross political mis-management (including decisions by politically influenced public service departments):

(a) General health services
(b) Aged health services
(b) Nation wide water systems
(c) Road transport systems
(d) Rail transport systems
(e) Shipping transport systems
(f) Education systems
(g) National broadband system

etc ... etc ...

I don't want to add any more. It gives me a migraine to think about how BADLY we are being mis-managed by idiot pollies who generally have absolutely NO formal qualifications, experience or credence in their fields of influence - yet they wield considerable influence over their much more highly qualified public service departmental heads and technical staffers.

It's no surprise, then, to see the mess we are declining into. Think what this country COULD be like if all pollies had to have some *SUCCESSFUL* EXPERIENCE or QUALIFICATIONS in their fields before being elevated to the relevant portfolio - and they were REALLY accountable to the public via performance contracts. (Could you imagine how satisfying it would be if, for instance, a polly who was the minister for transport had to ensure that trains ran within an average 5 minutes of published timetables over a year AND THEY FAILED TO ENSURE THAT. Well, a $500,000 fine, 12 months imprisonment in Baxter Detention Centre and banning from ever standing again as a politician FOR LIFE might just be the answer!

*poof*... oh, my dreeeam just ended! Sigh, the public will continue to carry the can for political mis-management - as always...

AJ

 

[Kimosabi]

Big dry to hit consumer pockets 'immediately'

By Alison Rehn
April 20, 2007 01:00am

Fruit, veges, nut, milk price rise 'almost immediately'
Price rises comparable to banana crisis
Cleanskin and bargain wines 'unavailable'

After drought-weary farmers in the Murray-Darlin Basin were yesterday told to prepare to turn off their taps, it's not only those on the land who should be praying for rain

Australia's water crisis will hit consumers hard, with experts predicting the price of fruit and vegetables, nuts, milk and wine will soar.

While farmers would not speculate how far prices would rise, they agreed price rises would be linked to the length of time it took to rain.
Prices are expected to begin rising within weeks.

A clearly upset Australian Dairy Farmers president Allan Burgess, whose industry faces devastation, called on all governments to help farmers meet the cost of feeding and watering their stock.

Without rain and financial assistance, Mr Burgess said the Murray-Darling Basin's 3000 dairy farmers would be forced to undertake a "major offloading of stock".

"Dairy farmers are relying to an enormous extent on Mother Nature here," Mr Burgess said.

"It's a critical month or so and we're all looking to the sky."
Mr Burgess called on the dairy industry and supermarkets to work together to increase the price of milk so farmers could get better returns.

"Dairy farmers only get a small portion of the price that a consumer pays, and so the consumer paying a reasonable increase would be considerable to the farmers," he said.

"We think that the consumer actually does care and we think this is a time for the dairy companies and the supermarkets to provide higher prices."
Irrigation Association of Australia chief executive Jolyon Burnett said prices - particularly for fresh produce - would begin rising through autumn and into winter.

"If there are zero (water) allocations for everybody, there's going to be price increases," Mr Burnett said.

"Everyone saw what happened to bananas when the cyclone wiped them out.

"Milk might see price increases pretty quickly, but everything (will be affected)."

This included most green-leaf crops, tomatoes, potatoes, carrots, all stone fruits including peaches, nectarines and plums, citrus fruits including oranges, mandarins and lemons, pome fruit including apples and pears and nuts, including almonds, macadamias and pecans.

Cheap bottles of wine are also expected to become an endangered species.

Mr Burnett said, as growers stopped producing fruit and vegetables, retailers would try to source imports.

"In the short term there might just be price increases, in the medium term there might be shortages and unfortunately in the longer term, what might happen is that supermarket chains might replace Australian produce with foreign produce."

If irrigators get no water this year, then growers of annual crops - like vegetables, rice andcotton - face one year with no income.

But growers of perennial crops - like citrus, grapes and stone fruit - face an even worse future.

If grape vines and fruit trees die, it will take between five and seven years for them to regrow.

It's the prospect of no income - for potentially years on end - that will undoubtedly force thousands of farmers off the land and cripple Australia's agriculture sector.

Winemakers' Federation of Australia spokesman Simon Birmingham said this year's reduced vintage - down 30-40 per cent on last year - meant "bargain basement" priced wines, like cleanskins, would become scarce in the next few months.

"In the medium to longer term - no rain and no change to the prognosis - it could have a dramatic effect," he said.

"It would have a potential to create a shortage in the market that could drive prices up."

Horticulture Australia Council deputy chairman Darral Ashton said no autumn rain would be the "final blow" for an already drought-hit industry.

"If there's no water it becomes a futile exercise," he said.

Even usually optimistic National Farmers' Federation chief executive Ben Fargher said price rises were likely.

"When we see a significant supply constraint like we did with Cyclone Larry and bananas, you do get an immediate price response," he said.

Commsec chief economist Craig James said: "The Reserve Bank has got to be mindful if the headline rate of inflation goes to 4 per cent there is a risk of those levels being maintained."

Well, it looks like this will add more pressure on Interest Rates.

 

[2020hindsight]

AJ
as you say , the states couldn't agree on railway gauge :0
- rather than agree, they wanted to demonstrate how big and hairy chested they were ( sorry for resorting to "Rudd-isms" lol)

But the fact that are are going to flood the Mary R Valley - with absolutely brilliant farms going under
As Barnaby Joyce said where are the pollies at this meeting? - they prefer to speak to the people from "Cowards Castle " as someone at the meeting said.

But to be fair, they announced it prior to the state election (as I understand it)

Just that it is damned criminal to my mind to flood such country.

Such tough decisions, sheesh.
The future's looking worserer and worserer.

http://abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/sunshine/200704/s1900544.htm Qld's 'living fossil' at risk from dam proposal, experts say

Many a farmer up there is damned nearly a living fossil as well

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1900869.htm PM's version

KATHRYN ROBERTS: Neither the Premier, Peter Beattie, nor his Deputy, Anna Bligh, attended the hearings, but in State Parliament Ms Bligh had this to say.

ANNA BLIGH: I've heard nothing from Day 1, of the Senate inquiry, nothing that would cause this government to reconsider our position for one second. Mr Speaker, we are determined to build this dam.

KATHRYN ROBERTS: That prompted a fiery response from committee member Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce.

BARNABY JOYCE: She's showing complete arrogance, totalitarian, gulag-type mentality, that has just walked completely over all the people, whether they're farmers' groups, small business groups, indigenous groups. It's showing that she makes the statement from parliament, she's made it from the 'cowards castle', she doesn't have the courage to turn up here today and really face the music.

KATHRYN ROBERTS: And he pursued the issue during this exchange with the Queensland Nationals Leader Jeff Seeney.

BARNABY JOYCE: Was parliament sitting yesterday?

JEFF SEENEY: Yes. Yes it was.

BARNABY JOYCE: What time did it finish?

JEFF SEENEY: About 11 o'clock last night.

BARNABY JOYCE: 11 o'clock last night.

JEFF SEENEY: Yep.

BARNABY JOYCE: Did Ms Bligh say this morning in parliament that she'd been through all the information and she hadn't found anything that would change her opinion?

JEFF SEENEY: That was the statement she made in the parliament, yes.

BARNABY JOYCE: So do you think it's possible, that, being what we went through yesterday, that between 11 o'clock and this morning she went through all that information and came up with that decision, or did she mislead you?

JEFF SEENEY: No, it's obviously not possible.

Barnaby Joyce should start his own party !!!

 

[Uncle Festivus]

The time for words has passed.

The lights will be turned off soon, then we WILL have problems!

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1902229.htm
NSW and Qld appear to come in for the most criticism here..
and rice and cotton should go

Aust water management laughable, says professor
An emeritus professor in meteorology says the way the water crisis in Australia has been handled would be laughable if the consequences were not so dire.

Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger from Flinders University in South Australia says governments need to get tougher on water wasters.

He says water should be priced higher and industries such as cotton and rice probably do not suit the dry Australian climate.

Professor Schwerdtfeger says governments should start spending money on effective water plans.

"One just has to look at the nation's capital cities where, apart from Perth which has recently opened its desalination plant and Melbourne, there's been no money spent on water supply infrastructure in half a century," he said.

"The way in which water is used in irrigation areas has to be radically changed.

"Over-allocation has been around and visible for two decades, because there's been a desperate attempt to try to maintain flow."

"You just have to bend over backwards laughing if you have a macabre sense of humour."

 

[bel532]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1902229.htm
NSW and Qld appear to come in for the most criticism here..
and rice and cotton should go

It's been every evident for a long, long time that rice and cotton should NOT be grown in OZ, SE Asia is the place for those crops (and maybe in the Kimberley in WA). This should be politically possible now that John Elliot has vanished from the political scene (remember his Water Wheel rice growing coy. that went brooke?).

However, I know of a family that grows cotton in the Riverina district of NSW and it won't be easy to persuade them to desist from growing these crops. That's the same area where I mentioned the populace still water their gardens in the daytime!

 

[2020hindsight]

so bel, you maybe agree with me that Professor Schwerdtfeger would be well advised to go to deedpoll and get his surname changed to "Smith" or something - before he starts telling cotton growers to leave their properties

PS I also know people in Deniliquin area - wouldn't swap em places for quids (doing it tough on the land - despite what the glossy posters say)
http://www.denitourism.com.au/
"welcome to the beginning of the outback" - won't be long before the outback starts about Katoomba