Fixing the Basin Plan

•February 9, 2012 • Leave a Comment

Up until the passing of the Water Act (2007), the management of the Murray Darling Basin was regarded internationally as one of the best examples in the world of a cooperative approach to water management. At the core of this success was the Murray Darling Basin Commission, a collective of federal and state governments, who worked through the issues and agreed on a Cap to water extraction, salinity management strategies, and environmental restoration projects. Those in the know in Australia could see many failures and problems with the Commission despite its obvious successes. It was slow and ponderous, and it responded too slowly and poorly to underlying over-allocation which was exacerbated by the drought in the 2000’s.

Partly in response to this frustration at the slow pace of reform, the Water Act was passed by Parliament in 2007. Malcolm Turnbull was the Minister who sponsored the legislation in the Howard government. In his defence of the Basin Plan, he says “It is common ground that there has been a massive overallocation of water in the Murray Darling Basin. Much of this was done mindlessly and without any consideration of the environmental consequences. This problem has been recognised for well over a decade”.

The Act required the establishment of an independent Murray Darling Basin Authority who would prepare a Plan for “the use and management of the Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes”.

The Basin Plan should have been a definitive statement on the future of water management in the Murray Darling Basin. The Act was written by the Liberal Government and is being implemented by a Labor Government. The Greens were (and are) supportive of sustainable levels of water allocations along the River.

It seemed like a thrilling moment. The Murray Darling Basin Authority would by-pass politics and state recalcitrance, and set a new and sustainable limit for water extraction from the River.

A Guide to the Basin Plan was released in 2010. The Guide proposed cuts to water extraction limits of 3,000 – 4,000 GL, and it received a hostile reception from irrigation communities and others. The document was revised based on meetings with stakeholders, and more scientific studies, and a Draft Basin Plan was released in 2011 proposing reductions of 2,750 GL in surface water extractions and approving an increase in groundwater extractions of about the same quantum. This new document has very few friends indeed. It is hard to find a stakeholder group who wants the Plan in its current format. The States have provided luke-warm support or express outright hostility to the Plan (SA, Vic, NSW). Farmer groups are highly concerned about what the reductions in extractions will mean for local economies.  Conservation groups are suspicious that the Plan has been ‘watered down’ (pun intended) for political purposes . Scientists are unhappy about the transparency and credibility of the science that has underpinned the plan (Wentworth group, Kingsford, Simmons).

The process of developing the Basin Plan has created deep divisions, and smashed a hard fought for partnership that had lasted for over a decade between farmers and conservationists. Scientists who had been pleading for extra water for the River are highly critical of a Plan that proposes the return of a massive 2,750 GL to the environment (although increases groundwater extraction limits by about the same amount). Concerns by all parties have been expressed about how the average diversions will work under extreme conditions, and suggest that there may be better ways of setting diversion limits which are more adaptable to climate variability.

How did we get from thrilling to hostile so fast?

In my view, the MDBA jumped from “optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes” to a sustainable diversion limit number too fast, without first getting agreement on what optimal economic, social and environmental outcomes are wanted. The result is that the Plan lacks moral authority.  More science will not fix this problem, although more science is undoubtably required. An open and honest discussion about the aspirations of the Australian community for the Basin is needed. This cannot and should not be rushed. In reality, we have until at least 2019 to have this conversation, which is when the Basin Plan will come into full effect.

While not certain, it seems likely the Draft Basin Plan will be approved by Parliament with a promise to modify it based on more discussion, debate and scientific studies. But future modifications will need to be undertaken based on a fundamentally different approach to the one the MDBA has taken to date. It needs to try and gain an agreement on the underlying aspirations of the Plan. An open review is required on the scientific advice that has been used to inform the setting of sustainable diversion limits. A important conversation has been missed entirely around how the efficiency of both environmental and agricultural irrigation could be improved. There are opportunities to manage flows, the operations of the large lakes and estuary and wetland flooding regimes to deliver superior environmental outcomes. There are opportunities in innovation, infrastructure investment and education that would make our irrigated industries more efficiency and profitable. We have after all, $10 billion to implement the new Basin Plan – equivalent to $500,000 per irrigator. Surely we can do something smart, and better, with that sort of investment.

These are the discussions we could be having and they would bring back the stakeholders into a conversation that would hopefully heal the distressing rifts that have been created amongst those who care for and rely on the rivers of the MDB. The Basin Plan should be a positive affirmation of the will of the people of Australia, not an in-house document prepared by government for government, with scant regard for the collective intelligence and aspirations of the people. If done well, the re-engagement of people in the development of the Plan will improve the final outcome, and ensure the Plan endures.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is undertaking a formal consultation process on the proposed Basin Plan from 28 November 2011 to 16 April 2012.

Posted in LitFuse
Tags: , , ,

Why all the fuss about the Lower Lakes?

•July 28, 2011 • 6 Comments

The current Draft Basin Plan, and comments by the Chair of the Murray Darling Basin – Craig Knowles, pay a lot of attention to the health of the Lower Lakes, and ensuring end of system flows. Why does this one part of the Murray Darling Basin get such a lot of attention?

The Lower Lakes and  Coorong extend over approximately 140,000 hectares. It is a surprising diverse environment, with 23 different wetlands types, from very fresh to saltier than the sea. It is one of the 10 major havens for large concentrations of wading birds in Australia, and is recognised internationally as a breeding ground for many species of waterbirds and native fish. The Coorong is ranked among the top six waterbird sites in Australia, based on the diversity and number of species found there. Both the Coorong and the Lower Lakes are listed as part of the Ramsar Convention, and international agreement which aims to protect the worlds most precious wetlands. The area is a an important feeding and breeding grounds for birds who then travel throughout the Murray Darling Basin, and in some cases, all the way to Japan and China. We have international agreements with these countries to maintain suitable habitats for birds which are part of our joint natural heritage. Japan and China are of course, our largest trading partners, which makes this connection pretty special. The Lower Lakes and Coorong are particularly important during periods of drought, and act as a refuge for fish and birds when other parts of the river are dry.

But the maintenance of these habitats is not the only reason that scientists and the MDBA think it is important to keep the River Mouth open. Australia is an old and saline environment. The River Murray flows across an old sea bed as it makes its way through South Australia and as a result, picks up a lot of salt which need to be flushed out of the system. A report from the Goyder Institute identifies that at least 3,500 GL of end of river flows are required (on average) to ensure there is not a build up of salt throughout the River system. Under careful management, the average flows suggested by the Basin Plan will achieve the salinity targets in the SA reach of the River Murray (see below). With no changes to the current extractions from the Murray Darling Basin, these salinity targets will not be met. This will have a major economic consequence for Adelaide, will reduce irrigation efficiency in other parts of the River system, and risks Australia’s current brand as a clean and green source of food products.

So you can see that it is not just South Australia that benefits from a healthy Lower Lakes and Coorong. But South Australia does benefit in a very important way. The city of Adelaide, home to one million people with $60B of economic production, relies on the River Murray for its water supply. Because of its limited water storages, Adelaide draws up to 90% of its water requirements from the River Murray in any one year. Even with the construction of a large desalination plant in Adelaide, one million people and $60B of economic output is reliant on the River Murray for potable water. How is this linked to the Lower Lakes? In the severe drought during the 2000′s, the Lakes water level dropped so far, there was a major risk that the Lakes would turn acid sulphate. Within a week, the acid, and released heavy metals would have moved back up the River Murray to beneath the inlet pipes for the water that is pumped to Adelaide, cutting off Adelaide’s water supply of last resort. Furthermore, increases in salinity in the River have a major impact on the lifespan of expensive infrastructure in Adelaide, so there are some important targets for salinity in the off-takes for Adelaide’s drinking water that have been agreed to, for economic reasons as much as anything else.

What is we removed the Barrages?

It is sometimes suggested that the Lakes would have been saline much more before that Barrages were put in to maintain Lake levels, and so the barrages should be removed. Such people I find are unwilling to use the same logic (ie. let’s make things how they used to be) to argue for more water for wetlands along the River, but nevertheless, lets follow the logic. The Lakes were almost exclusively freshwater (sorry, paper is behind a paywall, I can email if you want a copy), meaning that those who argue for things to return to ‘normal’ are asking for the Lakes to remain as freshwater systems. Those who say removing the Barrages would return the Lakes to an estuarine environment would also have to argue for all of the water currently diverted to be put back into the River to maintain the original estuarine condition. The argument is a red herring. There may be reasons to remove the barrages, but to return the Lakes to their original condition is not one of them.

Proposed reductions in evaporative losses from the Lakes

Ever since I can remember, there have been proposals to reduce the size of the Lower Lakes. These have been explored and usually rejected as returning poor value for money. The net evaporation from the Lower Lakes is 750 GL to 800 GL per annum. This is already built into South Australia’s long term, historic entitlement flows. This compares with total evaporation and ‘consumption’ by wetlands across the MDB system of 11,000 GL, nevertheless it is a large amount.

The MDBC explored options to reduce evaporation in the Lower Lakes. The savings identified were relatively small (10GL – 60GL) and incurred both significant costs, and some potential major benefits, including more habitat for wader birds. These options should be explored but they do not make much difference to the overall size of buybacks suggested by the MDBA in the Basin Plan.

The Murray Mouth impact on the health of the Coorong

Another argument bandied about with little scientific evidence is that the health of the Coorong is only dependent on flows from the South East. As a matter of fact, these flows are being restored to the Southern lagoon of the Coorong, but the scientific consensus is that an open Murray Mouth is required to ensure that the Southern Coorong continues to exist as a site of high ecological importance. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wishful thinking.

The impact of the Basin Plan on the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes

A recent scientific review of the impact of the Basin Plan on the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes identifies that while not all environmental water requirements are met under the Guide scenarios (3,000, 3,500, 4000 GL), they represent an improvement on baseline conditions and, in some cases, they represent a large improvement. Obviously, more environmental water requirements are met under the 4000 scenario than under the 3500 scenario, and under the 3500 scenario than under the 3000 scenario, respectively. This is a useful starting point.

I would note personally, that the existing environmental water requirements, while entirely defensible scientifically, will need further refinement. I am sure there is a lot we don’t know about how water could be managed differently to achieve the same ecological outcomes. Just as I am sure that with a renewed effort to improve irrigation efficiency in Australia, we could make another big improvement as we did in the 70′s and 80′s when we spent a lot on R,D & E in this field. These outcomes are, I am confident, what the MDBA has in mind when they say that local communities will have a say in the adaptive management of water to balance environmental and economic outcomes. A lack of perfect knowledge is no reason to hold back reform, but it is a reason to ensure review points in the reform process, more research, and for all parties to retain an open mind and be willing to adapt their positions over time as new knowledge becomes available.

Socio-economic impact of Basin Plan

The Goyder Institute also undertook a socio-economic impact assessment of the Basin Plan. It misses a major component of the socio-economic impact (irrigation!) but argues that it did not have the skills to do the regional input output modelling. I would love to see some regional input output modelling of the Basin Plan. Please post a link if you see something. Nevertheless, the Goyder Institute does a fascinating analysis and comes up with some surprising results.

Some of the key papers quoted:

Options for Water Savings in the Lower Lakes and Improved Flows Through the Murray Mouth (MDBC report)

Salinity in the Lower Lakes and Coorong ( SA Government report)

Murray Darling Water Resources Fact Sheet (MDBC report)

Scientific review of Basin Plan and its implications for South Australia (Goyder Institute)

Palaeolimnological evidence for the independent evolution of neighbouring terminal lakes, the Murray Darling Basin, Australia, Fluin et al, Hydrobiologia, 591, 117-134

Analysis of South Australia’s environmental water and water quality requirements and their delivery under the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (Goyder Institute)

Socioeconomic implications of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan – methods and results overview (Goyder Institute)

Posted in conservation, Coorong & Lower Lakes, LitFuse, Murray Darling

Who believes in climate change anyway?

•May 26, 2011 • 4 Comments

The latest report from the Climate Commission in Australia, The Critical Decade, says what every other major scientific review of the literature has said about climate change. In fact this report seems to be simply a summary of other major reviews and is perhaps more of an explanation of these other reports in a simple format than it is a review of the modelling itself. The report has drawn the predictable support from those who are concerned about climate change and derision from those who don’t believe it is a problem. One of the criticisms coming from the latter group is that those scientists who support the climate change theory, only do so because they make a quid out of it. The belief from some is that if you are paid to study climate, it is in your interests to create a panic so you get more money to do research. The same argument could be applied to scientists who study obesity, cancer, water quality, weed management and mining. We believe the latter group of scientists to our great benefit, yet some would have us believe that climate scientists are a particularly cunning and ruthless form of the species, who lie about what the data is telling them and have created mass hysteria through a global, highly organised conspiracy that has only a very small percentage leaving the club to expose the whole sordid tale to the media. This in itself is a remarkable level of loyalty from a group in society who would normally trip over themselves to expose the inaccuracies of another member of their fraternity. These scientists have seemingly benefited by being paid extraordinary amounts of money (an academics salary) for their deception, presumably with a proportion having to go back to keep the central organisation going. I bet its called KAOS.

Complicit in this conspiracy are green groups who morphed from being innocent protectors of whales and trees into rabid anti-development extremists who are part of a separate, but also highly coordinated, left-wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the world and make us all poorer. It is not clear whether they are in cahoots with the climate scientists who are clearly in it for alternative economic reasons.

Also participating in this axis are evil are the following pariahs of common sense:

With such a grouping of delirious malcontents supportive of climate change and sounding warnings of the need to take action, it is no wonder that moderate, clear thinking defenders of the world’s integrity such as Alan Jones, Christopher Monckton and well known climate scientists such as Ian Plimer and so rabidly opposed.

Written by Paul Dalby, 26 May 2011

Posted in climate change, LitFuse
Tags: , , ,

Review: Smithereens by Shaun Micallef

•April 14, 2011 • 1 Comment

For light reading on a plane trip to Central Queensland from Adelaide, I took with me “Smithereens” by Shaun Micallef. It was the only book in the newsagency I felt comfortable in taking. I could have gone Clarkson but risked being yelled at out of the pages. I didn’t want a ‘real crime story’, a romance or sci-fi and the new releases were too risky. If you don’t like it, you cannot get up and have a bracing walk. It is ‘Two and a Half Men’, easy listening music or old jokes. None a pleasant alternative. Smithereens is a collection of short comedy riffs of two to three pages, collected into a single source for the readers enjoyment.

The book is updated from an earlier version, apparently with ‘added smithereens’, so I felt I had received excellent value for the purchase price.

Shaun’s humour is not for everyone. It is for smug, overly educated and intelligent urban elites such as myself. The jokes are all ‘in’ and require a thorough grounding in grammar, the classics, history, politics, literature and crass popular culture. If you do poorly at Trivial Pursuit (the adult one, not the kids version), this book is probably not for you.

A snapshot:

“The Al Jolson Story

You ain’t heard nothin’ yet

Assuring the audience that they have not as yet heard the absence of something is hardly revelatory, and the implication that they would, upon commencement of some singing, hear nothing would have merely bamboozled them was it not so expertly masked by poor grammar. This, then, was Jolson’s true skill as a performer”

Demonstrating the absurdity of pedantry is not new as a form of humour, but it is performed expertly by Micallef in this book. There is some wonderful satire, for example poking fun at Miss World Contestants (a seemingly never ending well from which one can draw gags) and the normal tongue-in-cheek self-depreciating humour that is Micallef’s trademark. Mostly what I like about Micallef’s writing is that the humour relies heavily on the use of language – right down to the timing inferred by punctuation. It is old style comedy somewhat reminiscent of the Goons and Monty Python, layered with puns, double entendres and squeezing the last laugh out of every joke. There are no ‘one-liners’ in this book (actually there might be a few, but really, not many at all).

To wit:

“Now it had come to this. Writing for television. Me, who had shown such promise as a child that the word ‘prodigy’ was bandied about our house like a high-velocity super ball. True, the word often had a question mark after it, followed by a peal of laughter and a slamming door, but what did my parents know of genius? I preferred my own company anyway. Locked in my room (from the outside), far away from their clucking tongues and talk of urgent Ritalin prescriptions I would beaver away at a concerto here, a novel there, and vice versa. Nothing was beyond my fingertips, except perhaps the ends of my own nails”.

Ave Shaun, Ave

Written by Paul Dalby, 14 April 2011

Posted in LitFuse

Wave or tide?

•January 16, 2011 • Leave a Comment

While I like to mess around with a surf-board, I cannot claim to have come up with the idea of wave vs tide to explain the difference between climate variability and climate change. Rather, it comes from Peter Hayman, a brilliant science communicator in my view.

Peter asks:

What destroys the sandcastle, the wave or the tide? The answer of course is both, but if I build my castle away from the breakers at low tide, the high tide will bring the waves within reach of my sandcastle and knock it over.

This is the argument behind the dangers of climate change. I’m not going to go into an explanation of the science behind anthropogenic global warming, because others have done a much better job than I ever could – for example, Barry Brook.

But what I do want to briefly point out is that climate variability patterns lie over the top of a warming temperature trend. So just as the wave receding does not mean that the tide is going out, a cool or wet year or two does not mean that the warming trend has stopped. In the country I live in, Australia, we are experiencing major  floods, which was incidentally, predicted to occur. We are experiencing a La Nina year, and a negative Indian Ocean Dipole. One of these conditions on their own would result in an unusually wet and cool year for Australia. Both of them together have always resulted in heavy winter-spring rainfall in some parts of Australia. They have occurred together 4 times in the 20th Century. One of these times was 1974, when Brisbane CBD last had a major flood. This is a big wave, not a change in tide.

What concerns climate scientists is the change in the tide. Because there is variability in the climate, it takes some time to pick out a change in the pattern. However climate scientists can now clearly see a pattern that is a movement in the tide. A change from one state to another. The Responses to Questions & Objections on Climate Change by Brett Parris from Monash University show the graphs of the change in temperature of the air and sea over the last 100 years, and of the air over the past 1,000 years (including projections of what scientists think will happen over the next 100 years).

How do we know that the warming we have experiencing is not just a longer term, natural tidal pattern? Many skeptics who were saying that the earth was cooling, are now admitting that the earth is warming, but say that this is just a natural part of the earth’s cooling and warming cycles. The speed of the current predicted change in climate is much faster than what has been measured in the past. The pace of change we are experiencing is much faster than previous temperature changes. People who study the waves and tides of the world’s climate say that the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by natural causes, and can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

It’s not necessarily the change in temperature of 2-5 degrees Celcius that will hurt us. If it was two degrees warmer today, it would be fine. It’s the extreme events, the waves that come over the top of a shift in the average (tide) that will cause havoc. The heat-waves that kill crops or result in deadly bushfires, the king tides on a rising sea, droughts coming too often, and so on. The waves will knock over the sand-castle, but it will be because they are on a rising tide.

Of course, the funny thing is (if you have a morbid sense of humour such as mine), is that a key solution to man-made global warming is applauded by climate skeptics and opposed by environmentalists in my country of Australia (see article by Barry Brook again).

Written by Paul Dalby, 16 January 2010

Posted in climate change, LitFuse
Tags: , , , , , , ,

It’s only Rock’n'Roll

•December 29, 2010 • Leave a Comment

I spent a few days over Christmas reading Keith Richard’s autobiography. It was pretty funny, and easy reading. But I was also fascinated to get an insight into the collaboration between Keith Richards and Mick Jagger as song writers and performers that has been so frutiful over so many years. Collaboration is my line of business and I’m always keen to get a better understanding of its magic.

And it is magic. Keith and Mick are terrific musicians and entertainers, but on their own, mah, I’m not really interested. And judging by their record sales, neither are most others. But when they write and perform together, something new emerges as a result of the collaboration that is more than the sum of the parts. Together, they are one the of the most successful performers in modern popular music.

I see this with scientists as well. I’ve watched two parties come together and invent something entirely new, in a discussion over coffee or in a workshop. The ideas bounce around and then there is either a flash of inspiration and invention, or a rapid coming together of ideas into a new line of thinking. It is very exciting to be a part of, or to bear witness to.

So what makes it work. In the case of the Rolling Stones, it seems to have been a lot of hard work to start with, learning the basics, the history of their music, endless touring and performing, talking with others about music ideas or techniques. And then they require trust in each others abilities and integrity to bounce ideas around, modify each others’ ideas and form something that is a product of a number of minds, with no-one claiming credit only any particular bit.

Hard work and trust. Its the same with scientific collaborations. The most fruitful ones involve the best scientific minds, who have been working hard in their discipline, know its history and have spent lots of time exploring ideas with others. Get a few of these people in a room, who trust each other, and who are willing to contribute ideas without having to defend everything they put on the table, and who will willingly accept that the credit gets equally shared, then magic can happen.

And the scientists I come in contact with are creating ideas with much more value than doo wup with a heavy back beat.

Written by Paul Dalby, 29 December 2010

Posted in Collaboration, LitFuse
Tags: , ,

Lower Lakes

•November 1, 2010 • 3 Comments

There is a view that pushing freshwater through the Lower Lakes of the River Murray is a waste of water resources, and we would be better off letting it fill with sea water. The reasons are best summarised by http://www.lakesneedwater.org/position. It says quite rightly that originally the Lakes were estuarine, there is not enough freshwater currently left in the River Murray system to keep the system as healthy freshwater lakes and that the Lakes system evaporates a lot of water.

The problem is that while the Lakes were estuarine (salty to taste but much fresher than marine), they were never marine. Jennie Fluin’s research (pdf) on the history of the Lakes suggests the Lakes were nearly always fresh. Remember that before the barrages were put in, the amount of surface water diverted for consumptive use was about 2,000 GL/y whereas it is now over 13,000 GL/y. The long-term average amount of water that used to flow through the Murray Mouth before development was 12,500 GL/y according to the Basin Plan (pdf). With current levels of development, the long-term modelled average amount of water flowing out of the Murray Mouth is about 5,100 GL/y (figure also taken from Basin Plan). Without the barrages, the system would not only become marine (assuming we artificially keep the mouth open with a dredger), it would probably become hypersaline and start to silt up. My understanding is that in the longer term, the changes that the Lakes would be a thriving marine system are unlikely. More likely, it would be a hypersaline swamp.I know there has been modelling done on this but cannot find any published work. I would be keen for others to point to where such reports could be found.

Originally it was thought that adding marine water would stop the Lakes from turning acid. My understanding is that this is not the case, and that the salts in the marine water would still result in a major acidity event. But again, I cannot find any published reports on this. I would be interested if anyone could point to them.

Currently the Lower Lakes are an internationally recognised wetland system. The reasons are many, but include that it is a nesting site for international migrating birds, and is also a drought refuge for many birds that live across the whole Murray Darling Basin system. The values of the wetland system are listed in this report (pdf). When functioning properly, the Lakes are a breeding ground for fish, and the link between the mouth and the River is necessary for some fish species to breed. These fish find their way right up the River system. Changing the Lakes would not just effect the lower end of the River, but the effects would be felt across the whole Basin.

But probably the main reason the Lakes are being kept fresh at the moment, is that if seawater was allowed to flood in, the salt would very quickly find its way up the River and contaminate Adelaide’s water supply. It would be a brave government who told a million people in Adelaide they no longer had a secure supply of water. Mind you, its also a brave government that tells irrigation communities in the River that they are going to have their allocations cut. Who’d be a politician, ah?

The only way the Lakes can be kept in their current form is to keep more water in the River so that it freshens the Lower Lakes and naturally keeps the Murray Mouth open. The Murray Darling Basin Authority suggests that a minimum of 3,000 Gl is required to achieve this plus keep other wetland systems in the River Basin healthy. By putting this much water back into the system, the River Mouth would be kept open 90% of the time. Without it, the River Mouth will only be open 40% of the time. On a side note, it is tempting to think that the River is back to normal now that it is full. But it is important to remember that this year had perfect conditions for heavy rainfalls in the east of Australia. It was an La Nina year and also the Indian Ocean Dipole was negative. Both result in higher rainfall in Australia and the two of them together happens only a few times a century, and when it does  – usually results in massive floods in the Murray Basin. We had floods this year, but the the River at the lower end is only experiencing average flows.  In the long term, without changes to water extractions, we will witness a drying of the River and Lakes again, with the resulting misery for the irrigation community and damage to the ecological systems that sustain the whole River system.

Written by Paul Dalby, 2 November 2010

Posted in conservation, Coorong & Lower Lakes, LitFuse, Murray Darling, research
Tags: ,

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.