News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 We can't keep it all: Murray-Darling expert 

We can't keep it all: Murray-Darling expert

19 Mar, 2009 07:21 AM
One of the foremost experts on the Murray-Darling river system has called for it to be disconnected from hundreds of lakes, wetlands and other environmental assets as part of a radical shrinking and reconfiguration of the waterway.

Adelaide University's Professor Mike Young's appeal to "downsize" the river system included the possible abandonment of some of Victoria's prized river red gums in the Barmah forest.

Speaking at a water conference in Melbourne yesterday, Professor Young said a drier future would force Australians to choose which environmental assets to keep, and which to let die.

"At the moment we are pretending we can keep it all, with half the amount of water, but I can't see how we are going to do that," he said.

"If we keep on trying to spread half the water over the same area, we are going to lose everything. It's time to think about reconfiguring."

Professor Young identified Victoria's Lake Mokoan and New South Wales' Menindee Lakes as examples of subsidiaries to the river that only added to its size and evaporation problem.

He said tough decisions would also be needed at the Barmah State Forest where Victoria's ancient river red gums rely on increasingly rare floods for survival.

"Would we be prepared to put bunds across parts of the Barmah forest and decide if it remains dry we are only going to keep one-third of it alive? Rather than spreading water like Vegemite over the whole system, we could pick areas to keep healthy so we don't lose it all," he said.

His comments follow a decade of perilously low rainfall, emergency measures being conducted at the lower lakes, and revelations that February had the lowest inflows to the system in the 117 years since records began.

Professor Young found support yesterday from a key red gum adviser to the Victorian Government: Johan Van Rensburg from engineering firm GHD.

Mr Van Rensburg has conducted modelling for the Brumby Government's red gum strategies, and said Professor Young had "raised a good point".

"Somehow a decision needs to be made in terms of 'are we sacrificing some areas and maintaining others'," he said.

The Victorian Government has not decided to abandon any parts of the Barmah forest, but water shortages have meant only small sections have been able to be watered in recent years.

Spokesman Nick Talbot said the Government was proud that some watering had continued during the worst drought on record.

"We take great care to use the water available strategically, in order to maximise the environmental benefits and ensure that critical sites will survive and can recover when the drought breaks," he said.

Premier John Brumby yesterday supported suggestions from the Department of Sustainability of Environment that northern Victorians could be Australia's first climate change refugees.

Mr Brumby said lifting water trading limits would suck the water and the wealth out of those regions.

"I'm not going to stand by and see those country communities devastated by arbitrarily lifting that cap and contributing to an economic disaster in those regions," he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Of course we can keep it all - if we finally open our minds to the real cause of the current situation. I am becoming very concerned that the whole MDB debate seems myopically focused on an overly simplistic “release water back into the river” approach, whereas the only real long-term answer to the regeneration of the MDB eco-system is getting the soil surface covered on a massive scale.

The basin covers 1,059,000 square kilometres or 14pc of Australia's land area. Australia's three longest rivers, the Darling, Murray and Murrumbidgee are found in the MDB. The MDB receives an average annual rainfall of 530,617,787 megalitres. Of this, 94pc evaporates or transpires, 2pc drains into the ground, and the other 4pc becomes run-off.

With changed grazing and animal management, we can produce and sustain covered soil, and thereby reduce the rate of direct evaporation following rain events. But how much difference could this make? Let’s be very conservative and allow that we could reduce the rate of evaporation/transpiration by just 1pc - this comes to 4,972,897 ML (damn close to 5,000 gigalitres GL) each and every year.

As you know the Wentworth Group has called for the Government to “guarantee” river flows of 300-400GL to prevent irreversible damage to the Coorong and Lower Lakes. So reducing evaporation by even just 1pc is more than 10 times this amount.

The health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes is inextricably and inversely linked to the degree of bare soil several thousand kilometers north – and unless we get some serious changes in current management, things are not looking good.

Posted by soil carbon, 20/03/2009 7:21:32 AM
Evaporation is not the problem with the system. The problem is over allocation of water and the development of unsustainable enterprises throughout the system.

If man worked with the ecosystem instead of spiting at it, the system would be healthy.

Posted by Richard Woolley, 20/03/2009 9:17:31 AM
If the decline in available water is the result of climate change, and not just a drought, the river system would make its own sacrifices if it were left in a natural state. But it is not in a natural state. There is still far too much being extracted.

The Federal Government's buyback is progressing at a slower rate than the decline in inflows. There is still a vast quantity of water being wasted on broadacre flood irrigation, especially cotton.

We need to confine our water use to crops that give a high return per litre. The old days of abundant water are over.

Posted by barney, 20/03/2009 9:54:17 AM
Perhaps the solution would be to put in a cement lined channel and solve all these problems.
Posted by heard it before, 20/03/2009 11:44:13 AM
Professor Young seems to have people ahead of all other species. He should remember Noah took a breeding pair of all species on his Ark. The good Lord wants to keep the world in its wonderful variety. Too many greedy people in Australia.
Posted by jimmy, 20/03/2009 10:05:41 PM
The headline for the economist is right but the value statement is wrong. We can't have it all should be in reference to the irrigation land developed without adequate water. It is time to reduce the area irrigated, cut cotton, rice and pasture irrigation and get the environmental systems working properly.
Posted by Annoyed, 21/03/2009 6:58:52 PM
Mr Brumby, how can an irrigation district survive with continual zero allocations? The 4% cap which equates to only around 700mgs on the Campaspe Irrigations System means the farmers there are trapped. Unable to sell water, unable to access any, temp or otherwise. They have a piped system, and around 95% efficient in water delivery, but that dosen't count when the allocation is zero. These farmers are at the bottom rung, and need to know if there is a future.
Posted by Campaspe, 21/03/2009 11:02:37 PM
Soil Carbon has suggested that if we reduce the rate of evaporation by just 1% we would save 5,000 Gl; Richard Woolley has had the wool pulled over his eyes for too long and screams over allocation and the development of unstainable enterprises; Barney wants to buy back water licences that are dry to save the river; and then there is the idea that we can try to control the water in cement lined channels. None of the above have any idea of water availability and management in Australia. Dorothea Mackella wrote "a land of drought and flooding rains" and the cycle that southern Australia is experiencing now is nothing new. The rice and cotton growers are no longer growing commodities and their ground is lying idle waiting for the flooding rains to increase their allocations of water to re-commence the opportunistic farming that is a given in Australia. When it rains, the dams will fill, the environment will get water and the farmers will commence farming again. Just remeber what Dorothea MacKella wrote! A land of drought and flooding rains!
Posted by Blacky, 22/03/2009 5:19:57 PM
Build more snowy schemes eg. Bradfield Scheme, Clarence Scheme. These schemes are already designed. Other rivers including the Fitzroy and Ord, come to mind. This would gaurantee Australia with food and water security for ever and save the Murray Darling Basin environment.
Posted by Ken 22/3/2009, 22/03/2009 10:41:45 PM
Oh so clever! Mindless suburbia at its best. How can we talk about sacrificing our greatest history. Yes that is our ancient red gums. And yet we build a pipe to send the water away. Bendigo, Ballarat, Melbourne who gets it next? Melbourne, get fair dinkum and start really saving water. Increase the price, then mindless suburbia might think twice before turning on the taps.
Posted by Red Gum Forest Dweller, 28/03/2009 9:59:10 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 March, 2009
POLL
Q: If a federal election were held on Saturday, which party would you vote for?

Labor
(16.8%)

Liberal
(40.5%)

Nationals
(25%)

Greens
(8.6%)

Family First
(1.3%)

Independent
(5.9%)

Other
(1.8%)

Total Votes: 1043
Poll Date: 15 March, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
2010 Beef & Cattle Directory
 
Rural Bookshop
 
photo gallery
 
S&L Twitter
 
S&L Facebook


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...