News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Adelaide's thirst for Murray unabated 

Adelaide's thirst for Murray unabated

09 Jul, 2009 06:04 PM
ADELAIDE'S drain on the Murray River for drinking water will not reduce before 2050, despite South Australia's promise to find new water sources through desalination and stormwater capture.

Plans to continue tapping the Murray River for significant amounts of Adelaide's water supply were revealed in SA's new 40-year water security plan, which follows calls for upstream states such as Victoria to return more water to the ailing river.

The plan was seized on by the Victorian Government, whose relationship with Labor colleagues in South Australia has been strained by threats of High Court action over Murray River politics.

More than 90 per cent of Adelaide's drinking water was sourced from the Murray in recent years, and the new plan aims to diversify Adelaide's water-supply options.

But the fine print shows that new options such as desalination will not reduce Adelaide's drain on the Murray, but will merely account for an expected increase in demand for water.

"Although Adelaide will reduce reliance on the River Murray through additional diverse supplies, the state will still need its entitlement for River Murray water," the plan says.

The document also suggests that cost will determine which of Adelaide's water sources are drawn on most in the future — raising the likelihood that river water will remain a staple, given it is a cheaper option than desalination.

"In practice, the unit cost of water from each source would determine the actual supply mix," the plan says.

Victoria's acting Water Minister, Gavin Jennings, said South Australia could do more to improve the environmental health of the Murray.

"The Murray River supplies almost all of Adelaide's drinking water yet (SA Premier) Mike Rann cries crocodile tears for the state of the Lower Lakes," he said. "Rather than pointing at Victoria, South Australia should take responsibility for its own water woes."

South Australia's Commissioner for Water Security, Robyn McLeod, said the state was planning significant growth, so it could not reduce Adelaide's Murray River water use.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
They should not worry! Xenophon will just divert more water from NSW!
Posted by tigerdicky, 10/07/2009 11:08:08 AM
For those involved in this argument, I suggest they have a look at the actual amounts of water used by Adelaide and by South Australia in general. If Adelaidfe took no water from the Murray, it wouldn't save the lower lakes. The problems are with climate change and the massive extractions upstream.
Posted by Barney, 10/07/2009 11:21:55 AM
That would be right. They sit by while Lake Alexandrina evaporates a million megalitres of fresh water from the former tidal estuary and demand even more water in face of declining run-off.

These people have the same duty as every other Australian to take reasonable steps to help themselves before holding their hand out for someone else's entitlement.

But it is now very clear that they have no intention of taking the reasonable step that every other major city has taken and build a proper scale desalination plant.

They complain about the cost but it simply hasn't dawned on them that sourcing brackish water from the Murray estuary, after the barrages have been removed, would substantially lower the cost of desalination compared to using pure sea water.


Posted by Ian Mott, 10/07/2009 5:27:31 PM
Take note of Barnaby Joyce's recent comments - 4th generation nuclear power could desal and pump another Murray River over the mountains; they produce virtually no waste; do not produce weapons grade material; are failsafe and we have an abundance of fuel; plus as the river moves west it will produce more electricity.
Posted by Bruce, 27/08/2009 9:09:54 PM

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
POLL
Q: Do you think the Victorian Farmers Federation is still relevant to producers' needs?

Yes, it is still relevant
(36.9%)

No, it has become irrelevant
(51.2%)

Not sure
(11.9%)

Total Votes: 252
Poll Date: 05 May, 2009

Most popular articles

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


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...