Worst drought ever

[happytrader]

Like... F.N.Q?

I guess they could do with a few million more volunteers for the Cane Toad Corps!! haha.

AJ

Hi Aussiejeff

Wild boar have increased in number because hunters have been attracted to the mines. Apparently, we now need appropriate 'incentives' to attract them back.

Cheers
Happytrader

 

[numbercruncher]

Hi Aussiejeff

Wild boar have increased in number because hunters have been attracted to the mines. Apparently, we now need appropriate 'incentives' to attract them back.

Cheers
Happytrader

Im continually amazed by all these side effects emerging from the Mining boom, its really sucking labour from so many professions, from teachers to school leavers.

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem is that Politicans mostly think of sustainable development in terms of money and their election prospects in cities.

Rural areas and farms in particular have borne the brunt of the environmental sustainability arguement so far.

If you take out farms, forestry, power generation and one or two specific industrial processes (notably pulp mills) then we haven't had much of a debate about the environment at all.

Even with those things, I'd argue that we haven't pursued sustainability so much as conservation.

The two are not the same and in some cases are at odds with each other.

Looking at some of the big environment versus development battles as examples it's clear that conservation, not sustainability, has been the outcome. I'm not judging right or wrong, just making an observation.

The Franklin dam, Wesley Vale pulp mill and the endless debate over foresty in Tas are all classic examples (and are themselves the ultimate in the conservation movement's acheivements thus far).

A magnificent wild river saved. Clearly a conservation "win" there. But coming at the price of the equivalent of 800,000,000 litres of oil burned every year forever hardly makes it an improvement in sustainability.

A pulp mill scrapped. Another conservation "win" there. But the end result is shipping wood to Japan and importing pulp from Indonesia. All of which is burning far more fossil fuel than if the pulp were produced locally. And of course someone else, somewhere else is producing the pulp not produced at Wesley Vale. A win for conservation but not a win for sustainability in practice. And arguably somewhat deceptive too - most Australians likely being unaware that there is already a pulp mill at Wesley Vale that has been there since the early 1970's.

Forestry is another one. Certainly a conservation win to protect the forests. No doubt about that. But by pursuing a pro-tourism anti-foresty and anti hydro-industrialisation strategy the end result is more non-renewable, polluting oil burned in order to leave renewable water and wood resources untouched. Certainly a win for conservation but it hasn't improved sustainability over the long term.

Wind farms in Victoria are much the same. Scenery isn't permanently damaged - take then down in 50 years and the scenery is back straight away. But don't build them and that's more coal and gas burnt and more pollution emitted. Another win for conservation at the expense of sustainability.

I think we'll end up having to seriously re-evaluate our priorities here. Once peak oil and/or climate change hits in a big way I doubt there will be too much concern about scenery and the focus will shift to sustainability. In doing so that shifts the focus of action largely to the cities and for that reason it won't be popular even though it will be unavoidable.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Well, the last two prayed-for rainfall events never happened. No more than a handful of mils widely scattered over the Murray Darling Basin in the past week and a half.

The forward looking computer models are looking a bit sick now too - only a chance of some showers (who knows how heavy) around the 26th Sep, then practically nada after that for the foresee-able short term future.

As of the last couple of days, Hume Dam water is now being released continually due to lower Murray River irrigators demanding their water authority "guaranteed 20% entitlements" be met - or else they will march on governements both state and federal. Unfortunately for us all, the dam has topped out at only 27% - it will be all down hill fairly rapidly from that figure unless the Biblical Event occurs - and Dartmouth Dam providing minimal backup with a paltry 16% that is barely creeping higher does not instil much hope for what water we might be left with in 9 months time!

Ho-hum. One can only imagine the media and press rumblings from farmers/growers/irrigators in the MDB once we really hit summer and the allocations across the MDB are cut by emergency measures to 0%.... This is all looking a bit dejavu to me.



AJ

 

[macca]

Hi Jeff,

Yes it is grim alright, EXCEPT if you are in Queensland, up there they are holding an auction to sell off more water rights to the irrigators.

Too bad for the farmers further down the Murray- Darling basin, talk about grounds for a range war

Oh well, the Liberals did try to put an MD Authority in place but I think party politics killed that !!

Too bad for the farmers, then again, they all vote National Party, so why should Labor care about them

 

[Aussiejeff]

Hi Jeff,

Yes it is grim alright, EXCEPT if you are in Queensland, up there they are holding an auction to sell off more water rights to the irrigators.

Too bad for the farmers further down the Murray- Darling basin, talk about grounds for a range war

Oh well, the Liberals did try to put an MD Authority in place but I think party politics killed that !!

Too bad for the farmers, then again, they all vote National Party, so why should Labor care about them

One wonders if those lucky QLD'ers who are smiling ATM as they sell off their water rights in a frenzied auction will start to frown in the future when the next big drought hits QLD (just a matter of time IMO) and they have NO hope of buying those rights back again - probably EVER! Will they wish they hadn't grabbed for the $$$ now?

Oh well ... ces't la vie!

Cheers,

AJ

 

[robert toms]

One person on this thread talked about sustainability.With reduced rainfall likely in the future ,it is time to look seriously at what is, and what is not economically sustainable in the Murray-Darling .
The real cost of farming rice and cotton in Australia...value per litre of water used....does not stack up.The Murray- Darling plan seems to entrench and encourage these greedy crops....the plan will concrete their chanels etc to supposedly reduce water loss through seepage.These savings,if any,can never be quantified.(12% of irrigation water goes on rice alone,with 2000 families growing)
Perhaps we should have a last on ,first off ,rule for irrigators....this happens with workers.
I can remember thinking what madness it was when the National Party in 1997
used the slogan in the Riverina for a looming election "Zap the Cap".
It was the water rush that was never going to end!
As I have said before on this thread SA stopped issuing new water licences in 1973...no other state did!
What you will never get from politicians is an effective ,rational Murray-Darling policy.An independent water authority was the only way to go to address over-allocation of diminishing water flows.

 

[prawn_86]

well my father has just decided if he can recieve $2500 per megalitre for his water he will sell it all and invest the money into a bank/managed fund and live off the interest, and carry out a little bit of other small cash work.

he has being growing for 20years, but thinks that a change is in order, as there is no assurance that the river system will get back into good health.

 

[Julia]

well my father has just decided if he can recieve $2500 per megalitre for his water he will sell it all and invest the money into a bank/managed fund and live off the interest, and carry out a little bit of other small cash work.

he has being growing for 20years, but thinks that a change is in order, as there is no assurance that the river system will get back into good health.

We will all be the poorer for people like your father withdrawing from growing, Prawn. Completely understandable.
Hope all goes well for him from now on.

 

[Smurf1976]

Things are starting to look pretty drastic. It's mid-September and it looks like storage levels have peaked in the Murray system at a dreadfully low level that makes even last Summer look incredibly good in comparisson.

Not just the Murray either. 3mm in Hobart today and the Bureau of Meteorology started getting excited that this was one of the "best" falls of rain. 3mm!!!! Meanwhile the entire state of Tas is now drought declared from an agricultural perspective, lack of clouds having largely thwarted the plans for increased cloud seeding.

Overall, it looks pretty drastic across most of NSW, Vic, SA and Tas for this Summer. Not at all good in parts of Qld either. Either some serious rain falls real soon or we're in big trouble.

And then there's the question of fires this Summer...

 

[Aussiejeff]

The drought was headlining all over the regional news today. Apparently John Howard announced things were critical and all the farmers are cheering that he has acknowledged that fact!

Unfortunately, the sudden flurry of political comment has led to a profusion of "guarantees" being made. I'll throw the damn radio out the back door if I hear another expert talking about "GUARANTEEING" something which CANNOT be guranteed (eg sufficient rainfall)!

For instance, a plethora of....

(a) Local government politicians "GUARANTEEING" that they will provide water to farmers/irrigators to allow them to stay on their land "until next year".

(b) State politicians "GUARANTEEING" that they will provide water to farmers/irrigators to allow them to stay on their land "until next year".

(c) Federal politicians "GUARANTEEING" that they will provide water to farmers/irrigators to allow them to stay on their land "until next year".

(d) Some weather forecasters all but "GUARANTEEING" that siginificant rain WILL fall one day and save farmers/irrigators, thus allowing them to stay on their land "until next year".

(e) Adelaide/South Australia demanding "GUARANTEES" that upper Murray authorities release plenty of Hume/Dartmouth water to slake their needs.

(f) Numerous Water Authorities "GUARANTEEING" they will do everything to "GUARANTEE" the viability of downstream irrigators/farmers (the little water in Hume is now being released to GUARANTEE the promised downstream allocations - then Dartmouth will have to be released to top up the empty Hume etc).

What is wrong with our society where everything has to be bloody-well "GUARANTEED"? Where has our adaptability gone? Aussies were renowned in past generations during the late 1800's for their resilience and adaptability. Seems like the "good, easy life" in recent years has led to a situtation where we cannot get on with life without bloody "GUARANTEES".

Really, people have to bite the bullet and start putting SENSIBLE priorities on what water gets allocated for. For instance, as much as it might hurt those of you who imbibe a bit, I don't think wine grape growers (who are supporting a "non-life essential" industry) should be allocated water ahead of farmers growing beef/sheep or wheat (who provide pretty much "life-essential" food). Of course, the procedure of prioritising will hurt a lot of farmers/irrigators - I really do sympathise with many of them - especially those on the generational properties where the children are handed down the farm - but we HAVE to make a start sooner rather than later.

This big hole we now find ourselves slipping into is a bit like Ben Bernanke saying "I didn't see the sub-prime loan crisis coming"! - give me a break! How many years was that brewing?

Sigh...


AJ

 

[robert toms]

Overuse of water,etc....There is a place called Lake Culleraine,in Vic,between Mildura and Renmark.Besides having a large evaporation pond,or shallow man-made lake for recreation ,they decided to grow grapes there.All the big boys got licences about ten years ago,BRL Hardy,southcorp ,Tandou etc.I know that Hardy ,not one of the biggest growers,got 3,200 megs...so I guess 20000 megs or two gigs was let there relatively recently...Boundary Bend has expanded heavily during the last few years.
How did Timbercorp,Select Harvests etc get their licences ?
I can remember when there were no irrigation channels on the Hay plains...now the desert is riddled with them.
The Murrumbidgee at Balranald is a fetid,stagnant drain,even in the good times.
This crisis has been coming on for a long time....Greed is more powerful than common sense.
On $2500 a megalitre for water...the shire council in the NSW town that I lived in last year called for tenders and sold water from their bore (on the river flats) for $50 a megalitre...the contracts were for three years.The market rate at that time was $350 a meg.But no matter the mayor said,it will rain next year and this will be forgotten?
Too many people,and governments, have not even understood or respected the value of water...and I have not even mentioned the environment yet !

 

[Aussiejeff]

From AAP today:

"THE Victorian Government has angrily rejected claims by South Australia that it is acting irresponsibly in refusing to sign up to the national water agreement.

SA Premier Mike Rann has accused his Victorian counterpart John Brumby of gambling on the drought breaking, adding Victoria had to recognise SA's perilous situation with Adelaide dependent on the Murray River for its drinking water.

In a letter to Mr Brumby, Mr Rann urged him to end the current impasse and the “fingers crossed” approach to planning water supplies.

And he called on Victoria to agree to the federal takeover of the Murray-Darling Basin, saying he believed “it is irresponsible for anyone to somehow just gamble on the future that next year there won't be a drought”.

A spokeswoman for Mr Brumby said the Victorian Government did not agree to the assertions made by Mr Rann in his letter.

“There are no immediate threats to Adelaide's water supply. Two weeks ago the South Australian Government relaxed water restrictions in Adelaide,” she said.

“It is completely unacceptable to expect Victorian irrigators to give up 200 gigalitres of water for what might or might not be required next autumn in South Australia.”

She said Victorian farmers desperately needed their allocations and taking them away now would cripple their industries and livelihoods.

“South Australia and the Federal Government proposal will take water off irrigators, immediately killing orchards and crippling the region for more than a decade,” Mr Brumby's spokeswoman said.

“What the Commonwealth wants is to take 200 gigalitres of water, worth at least $300 million on the open market, from Victorian irrigators without compensation and give it free to South Australia for next year.”

Crikey. The pollies are at each other and summer hasn't even started!

Not only that, but now Victorian towns along the Murray River system are set to ease water restrictions to Stage 3a (I believe that means allowing 2hrs hand or dripper watering on one day a week...) by being allowed to buy higher water allocations on the open market and recoup the cost by charging all town residents by a flat fee in their rates - about $30-$40 extra per year.

This situation has come about because a few towns along the Murray that were panicking about how Level 4 restrictions would severely hurt some town industries and disadvantage sporting clubs etc decided to state in the media that they would purchase water for themselves and reduce restrictions in their towns. Of course, once one township says this, all the rest were bound to follow! So, I wonder if after the water restrictions are reduced (apparently in early October) and have been in place a few months and people/industries are still *hurting*, whether MORE water will be purchased to reduce the restrictions even further.

It seems the Great Water Battle of 2007-2008 is just starting folks....

Glug, glug....

AJ

 

[Aussiejeff]

A correction to my previous post, courtesy of todays radio announcement - Northeast Water has stated that easing of restrictions will mean gardens in Wodonga can be watered for ONE hour TWICE a week (not TWO hours ONCE a week as I posted above) starting from Sat 13th and Sun 14th October (presumably on the alternating ODDS-EVENS house numbering system).

No clarification of allowed times for watering have been announced yet under the proposed Stage 3a restrictions (I would guess it will be sometime between 8pm and 6am on the designated days).

AJ

 

[robert toms]

Yes ,you are right,the water wars are just starting.
South Australian restrictions were changed from only being able to water with buckets to now being able to water gardens with drippers (not sprinklers) over two periods on a Saturday...5am to 8am and 6pm to 9pm.
Victoria uses six times as much water from the Murray-Darling as does South Australia.
Well may Brumby back his irrigators...successive Victorian governments have enabled the gluttony and corruption that has seen the over-allocation of water in Victoria.
Last year when South Australia had restrictions,Victorian river towns were still open slather.

 

[macca]

And Queensland are auctioning more water rights, so both Vic and SA will get less water to fight over.

Well, the Federal Libs tried, but the States are too selfish

 

[prawn_86]

For instance, as much as it might hurt those of you who imbibe a bit, I don't think wine grape growers (who are supporting a "non-life essential" industry) should be allocated water ahead of farmers growing beef/sheep or wheat (who provide pretty much "life-essential" food). Of course, the procedure of prioritising will hurt a lot of farmers/irrigators - I really do sympathise with many of them - especially those on the generational properties where the children are handed down the farm - but we HAVE to make a start sooner rather than later.
AJ

Jeff,
I will admit that i have a slight bias here as my father is an irrigator in the Riverland, but hopefully i can present a non-biased arguement.

I agree that in conditions like this water does need to allocated to the best possible means, and if that means less for farmers/growers so be it.

However, I myself live in Adelaide (for uni), and you see here that people complian that they cant water their lawns or their gardens and then the government gives them an extra night to water, and how many people actually follow the restricitions? If they were serious about restrictions they would say no garden watering AT ALL and police it strictly. After all who cares if some roses dies, when other peoples income and livelihood are at stake.

Water mains is another issue which comes to find. The government hasnt had enough forsight to replace them over the past and now they are bursting regulary wasting gigalitres in total.

The problem in my opinion lies with the government, both state and federal. I dont want to get too political, but pollies these days are only worried about their own skins and dont want to step out and do something drastic. This complacency is costing the country in more ways than one (ie broadband infrastructure). I dont have a political bias, as i think they are both as bad as each other and never deliver what they promise anyway.

I am fine with cutting off water to irrigators, HOWEVER, if this happens, then they should be adequately compensated, not only for income, but loss of assets (plantings etc).

Current legal avenues are being explored in the Riverland, as the government has a duty of care to all those it governs, not just the majority of voters in the cities. If they cannot provied for the people in the riverland, by use of forward planning (we have been in a drought for over 5 years now!) then they should have to compensate.

I would be interested in peoples opinions on where the irrigators stand legally. IE do you think that they could/should sue the government?

enjoy

Shaun

 

[Aussiejeff]

Hi prawn 86...

I totally agree with your comments on state and federal politicians being predominantly responsible for the water allocation and infrastructure stuff-ups that are now coming (so frustratingly predictably) to a head.

Why oh why can't we have a system where government ministers in charge of ANYTHING are required to pass at least a basic "Fit To Govern" test or somefink? I REALLY would like to be governed by EXPERTS in their respective portfolios.... sigh...

I reckon irrigators who have been promised water allocations and who have paid for those allocations would technically and morally be feeling entitled to sue for compensation. But in the end, we have given so much power to governments, I'm guessing they would have any number of "excuses" to dud them - such as "it's in the interests of Australia's National Security not to pay massive amounts of compensation to irrigators. They should take the $150,000 exit funds and be happy" - or some such similar sounding drivel...

Like I said before, I really feel sorry for any farm water users/irrigators who have been hoodwinked up to this point into purchasing expensive allocations that may now be never realised, by a succession of state and federal governments (using bandaid funding and endless soothing placations) into believing "it will be allright - just hang on till next year - the rain WILL fall". It makes me mad to STILL be hearing this sort of thing from agriculture ministers etc.. and the CSIRO has just released yet another report confirming the forward outlook is for PERMANENT drier and hotter conditions in the coming years across northern and eastern Australia. Will the governments EVER listen to the recommendations that endless scientific and technical committees advise to them?

IMO, as many others in the forum are also concluding, the management of our water in the future by totally inept governments is only likely to get worse. So, not an uplifting commentary by me I'm afraid. I think only God knows the answer... we humans are doing a pretty crap job right now!

AJ

 

[prawn_86]

Like i said earlier, my father has decided to sell his water if he can get a certain price.

he believes, as do I, that there is just as much chance of it not raining, as there is of it raining, over the next 5 - 10 years. The other problem is, we need approx 5 years of above average rainfall just to get us back to where we were 5 years ago, so odds of that happening are slim to nothing.

the thing with government excuses is that there may be a slight precedent for a payout. Im not very good with my law and although it is across industrys, the horse flu epidemic got funding instantly without even a second thought from the gov. Surely irrigators are entitled to the same, considering the problems are majority caused by the gov whereas horse flu wasnt.

if average rainfall was a stock, i would be shorting it!

 

[Smurf1976]

Jeff,
Water mains is another issue which comes to find. The government hasnt had enough forsight to replace them over the past and now they are bursting regulary wasting gigalitres in total.

The problem in my opinion lies with the government, both state and federal. I dont want to get too political, but pollies these days are only worried about their own skins and dont want to step out and do something drastic.

The big problem is NIMBY and BANANA when it comes to major infrastructure.

Just try and build a dam, power station, oil refinery, transmission line, factory or whatever. The BANANA mob will be out in force the day it's announced.

But they'll never accept immediate and permanent rationing as an alternative so the end result is always the same - the infrastructure is pushed harder and harder until it breaks. In that context water's broken, power has some nasty cracks but is still going so far. Transport isn't good either though it still mostly works.

That the Greens wanted some sort of socioeconomic impact study done into proposed cloud seeding over drought affected agricultural areas in Tas highlights what I'm saying. Now let's get this straight... Worst drought in living memory, farmers facing ruin, a real risk of major fires this Summer and the Greens want a study done before anyone tries to make it rain. And they'd have to know full well that it will be far too late by the time any such study is completed. Thankfully they've been ignored.

Think not being able to water the garden is bad? Just wait untill you get home (walking since the transport stopped working) on one of those scorching hot summer days in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide and find the fridge defrosted and no air-conditioning either. It's coming as are many other major infrastructure problems due to the incompetence of politicians, the excessive undemocratic influence of BANANA groups and outright arrogance of those who willfully consume whilst opposing production (of anything).

Not to worry though, the Vic government will be ending the proper scientific-based management of Melbourne's water restrictions and moving instead to a politically determined approach. That ain't going to help one bit in the long term, actually it will make it worse. Already they're promising not to make the restrictions too harsh. There's a fair chance of this ending in an outright disaster with the dams running completely dry in the pursuit of votes.

IMO the Vic Govt politicians should hear about water restrictions the same way as everyone else, on the news, and the government has no proper say in the matter whatsoever unless they can demonstrate that they've done some proper modelling and storage simulation before commenting.

Just wait until we've got a real problem to deal with. Anyone willing to bet that NSW, Vic, Tas, SA and parts of Qld don't have major fires this Summer? You don't need to venture far into the bush to realise how dry it is - and it's only September.

Or that we don't end up with a major problem with crumbling houses in the capital cities as everything dries out and the clay shrinks?