Send a message to Penny Wong and let her know that we need a new system of water management that better protects these important assets.

Written by Paul Dalby

Imagine that Kevin Rudd announced that rather than report his budget in terms of how much income he receives and how much he spends, and rather than setting a target for surpluses, he is going to change the way he manages the budget. Instead of reporting how much is left and whether the budget balanced, he is simply going to report how much each of his departments is going to receive and report on how well they spent their money. He wasn’t going to be all that fussed about measuring how much each department spends, but is going to give rough estimates instead. He is going to disband the Reserve Bank, and the states and the Commonwealth governments will get together regularly to set monetary policy.

Now imagine that times get tough. The economy slows down and there is much less money available in the Australian economy. Kevin’s response will be to start borrowing heavily from overseas to keep cash flowing into his departments. After all, they are doing a good job, and people expect to continue to receive their services and handouts. Pretty soon, credit starts drying up, so departments don’t have the cashflow they need to maintain their spending, so they have to start cutting back. There is no Reserve Bank to dry up the supply of credit, but because of the angst and political heat for the governments of Australia, they continue to borrow wherever they can. Eventually, there is almost no credit available anywhere in the world. Cash reserves are drying up, so Kevin announces that South Australia will receive no further funding. Any money that is generated in the economy will be spent in Queensland, NSW and Victoria first, and South Australia will have to wait until the economy improves much more before it receives Commonwealth funding again.

Of course, if this was the economy, Kevin Rudd would have been removed from office through a popular revolt, an election or a dismissal well before the final horrible scenario. And if it really did get as bad as I described, the IMF and World Bank would declare a failed state and jump in with offers of financial assistance, as long as we changed our wicked ways.

In the Murray Darling System, there is no balanced budget. We are not measuring how much water is being taken out along the river. We do not measure how much water flows into South Australia. We have been borrowing heavily from our storages to maintain our current activities despite the current drought, and despite the fact that we were not leaving enough water in the system to maintain the health of wetlands and the Coorong BEOFRE the drought started. We have run the storages down to nearly empty. When there are flows upstream, the current Murray Darling Agreement says that upstream states can use it all up to a point where they have sufficient and only then is South Australia able to share in the flows. This despite the fact that the Coorong is on its last legs, the Lower Lakes are below sea level and at risk of developing acid sulphate soils, and Adelaide being 18 months away from being unable to drink water from the River Murray if there are no further flows.

If this were the economy, we would be a failed state. In fact, the states of Australia have failed, and badly. The Murray Darling Basin Agreement doesn’t work effectively and needs to be replaced with a new system that does four things:

1. Budget flows from the mouth backwards. That is, just like Kevin Rudd is setting a target for budget surpluses of 1.5% of GDP, flows of water out of the Mouth of the River should be budgeted for first, before any other use from the River.

2. Water inflows and water use should be measured along the length of the Murray Darling system, including tributaries, groundwater flows and farm dams. Measuring only some of the budget is the same as not having a budget

3. There must be an independent arbiter that sets the amount of water that can be taken from the River every year, just like we have a Reserve Bank. Like the Reserve Bank, the independent authority should be truly independent, and not have its decisions modified by a frightened government that doesn’t like the consequences of the decision. This is unlike Penny Wong’s current proposal, which gives the Commonwealth Government the ability to change the decision of the new “independent” Murray Darling Basin Authority if it disagrees with the decision.

4. Establishes real consequences for over-extracting water from the Basin. Currently, there is no punishment for any state over-extracting water from their system. This sets a perverse incentive to do the wrong thing. There must be painful financial disincentives for individual states to “steal” water from their counterparts. National Competition Policy sets such measures for economic matters, and the principles should be extended to managing a shared water resource.

These ideas were informed and stimulated by Peter Cullen and Mike Young. Some of their talks can be downloaded from:

• Peter Cullen at the Schultz Oration
• Mike Young and Jim McColl: Speeding up the Water Reform Process
• Mike Young: Pricing your Water
• Mike Young: A Water-Proofed Basin

Written by Paul Dalby, 2 May 2008

I was therefore very interested in the recent blog on the Breakthrough blog, which summarised an article by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry from the Personal Democracy Forum, an online magazine and annual conference on how technology is changing politics.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/03/youtubes_political_revolution.shtml

The article argues that the internet is changing the possibility of political debate. The dominance of television has reduced political debate largely to sound bites. To quote the article: “In the 1968 presidential election, the average amount of time given to a sound bite from presidential candidate on the network news shows was 43 seconds…. By 2004 … 10.3 seconds”.

Barack Obama has embraced new media technologies and is turning this model upside down. He is giving lengthy, substantive speeches, and putting them all on YouTube and then encouraging his supporters to spread them around. The following figures are direct quotes from the Breakthrough blog:

So far, Obama’s videos have been viewed more than 33 million times on YouTube.com — and that’s not counting partial views, since YouTube only reports a full viewing as a “view.” His campaign has uploaded more than 800 video clips, and adds several more a day.

The average number of views for these top ten is currently more than 1.1 million (nearly double the average from a month ago!)

The average length of these ten videos is 13.3 minutes.

There have been nearly 3.9 million views of the longest of Obama’s most popular videos, his “A More Perfect Union” speech on race in America.

Alan Milburn (former British health secretary) was quoted in the Weekend Australian (22nd March 2008) that those political parties in the UK who hand over power to the people will be successful in the 21st Century. He argues that in the 19th Century state power quite rightly grew to “guarantee clean water, safe streets and legal rights”, but in the second half of the 20th Century, state power began to wind back and power was handed to corporations and non-government or semi-autonomous institutions. Alan argues that we will evolve this process further in the 21st Century. New technologies such as the internet and universal education means that representative democracy from the past can evolve into a more participatory democracy. Modern challenges such as the environment, he argues, cannot be solved by government alone, and I would add, perhaps not by markets alone. Alan writes, “the modern state should not just enable. It should empower people…”. I would argue that Barrack Obama has read this mood change and by using social networks (including on the internet) is creating the huge support base he has in the US.

When I’m talking to my neighbours, colleagues and family, they all want to be part of the solution to the current water crisis. They
despise water restrictions with a gutteral hatred, because it disempowers them. They have all sorts of crazy, weird schemes for
saving the Murray and are furious “the government” hasn’t done more to provide water for the environment. They want to be informed and be
able to think through what the best solutions might be. They fill halls and lecture theatres to listen to Peter Cullen and Mike Young and
download postcasts and read blogs of David Paton and Minister Maywald.

Yesterday I got a call from a friend of a friend. He heard that the Minister for Water Security in South Australia and Professor Mike Young, a leading spokesman of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, were giving a talk at the University of Adelaide. They had actually given the speech the night before (in a display of great generosity to a small group of passionate students), so he had missed out. I was able to direct the gentleman to a couple of podcasts of speeches given by the Minister and Mike Young on this blog, which he was quite excited about. These podcasts gave him access to ideas who would otherwise not get so easily.

• Minister Karlene Maywald on the Future of the River Murray
• Mike Young and Jim McColl: Speeding up the Water Reform Process
• Mike Young: Pricing your Water
• Mike Young: A Water-Proofed Basin

The podcasts of speeches on my blog don’t get Obama-levels of downloads, but they are popular, and continue to be downloaded long after the event. Perhaps these new forms of media offer the exciting possibility of more substantial political debate on important, but complex matters like water management, climate change and environmental management. Perhaps this could lead to greater interest and engagement by the public in political debates. And perhaps those politicians, academics and government agencies that encourage people to participate in discussions and put their ideas and messages out through growing social networks as well as television, radio and newspaper, will garner the greatest influence.

Written by Paul Dalby, 28 March 2008

Many scientists I know are passionate about helping to change the world and to make it a better place. Peter was one of the few who was able to successfully make it happen at a national scale. He did this by using devastating logic, but without any sarcasm or arrogance. He carefully constructed his arguments in simple language so that everyone could understand them. He did not try to sound clever, nor did he attack individuals. He was always polite and respectful, giving him the key to the doors of power where he was listened to. He had a wry sense of humour which helped soften the often troubling messages he gave out on the difficulties we face in over-coming past inadequacies and present challenges in managing water in Australia.

Peter has helped set a framework for us to manage our water in a way that will sustain us now and in the future. His ideas are imbued in the National Water Initiative, a blue-print for managing water in this country, as well as in the numerous talks and papers he presented as a member of the Wentworth Group. It is now up to us to implement these principles with speed and purpose.

Late last year, Peter came to Adelaide to give the Shultz Oration, where he spoke about water scarcity and futures for South Australia (see blog). I helped organise the podcasting for this event with Michelle Freeman. While I was running back and forwards organising equipment, I saw Peter stuck at a lift, which was not moving because a fire alarm had gone off in the building. It was a hot day, he was not in the best of health and he had been waiting outside in a wheelchair. I called a security guard from the University and we found an alternative route for him to get to the lecture theatre. It was quite a drama and Peter was pretty flustered by the time we made it to the auditorium. He then gave a flawless, inspiring lecture to raptuous acclaim. At the end of the event when I was packing up, he came over to me to thank me for helping him out and knighted me a Knight of the Order of the Wentworth Group on the spot. The whole experience summed up his professionalism, kindness, generosity and humour.

You will be missed Peter. So long. And thanks.

Paul Dalby

The Murray-Darling Basin in Australia is over one million square kilometres in area, and provides water to the majority (70%) of Australia’s irrigated agriculture (1.4 million hectares). It’s management is complicated because the Basin extends over five states and one territory. Until recently, the Basin was managed under a joint agreement – called the Murray Darling Basin Agreement. 41 per cent of Australia’s gross value of agricultural production (1992) is produced in this region. It is also an important water supply for many rural towns, and the capital city of the state of South Australia – Adelaide, the city I live in. The two main tributaries are the Darling River in the north and the Murray River in the south.

The Rivers of the Murray Darling Basin are under terrible stress. The largest state in the Basin, NSW, has taken more than its share of water that all the states agreed to (called “The Cap”). All states do not meter all water use, and more water is extracted from the river systems than is agreed under the Cap. Since irrigation began in the Basin in the 1800′s, salinity has been a problem, as water that moves into the groundwater collects salt and then flows back into the River. The response to this increased salt load into the River has been to build salt interception schemes along the rivers which intercept salty groundwater before it reaches the rivers. Nevertheless, the river floodplain has become increasingly salinised, killing trees and wetlands. The River has been under significant stress of reduced flows and salinity for some time. In the year 2000, a series of drought years created a major crisis for the River. All of the storage dams along the river are now at low levels. The River stopped flowing at its mouth, putting the Ramsar listed Coorong estuary in mortal danger. In 2008, the large Lower Lakes at the bottom of the river are drying up, and only a series of barrages stops the sea water backflowing into these freshwater lakes and back up the river. Irrigators do not have access to secure supplies of water, and are under huge financial stress or have left the land, leaving orchards and other crops to die. Wetlands have dried up and the floodplain of the lower reaches of the river are white with salt. The Coorong estuary has almost completely changed character, from an estuarine environment to a hypersaline system of low diversity. Some birds species are at imminent risk of extinction in this region.

The original Murray Darling Agreement has collapsed, and the management of the River is now undertaken through a series of management meetings, which must seem like crisis meetings, by a group of senior bureaucrats called the “Senior Officials Group”. Every month the news gets worse as the drought continues. The Lower Lakes of the Murray River are so dry, they are now at risk of developing acid sulphate soils. If the drought continues, the salinity of the River will continue to increase more rapidly. The security of water to the city of Adelaide, with a population of over one million people, is at risk.

If this is a harbinger of climate change, then the Basin cannot continue to be managed as it was in the past. The results of this management system is system collapse in dry periods.

In my interview with Mike Young, he proposes a new model for managing the Basin. He argues for a different management system that is much more resilient to long periods of drought, for which there is a higher risk under climate change. The essence of the changes are:

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

I am not going to repeat the article that Mike wrote. He is much better than I at presenting his arguments. I would encourage you to read his full article (link above) and listen to the podcast.

Written by Paul Dalby. For more information – http://www.litfuse.com.au

Feed – http://feeds.lifuse.com.au/litfuse 

For more information on the Droplet Series, visit http://www.myoung.net.au/water/

I interviewed Professor Mike Young on his latest “Droplet”, Pricing your water – is there a smart way to do it? In this Droplet co-authored with Jim McColl from CSIRO, they propose a pricing model for urban water which varies depending on supply. Currently, there are many different pricing models for water in Australia. The majority are based on an “inclining block” model (this is not something you would find at Stonehenge, but is a system where the price of water increases in steps, the more you use). About half include a fixed charge. When water supplies are not enough to meet demand, water utilities reduce demand by imposing restrictions on water use. See the water restrictions I am living under in my home town of Adelaide.

Mike and Jim argue that a better pricing model would be to remove the fixed charge, and charge more for water when supply is lower (such as in the current drought) and less when water is more abundant. Equity issues could be addressed by providing people with low incomes a rebate on their water bill, or other government assistance. In their view, such a system would achieve a match between supply and demand, ensures an equitable access to water and would encourage greater innovation and investment in more water supply.

He presented the Schultz Oration supported by the Flinders Research Centre for Coastal and Catchment Environments, exploring water scarcity and futures for South Australia, held 16 November 2007.

Some thoughts from from Peter’s talk:

• We have run the storages nearly dry in the Murray Darling System. Salinity in River Murray is getting higher. This may mean that we may not be able to withdraw water for the city of Adelaide in 2008 or 2009, even though there is some water left in the River
• People upstream from South Australia are not necessarily wasting water. Most cotton and rice growers have not been irrigating for three years
• We are facing a hotter, drier climate and less water, unprecedented since European settlement
• The Murray Darling system has been over-allocated for the last 10-20 years
• We have a blue-print for coping with the over-allocation of water in the Murray Darling Basin, called the National Water Initiative
• In the recent biennial assessment of the progress against the National Water Initiative, South Australia was given a reasonably good score card, but is lagging in dealing with over-allocation of groundwater resources and creating an independent water regulator
• Many irrigators of perennial crops in the Murray Darling Basin will watch their crops die this year
• South Australian’s use over 400 litres per person per day, one of the highest rates in Australia
• The cost of water for all users is likely to increase

Peter’s analysis? Everybody believes that their need for water is the most important. It’s time to take action on these issues for the good of the resources, not just noisy interest groups. “Here, here” says I. Some actions could include:

• A single, simple, common registry of water entitlements across the Murray Darling Basin
• Creation of a single, independent water regulator in South Australia
• Adelaide creates a wider range of water supplies (such as desalination, recycling) to cope with greater uncertainty of supply
• Fast track the current water planning for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges
• Adelaide could do more in improving demand management of water during the current drought
• The $10B to fix the Murray Darling Basin could be used to transition the rural communities to cope with the new climate of less water, with greater variability of rainfall (less perennial crops, less dairy farms, shifting horticulture to more appropriate areas in the landscape, buy water out of the system) rather than fixing infrastructure that supports an agriculture of last century
• Let’s get used to less water and make the most of what we have

Peter and I had a bit of fun before and after the presentation, and he knighted me Knight of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists that Peter is a member of. Thanks Peter!

Paul Dalby

Register for this feed: http://feeds.ltifuse.com.au/litfuse