Worst drought ever

[chops_a_must]

Chops,

If the government said to you "ok we are going to cut your ability to earn 80% of what you currently do" would you expect to be compensated?

Regardless of if the industry is sustainable or not, it has been happening for 100's of years and if the gov wishes to stop it, or dramatically reduce it then those affected should be fairly compensated.

Just the same as if a new highway goes through someones property. The gov compensates them, it doesnt just take it.

It's a false analogy. People don't necessarily know if there will be a highway going through where they live 20 years in advance. People can see that the envronment is stuffed in SA, and drawing water from the Murray is no longer viable.

Regardless of if the industry is sustainable or not

That's the point. Why should people be compensated for a business venture that will only end up broke anyway?

Farmers weren't compensated when tarriffs were taken off. I don't see what is different here. See it could be seen as farmer's compensation to the environment. Wouldn't South Australians prefer to have money spent on water infrastructure than bailing out a part of the cause of the initial problem?

I just see more excuses and no real decision or attitude change being made here. Either you stop unsustainable farming practices, and begin treating the problem from your end. Or, you don't, and keep complaining about the same old...

 

[prawn_86]

If it is unsustainable (which i personally do think it is), then the gov should buy back the land and compensate the farmers for lost income etc etc, as they have been allowed to farm there for X years and have not been informed/supported by the gov during a drought like this.

I know in the Stolen Generation you were advocating compensation for that, I dont really see the difference between past government mistakes in that situation or in this situation.

Possibly farmers should never have been allowed to irrigate, but they were, so now they should recieve compo.

Why is it the racing industry gets instant compo, whereas those providing food do not? Apart from political donations and the like...

 

[2020hindsight]

That's the point. Why should people be compensated for a business venture that will only end up broke anyway?
.

Chops
Just think of it an unemployment benefits

 

[chops_a_must]

If it is unsustainable (which i personally do think it is), then the gov should buy back the land and compensate the farmers for lost income etc etc, as they have been allowed to farm there for X years and have not been informed/supported by the gov during a drought like this.

Ummmm.... so... if I'm an icecream seller, and we get a massive prolonged cold snap, I should be compensated? It would be the first time people are compensated because of a natural environmental cycle.

As a business owner, I accept the risk that events beyond my control affect my business. Anything else is socialism. But like the Farmer in Catch-22, most farmers seem to think that any aid paid to anyone but farmers is socialism.

I know in the Stolen Generation you were advocating compensation for that, I dont really see the difference between past government mistakes in that situation or in this situation.

Not on a broad scale. Only if abuse can be proven. I don't see a drought as caused by the government.

Possibly farmers should never have been allowed to irrigate, but they were, so now they should recieve compo.

Ummm... James Hardie were once allowed to sell and manifacture asbestos, so therefore they shouldn't have to provide compo?

Why is it the racing industry gets instant compo, whereas those providing food do not? Apart from political donations and the like...

Because there is a difference between breaches in institutional protocol, and an environmental cycle that farmers know happens from time to time.

I know this is a personal issue, but I am passionate about the environment.

I don't see bailing out farmers as anything more than a reward for their part in screwing the environment, and adopting unacceptable business risks. If they haven't drought proofed themselves, too bad. It's much like the Bear Stearns fiasco.

If someone like Tech loses his business (I sincerely hope not) because of massive credit problems, something outside of his control, I doubt he would be asking for compensation. And the credit problem, in my mind, is much like the drought problem to farmers. Some will survive, some wont. But people shouldn't be rewarded for doing damage to the lifeblood that they have made money from.

However, I think most SA farmers will be bailed out. Farmers always do.

But it doesn't stop me from thinking it shouldn't be so, in what is an industry and environmentally created crisis.

 

[prawn_86]

Ummmm.... so... if I'm an icecream seller, and we get a massive prolonged cold snap, I should be compensated? It would be the first time people are compensated because of a natural environmental cycle.

If the government said to you "you cannot use 80% of your icecream" dont you think you should be compensated? There is still water in the river, irrigators are just not allowed to suck it dry.

Ummm... James Hardie were once allowed to sell and manifacture asbestos, so therefore they shouldn't have to provide compo?

Isnt this exactly my point??

The drought has not been caused by the gov, but their lack of infrastructure, planning, and foresight all was.

I don't see bailing out farmers as anything more than a reward for their part in screwing the environment, and adopting unacceptable business risks. If they haven't drought proofed themselves, too bad. It's much like the Bear Stearns fiasco.

I dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this chops...

IMO the reason for compensation revolves around government action or inaction depending on the way you look at it.

Water is leased to irrigators from the government. Irrigators pay for this water, so theoretically, at the very least, these irrigators should be compensated for the 80% they are no longer allowed to use.

On a broader scale, it is the governments who have leased out X amount of water when environmentally it should have been much less (or none). So therefore the government have allowed (and encouraged!) an industry to be built upon something that is (potentially) unsustainable.

Once again why do the likes of horse racing and car manufacturers recieve such government support, yet farming virtually nil?

 

[Prospector]

Well I'm confused as to why the SA weirs / dams etc aren't full if the Darling has recently received a lot of flood runoff from Qld ?

We will get none of it because it will be taken out of the river system before it reaches South Australia. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

 

[prawn_86]

We will get none of it because it will be taken out of the river system before it reaches South Australia. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

Also, because of such a prolonged drought, the soil is so dry, so it ends up soaking in a hell of a lot of moisture.

Wetlands that have been dry for years etc etc

 

[chops_a_must]

Also, because of such a prolonged drought, the soil is so dry, so it ends up soaking in a hell of a lot of moisture.

Wetlands that have been dry for years etc etc

Yeah. You're probably going to need 3-4 good years to get rid of the silt, and soak the soil to a point where it's not being absorbed, and can flow.

 

[2020hindsight]

Sorry, I just heard that the lip of the weir at Bourke was overtopped, and I just assumed it had made it to SA's capital as well

many a slip twixt the lip and cap.

 

[Smurf1976]

No. But I wouldn't write a blatant mistruth like that. However, Tasmania gets more in funding from the feds than it provides.

And that's entirely my point and the problem.

Consider for a moment if the Federal Government had stopped the NW Shelf gas project completely. Consider if every large scale heavy industrial plant built in WA over the past two decades had also been stopped by Canberra. Consider if 40% of WA, including where much of the mineral wealth is located, were placed off limits to development - again a decision made by the Eastern states not WA. Consider if Canberra had likewise threatened to stop the Perth desal plant and taken years to reach a decision.

Do that and WA's economy would be outright stuffed and locals wouldn't be happy. You'd have Perth as a far lesser city than it is today and not much else. WA would be as dependent on handouts as Tas is now.

And that situation is directly comparable to what has actually happened in Tas. Hence the state's now permanent dependence on handouts.

I suspect that this is not widely known to most, but Canberra did once go as far as to use an implied military threat to halt one project in Tasmania. And the airforce planes did indeed fly over the site. That's going way too far as far as I'm concerned.

And a decade later a group (of which I was a member) backed by both the Tasmanian Government and opposition had to threaten to take Australia to the United Nations simply to get local representation on an inquiry set up, by Canberra, which aimed to dismantle existing Tasmanian infrastructure thus further crippling the economy.

As for overall funding, a few facts.

1. Tasmanian taxes helped build the Snowy scheme in the 50's and 60's. Meanwhile the state built its own hydro schemes, without assistance from the other states, that are collectively twice the size.

2. The Australian Government funds the interstate highways linking the mainland states. Tasmania bought it's own ships to run on Bass Strait.

3. Every Australian capital city except Hobart has it's major road links to the rest of the state funded by the Australian Government. In Tas it stops well short of Hobart with the state paying the rest.

And I could always raise the point that Tasmania was the only state where, in the 1990's, fuel used for baseload electricity generation was taxed by the Australian Government. Fuel that was only being used in the first place because Canberra stopped every attempt to build something else. Meanwhile Qld, Vic, NSW etc stoked up the coal furnaces without paying so much as one cent in tax for doing so. Now tell me how that one's fair?

I contend that the overall situation in the smaller states has been one of outright bullying. In Tas it's a case of do as Canberra wants, become even more dependent on handouts, or we'll cut you off altogether.

In SA they're clearly not being given due consideration when it comes to water. Nobody in their right mind leaves a city of a million people high and dry in order to grow a bit of rice. Qld wouldn't do it to Brisbane and NSW wouldn't do it to Sydney. But they don't think twice about what happens in Adelaide.

But my point isn't about an interstate war or apportioning blame. It's time we ALL worked together for the good of the country as a whole and stopped this state vs state nonsense. As with any war, we'll ALL lose in the end if it continues. Indeed we're likely all losing now to some extent.

 

[Smurf1976]

Ummmm.... so... if I'm an icecream seller, and we get a massive prolonged cold snap, I should be compensated?

A more relevant comparisson would be if the government banned you from having a freezer to store it in and also banned you from owning the equipment needed to sell anything else (eg hot food). Then they handed you compo, all of which was promptly taken back at tax time.

 

[prawn_86]

A more relevant comparisson would be if the government banned you from having a freezer to store it in and also banned you from owning the equipment needed to sell anything else (eg hot food). Then they handed you compo, all of which was promptly taken back at tax time.

or didnt give compo at all

 

[chops_a_must]

And that's entirely my point and the problem.

Consider for a moment if the Federal Government had stopped the NW Shelf gas project completely. Consider if every large scale heavy industrial plant built in WA over the past two decades had also been stopped by Canberra. Consider if 40% of WA, including where much of the mineral wealth is located, were placed off limits to development - again a decision made by the Eastern states not WA. Consider if Canberra had likewise threatened to stop the Perth desal plant and taken years to reach a decision.

Do that and WA's economy would be outright stuffed and locals wouldn't be happy. You'd have Perth as a far lesser city than it is today and not much else. WA would be as dependent on handouts as Tas is now.

Ah, you see, the feds did pull rubbish like that.

And luckily we had hard heads like Lang Hancock and Charlie Court who didn't allow it to happen. Who, because of my views, I kind of hate, but fully agree when it comes to their secession and anti-eastern state arguments.

Had they not brought secession up, Australia, not just Western Australia, would have been in serious trouble for the long term.

Had we not had the secession movement in 74, WA would be stuffed. But it is an ace we have up our sleeves, and probably us alone. And it is still a popular sentiment in WA, given our royalty payments/ lack of any government funding. It may end up being an issue again when the eastern states begin demanding energy delivery or something like that.

I think Western Australians can sympathise with Tasmanians when it comes to road funding. The Roe highway funding was about 15 years late, and the Bunbury Mandurah bypass (think that is the name) was never funded... so it was funded fully by us. Ended up being 20 years overdue or something. You name it, here in WA, the feds have rarely funded and even obstructed development here. They even refused to SIGN a bit of paper allowing the WA government to buy and fund an MRI machine at the kiddies hospital!

For the smaller states, I think autonomy may well be the way to go. I can see it becoming an issue again here, and it probably should be in Tassie. But unless you have some hard heads, you'll continue to get rolled. I think WA is lucky in that we perhaps have the most patriotic and loyal population with a distinct identity. And that seperates us, and probably means we don't put up with the rubbish the other smaller states do.

But it is not until a far out push like that (autonomy/ secession) gains traction, and becomes popular, that anyone else listens. It has certainly worked here.

 

[chops_a_must]

A more relevant comparisson would be if the government banned you from having a freezer to store it in and also banned you from owning the equipment needed to sell anything else (eg hot food). Then they handed you compo, all of which was promptly taken back at tax time.

I know where you are coming from, but it is a matter of priorities. If people in SA were really that worried about water, this is a no brainer.

Hmmm... what if freezers were killing everything that redbacks needed to survive on? Would people allow icecream sellers to have freezers?

 

[Smurf1976]

They even refused to SIGN a bit of paper allowing the WA government to buy and fund an MRI machine at the kiddies hospital!

Exactly the sort of nonsense I'm on about. Also that of state decisions being made in the relevant state and not in Canberra.

A classic case in point is the pulp mill debate in Tasmania. Sure, it's a controversial issue, but it's a STATE issue not a national one. Not even the strongest opponents are suggesting it will in any way impact any other Australian state other than by way of economic benefits.

NSW, Vic and SA all have pulp mills, indeed so does Tasmania. And nobody's seriously suggesting that all of those mills be closed as part of a national policy. So let's make the decision in Hobart, not Canberra. Just as NSW decisions are made in Sydney and Victoria is run from Melbourne.

 

[chops_a_must]

Exactly the sort of nonsense I'm on about. Also that of state decisions being made in the relevant state and not in Canberra.

A classic case in point is the pulp mill debate in Tasmania. Sure, it's a controversial issue, but it's a STATE issue not a national one. Not even the strongest opponents are suggesting it will in any way impact any other Australian state other than by way of economic benefits.

NSW, Vic and SA all have pulp mills, indeed so does Tasmania. And nobody's seriously suggesting that all of those mills be closed as part of a national policy. So let's make the decision in Hobart, not Canberra. Just as NSW decisions are made in Sydney and Victoria is run from Melbourne.

For mine it's a classic NIMBY argument blown out of all proportions. Even from an environmentalist's perspective, there are bigger issues. I'm far more concerned about what timber they will be using for instance...

I'd love to see the rest of Oz stopping Victoria building a much needed coal fired power plant, which would arguably be far more damaging in terms of emissions and particulates than a pulp mill. I'm sure the Vics would love that! Lol! Force em to have solar... that'd go great in Melbourne! Just for sh!ts and giggles!

 

[Smurf1976]

For mine it's a classic NIMBY argument blown out of all proportions. Even from an environmentalist's perspective, there are bigger issues. I'm far more concerned about what timber they will be using for instance...

I'd love to see the rest of Oz stopping Victoria building a much needed coal fired power plant, which would arguably be far more damaging in terms of emissions and particulates than a pulp mill. I'm sure the Vics would love that! Lol! Force em to have solar... that'd go great in Melbourne! Just for sh!ts and giggles!

The point about coal in Victoria is one that has long been noted by many Tasmanians, indeed it was a point made over 25 years ago during the dams debate long before most people had even heard of the CO2 problem or fossil fuel depletion. I honestly think that most thought it was a joke back then and just a last ditch attempt to build a dam but today CO2 has become a big issue. Look in your own backyard first...

As for the timber in the mill, I'm not keen on forestry the way it's done but in principle they could just process the wood that is currently exported. The pulp will be produced somewhere so might as well be here for the economic benefits if it can be done in a reasonable manner.

 

[chops_a_must]

The pulp will be produced somewhere so might as well be here for the economic benefits if it can be done in a reasonable manner.

That's my exact point in arguments I have used elsewhere.

When you look at cradle to grave environmental problems, it's far more efficient and effective to process the pulp near the site of logging.

Rather than having timber chipped, exported, pulped and produced into products all in different locations, you are far better off having some of those processes in the same area, limiting the energy use and therefore emissions. Because as much as we'd all like to reduce paper product use, it aint gonna happen overnight. And if it is viable to create jobs at the same time, why not? Value adding at the top of the chain is a great idea if it can be done.

From an outsider's perspective with Tasmania, the problem seems to be there is no designated areas (that I know of) for industrial development. And the demographic is such that you have full blooded conservationists and pro development types living side by side. If there was a larger macro plan, people would be able to look well into the future, and choose where to live on the basis of their priorities. And that would stop a lot of the divisions that whip up so much emotional hysteria about matters Tasmanian, outside of Tasmania.

Cheers.

 

[The Once-ler]

Well I'm confused as to why the SA weirs / dams etc aren't full if the Darling has recently received a lot of flood runoff from Qld ?

A big reason is Menindee Lakes. These lakes will hold 1731 Gigolitres [yes, Gigolitres, not Megs] and they are still filling. This water is used for domestic water for Broken Hill, and it is also regulated for the lower Darling and Murray.

This water argument is so complicated. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Murray would have been completely dry by now if not for all the dams and regulated rivers and weirs and stuff, just like it was for long periods in the 1900's.

A lot of water was taken from the Darling in just the last few months for irrigation, but before that, I thought none was taken for 5 years. Rice was a non event last year or the year before. The great thing about rice and cotton is that you can stop growing these crops in dry times, and that's what happened. Not so, grapes and fruit. Cotton and rice would have made no difference to water levels in the last few years, because no water ran off, so non was taken from the system.

I just think we have to realise that the rivers will run dry in a drought, and get used to it. We have been through an historically wet time. The 70's and 90's were extremely wet, and I think it's just getting back to normal.


Also, if South Oz is in such an upraw about water, then why did they allow the irrigation from Murray water of the Clair valley vinyards to go in just a few years ago. Adelaide, and the Clair valley aren't even part of the Murray/Darling catchment. Maybe they could take back that water. Irrigating rice makes more sence than grapes to me. At least rice is a staple food, not so a bottle of wine.

 

[Sean K]

A big reason is Menindee Lakes. These lakes will hold 1731 Gigolitres [yes, Gigolitres, not Megs] and they are still filling. This water is used for domestic water for Broken Hill, and it is also regulated for the lower Darling and Murray.

This water argument is so complicated. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Murray would have been completely dry by now if not for all the dams and regulated rivers and weirs and stuff, just like it was for long periods in the 1900's.

A lot of water was taken from the Darling in just the last few months for irrigation, but before that, I thought none was taken for 5 years. Rice was a non event last year or the year before. The great thing about rice and cotton is that you can stop growing these crops in dry times, and that's what happened. Not so, grapes and fruit. Cotton and rice would have made no difference to water levels in the last few years, because no water ran off, so non was taken from the system.

I just think we have to realise that the rivers will run dry in a drought, and get used to it. We have been through an historically wet time. The 70's and 90's were extremely wet, and I think it's just getting back to normal.


Also, if South Oz is in such an upraw about water, then why did they allow the irrigation from Murray water of the Clair valley vinyards to go in just a few years ago. Adelaide, and the Clair valley aren't even part of the Murray/Darling catchment. Maybe they could take back that water. Irrigating rice makes more sence than grapes to me. At least rice is a staple food, not so a bottle of wine.

And perhaps we just shouldn't be growing these crops in areas that can not sustain them and those caught up in the downturn should go broke and move on which is the natural cycle of things. Our romantic notions of living prosporously on the land are obsolete. The answer right now is that water should NOT be subsidised in ANY way, and those who prevail, deserve so. The natural cycle of things...