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.

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)

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:

• Well known left-wing anarchists, British Petroleum
• Well meaning but hopelessly naive, US Department of Defense
• Anti-establishment extremists, Nestle
• Clearly self-interested, BHP Billiton
• Pixies at the bottom of the garden, Chinese Ministry of Economics
• Agents of skullduggery, NATO Parliamentary Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

There can be no argument that the MDB  is in a state of poor ecological health. A Sustainable Rivers Audit (pdf) in 2008 demonstrated that the ecological health of the Basin was mostly “Poor” or “Very Poor”. The Lower Lakes at the end of the system were at risk of turning to acid on a large scale. An internationally important wetland for migratory birds – the Coorong – has changed its ecological character and bird populations are collapsing (David Paton presentation). The total flow at the Murray Mouth has been reduced by 61 percent which means that the river now ceases to flow through the mouth 40 percent of the time compared to 1 percent of the time in the absence of water resource development (from CSIRO Sustainable Yields Report – pdf). There are high levels of salinity built up along the floodplain at the lower end of the River, and important wetlands along the Murray and Darling Rivers are in a poor state of health. There are a number of fact sheets prepared by CSIRO on some of the economics and science that has supported the need for the Basin Plan here.

Over the same period, irrigation communities have also been doing it tough. During the drought over the last decade, water storages were run down to the point that there was no longer water in the system to support water extractions and allocations began to be cut. It is one of the great triumphs of Australian inventiveness and determination that irrigation industries managed to survive through these times. A mix of clever science, an ability to trade water, on-farm innovation and sheer guts got many irrigators through what could have been a decimation of irrigation across the Basin. This is not to say that communities in the region have not experienced real stress and pain, and that some individuals did not have to make realistic decisions to leave their businesses. I am simply dipping my hat to what I think is an extraordinary achievement.

The environmental, economic and social stress over the last ten years has common causes. The drought was long and severe (see presentation by Karlene Maywald), and this compounded a problem of over-allocation of water across the Basin. It is important to recognise that the River stopped flowing at its Mouth in 2002, before the severe drought hit the region. Water had been allowed to be allocated by the government members of the Murray Darling Basin Commission well in excess of the ability of the River system to support them. The powers given to the Commission seemed to be insufficient to stop this behaviour, and as a result, some river catchments in the Basin have become over-allocated (read the CSIRO Report on Sustainable Yields in the Murray Darling Basin).  Peter Cullen summarised the problems neatly in his paper in 2007.

Basin Plan Summary

I have tried to provide a very brief summary of the Basin Plan in the dotpoints below. I would encourage you to read the Executive Summary at the very least. Remember, this is a proposal at this stage. Your input could make a difference.

• Environmental water required: The amount of additional water needed to protect the health of the river systems in the Basin is between 3,000 and 7,600 GL/y
• The total amount of additional water needed for the protection of groundwater bodies ranges from 99 GL/y to 227 GL/y
• The approach used to develop these numbers has been peer reviewed by both national and international peer reviewers. They confirm that the approach is robust and represents the application of the best available science
• Therefore: Extractions to be reduced 3,000 to 4,000 GL, 22–29% of total diversions (or 27–37% reduction from watercourse diversions
• The current diversion limit is about 13,700 GL/y. Based on a proposal to consider an additional 3,000–4,000 GL/y to the environment, the surfacewater SDL for the Basin as a whole would be 9,700–10,700 GL/y. This represents the long-term ‘environmentally sustainable level of take’.
• This allows for a 3% loss in flows as a result of projected climate change
• Economic impact: The Basin Plan will result in loss of 13% of current gross value of irrigated agriculture production ($805 million/y)
• Likely reduction in gross value of irrigated agriculture production: Cotton 25%, dairy 10%, horticulture <5%
• The reductions in water allocations will result in long-term, permanent reduction in the Basin’s gross regional product in the order of 1.1%
• A significant proportion of Basin communities appear to have sufficient diversity of economic activity and social capital that they will be relatively resilient to the proposed reductions in diversions. However, several regions appear to be at a relatively higher risk of substantial social impacts, including in the north-east of the Basin, the Border Rivers, Gwydir, Namoi and Macquarie–Castlereagh regions and, in the southern Basin, the Lachlan, Loddon, Murrumbidgee and Murray regions
• Smaller towns with heavy dependence on irrigated agriculture could experience greater social and economic implications due to their
  dependence and the lack of alternate industries
• The Authority is concerned that the short-term social and economic impacts on some communities and regions could be severe without structural adjustment and has commissioned further analysis on the potential impacts for small and medium enterprises
• Environmental impact: As a result of more water returning to the River, the Murray Mouth open between 90% and 92% of the time instead of 40% of the time (current projections)
• Most river valleys will no longer be rated as ‘poor’ for end-of-system flows
• The increased water back into the River will stabilise and improve decline in threatened species, water birds & native fish including Murray cod
• Policy arrangements: Transition arrangements will be put in place and farmers will be paid for lost entitlements
• Water will only be bought from willing sellers
• In a drought period, the environment and water users share the pain
• As at 30 June 2010, the Australian water purchase program had acquired the equivalent of 655 GL/y of water. In addition, around $4 billion has been committed in principle to irrigation infrastructure efficiency projects. It is conservatively estimated that under the existing program the combination of water purchasing and the investment in water efficiency infrastructure will recover a long-term average volume of surface water of approximately 2,000 GL/y by 2014
• The Basin Plan will not be fully implemented until 2019

Proposed reductions in diversions

Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Barwon–Darling, Lower Darling (Lower Lachlan Alluvium) – 40%
Namoi, Gwydir, Barwon–Darling (Lower Namoi Alluvium) – 13%
Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges (Angas Bremer) – 38%
Condamine–Balonne (Upper Condamine Alluvium) – 34%
Condamine–Balonne (Upper Condamine Basalts) – 20%
Lachlan Upper (Lachlan Alluvium) – 18%
Murrumbidgee (Lake George Alluvium) – 32%
Namoi Upper (Namoi Alluvium) – 22%
Macquarie–Castlereagh (Lower Macquarie Alluvium) – 40%
Namoi (Peel Valley Alluvium) – 22%
Murrumbidgee Australian Capital Territory (Groundwater) 39%

Note that some of these reductions have already been made due to water purchases or will be made through improvements in efficiency of water distribution.

There is a lot more detail in the Guide to the Basin Plan that I have not touched on here that describes in more detail how the Plan would be implemented. I would encourage you to read the original document if you are interested in this issue.

My view

Putting more water back into the River system is paramount if we want greater certainty for irrigators and healthy river systems that we can all enjoy. Tourism is a major employer in the Basin, and a ugly, sick waterways, and saline floodplains covered with dead trees attracts few visitors. However, I can understand the fear and anger of rural communities who live in the Basin as a result of the proposal put forward by the MDBA. This problem is not of their making. It is government who makes decisions on water allocations. It is the Opposition in Parliament that holds Executive Government to account. It is the Media’s role to interrogate and investigate government decisions and make sure the community understands what is going on. And it is every citizen’s role to hold governments to account and demand good governance or sack the incumbent. In my view, it is our collective failure as Australians that has put us in the position where we need a Basin Plan. It is our collective responsibility to find a way to restore the health of the Murray Darling Basin river systems in a way that does not unduly punish the innocent.

I am not pretending that there are any easy answers here. This is going to be difficult, and will require lots of discussion. The reason it will require lots of discussion, is that we all need to inform ourselves of all sides of the debate. We need to hear and weigh up alternative solutions that are put forward and see if we can find a consensus about how to move forward. Given the tenor of some of the starting positions of they key lobby groups, this may seem a long way off. I am hopeful that these are early starting positions that can mellow over time in the interests of negotiating a win:win outcome.

In the late 1980′s, farming groups and conservation groups came together to address what was then a crisis in dryland salinity and soil degradation. Landcare was formed as a united front for farmers and conservationists who saw that they had more in common that they had differences. The result was a clear mechanism for government to assist and support farmers to better manage their land and protect our common natural resources, and cooperation between farmers and conservationists (who in many cases ended up being the same people).

The same opportunity exists now. A healthy River system is in the interests of all Australians. Prosperous and happy communities in the Basin creates wealth and opportunities for all Australians. Can we work together to achieve these two outcomes? We have time to think this through. The Basin Plan is not adopted until the end of 2011 and will not be implemented fully until 2019.

I would like to challenge some of the assumptions of the current debate and would appreciate your views.

1. Less water means less wealth or less jobs? Perhaps, or it could mean different industries requiring different skills. Are there crops that produce higher profit with less water and more labour? Or different industries altogether? With a major research and investment effort, could we transform agriculture and industry in the region into one that is smarter, more efficient and more profitable?

2. Irrigation is the only driver of the economy in the MDB? It is a major driver, but there is also tourism, services, mining etc. The National Broadband Network will open up massive opportunities for regional communities to attract new businesses and be more entrepreneurial. How can we harness these opportunities to help regional communities thrive?

3. This is about food security? I don’t think so. Our export sectors will be surely hit (cotton, rice and dairy) and the prices of some food will go up (dairy in particular). Horticultural crops will not be hit that hard according to the MDBA. We should also be able to work out how to grow more food with less water through research and innovation.

4. This is about the city vs the country. The city is not against the people in the country. It is for a healthy river system. It is also for a prosperous rural economy and will be willing to pay the price for buying back water to fix past mistakes and to restructure the economy with money for training, research and infrastructure.

5. Putting water back into the River is only good for the greenies. I’m really not an expert here, but my simple maths says that if there is more water in the River, there is more water available during the tough times. This means more certainty for irrigators not less. It means being able to get through the dry times with less cuts to allocation. I could be wrong. I would be interested in other views.

6. The Lower Lakes are just evaporation basins and should be filled with seawater. I have heard many ideas on how to fill the Lower Lakes with seawater to reduce evaporation and save water. This seems like a sensible idea on the surface, but the environmental and economic costs just make it untenable as far as I can make out. The financial costs are much more expensive that saving water through efficiencies upstream and environmentally, any analysis I have seen suggests it would be a catastrophe.

Please leave your comments or joint the debate on twitter using the tag #basinplan

http://twitter.com/presidentdalby

Have your say and get more information

Murray Darling Basin Authority www.mdba.gov.au, 1800 230 067, or email to engagement@mdba.gov.au

There will be an opportunity for community consultation on the Basin Plan being organised by the Murray Darling Basin Authority. You can find out where and when here

ABC webpage for information, comments and interviews on the Basin Plan http://www.abc.net.au/rural/murraydarling/

Lateline interview of Minister Tony Burke, Prof Mike Young and Rob Black http://fb.me/JzS46kxA

Basin Pulse website (a community perspective by Jack Archer)

Water Industry Alliance welcomes the Murray Darling Basin Draft Plan” http://bit.ly/WIAMDB

Community Group website on the Lower Lakes

Paul Myers article in SMH on how building another dam could fix the problems of the MDB

Queensland Economy Watch article hinting that infrastructure development rather than water buybacks will be the most politically palatable tool for making the water savings

(I do not necessarily agree with all of the articles and interview above, I’m trying to collect ideas and put them forward. Please add to these in the comments section)

Written by Paul Dalby, 8 October 2010

” I am indebted to David Chittleborough for bringing this paper to my attention. The paper has many authors reflecting its origins in a “problem solving course” and so is an expression of the multi-discipline effort that will be needed to help our societal transition from the addiction to oil and continuous material growth.

I found this paper inspiring – it expresses many of the ideas that I have been struggling with over the last few years. It reinforces the need for us to work hard at identifying the options for doing things differently that will give a better future – a renewable quality of life.

Here is a concluding quote from the paper – I recommend it to you.

“As we learn more about the process of cultural evolution, we can better anticipate the required changes… but the task is huge and will take a concerted and sustained effort if we hope to make the transition a relatively smooth one. It will require a whole systems approach at multiple scales in space and time. It will require integrated, systems-level redesign of our entire socio-ecological regime, focused explicitly and directly on the goal of sustainable quality of life rather than the proxy of unlimited material growth.
It must acknowledge physical limits, the nature of complex systems, a realistic view of human behaviour and well-being, the critical role of natural and social capital, and the irreducible uncertainty surrounding these issues.”

Written by Paul Dalby, 12 September 2010

The State Government will provide $25 million over five years for the institute, which will be matched in kind by the CSIRO, the University of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. The institute will provide independent scientific advice on South Australia’s water system, improving the State Government’s ability to forecast threats to water security and develop an integrated approach to water management.

This is an important investment by the State Government in the long term prosperity and sustainability of South Australia, and a great tribute to the vision and persistence of the South Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Ian Chessell.

Written by Paul Dalby, 29 May 2010

• Economic report into biodiversity crisis reveals price of consuming the planet

“You can’t value nature per se, other than to say it’s priceless, and you’re part of nature and you would not exist were you not,” declares the man in charge of the biggest attempt ever to measure nature’s worth.

“But what you can do,” he continues, “is measure the economic value of services that come to you from nature.”

The speaker is Pavan Sukhdev, study leader of the UN’s three year project to measure The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). The project should show us all how expensive the global destruction of the natural world has become and – it is hoped – persuade us to slow down.

Written by Paul Dalby, 23 May 2010

To quote General McMaster in the article:  “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-sizable.”

True.

Ideas, arguments and concepts are more readily tested through dialogue. Poor thinking and specious arguments can be quickly torn apart when a room of questioning minds has the chance to engage with the presenter in a discussion. This is why tutorials are more useful for learning than lectures. t is why scientific papers must pass through the test of peer review before they can be published in scientific journals. It is why debates are more interesting and enlightening that public speeches. And it is why new media is so powerful. Traditional media such as newspapers, television and websites are one way paths for information and ideas.

New media on the other hand, has allowed the audience to talk back, through comments on blogs, videos, audio and so on. Traditional media has caught on. The highest ranking radio shows are talk back. Television is shifting from talking heads, to talking heads with audience interaction. Online news sites allow comments on their articles. This is all very healthy, and is an antidote for the great concentration of media ownership around the world.

Back to PowerPoint. While PowerPoint can be a powerful and useful communication tool, it does not beat conversation. It’s a great way of getting a conversation going if done well, and I’ll seen some fabulous and appalling Powerpoint presentations. But providing sufficient time for the concepts in the presentation to be tested by a thoughtful audience is just as important as the presentation itself.

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 May 2010

The 18 ‘indicator’ assets are:

• Lower Balonne River Floodplain System
• Narran Lakes
• Lower Goulburn River Floodplain
• Gwydir Wetlands
• Booligal Wetlands
• Great Cumbung Swamp
• Lachlan Swamp
• Lower Darling River System
• Macquarie Marshes
• Barmah-Millewa Forest
• The Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth,
• Riverland – Chowilla Floodplain (including Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands)
• Edward-Wakool River System
• Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota Forest
• Hattah Lakes
• Lower Murrumbidgee River Floodplain
• Mid Murrumbidgee River Wetlands
• Wimmera River Terminal Wetlands

This is good, IF the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has as its target – regular flows out the end of the Murray Mouth so that the Mouth remains open most of the time, which will also ensure that the most biologically important wetlands in the Murray Darling system – the Coorong and Lower Lakes – are kept healthy. If the Authority accepts that the  Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth are “indicator” assets, the only way the Plan can be seen as a success is if flows out of the Mouth are re-established. The only way this can be achieved is through a major reduction in extractions.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

Mr Matthews said that some of the key requirements were for less-fragmented water science institutions, optimisation of research infrastructure; and better user/provider connectivity.

In South Australia, there have several attempts to achieve this over the last few years, but the formation of a single Water Agency under Minister Paul Caica, and the proposed formation of a single, virtual water research “institute” in South Australia is an exciting new development and should be a huge leap forward in achieving the aspirations outlined by Mr Matthews.

Some of this article is quoted from EnviroInfo. Subscribe

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

The Productivity Commission says much can be done to improve the Federal Government’s $3.1 billion Murray-Darling water buyback program in a recent research report.

The buyback and a larger irrigation infrastructure program are being used to recover water for the environment, and ease the transition to the much lower water diversion levels expected under a Basin Plan.

The report raises some concerns about aspects of the design and sequencing of the strategy, noting problems in having commenced the buyback before the Basin Plan is ratified. However, Commissioner Neil Byron said ‘There is still much that can be done to improve the recovery and management of water for the environment in the Basin’.

In particular, the Commission recommends that:

• the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) set ‘sustainable diversion limits’ under the Basin Plan in a way that balances environmental, social and economic tradeoffs (possibly requiring legislative amendment)
• The buyback is occurring before sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) are set under the Basin Plan, and before the liability for policy-induced changes to water availability has been resolved. This is creating uncertainty in the minds of irrigators and affecting the efficiency of the buyback.
• SDLs must be based on scientific assessments of the amount of water that is required to avoid compromising key environmental assets and processes. Good science is a necessary but not sufficient basis for optimising the use of the Basin’s water resources. The value people place on environmental outcomes, the opportunity cost of foregone irrigation, and the role of other inputs, such as land management, must also be considered. If the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) precludes this approach, it should be amended.
• The same cost effectiveness tests should be applied to all water recovery options. Purchasing water from willing sellers (at appropriate prices) is a cost-effective way of meeting the Government’s liability for policy-induced changes in water availability. Subsidising infrastructure is rarely cost effective in obtaining water for the environment, nor is it likely to be the best way of sustaining irrigation communities.
• Other water products (for example, seasonal allocations and options contracts) are potentially valuable in meeting short-term environmental needs.
• Tenders are sound purchasing mechanisms where active markets for water entitlements do not exist. But where active markets do exist, acquiring water directly from those markets is likely to be more efficient.
• The 4 per cent limit on out-of-area trade of water entitlements should be eliminated as soon as possible. Limits on the amount of entitlements that can be sold to the Commonwealth through the buyback should also be eliminated.
• Using the buyback to achieve distributional goals, system rationalisation or to manage salinity is likely to compromise its efficiency and effectiveness. Other more direct instruments should be used to address these issues.
• Governance arrangements for the recovery and management of water for the environment are fragmented. Greater coordination of water recovery and environmental watering by Basin jurisdictions is required.

The report is available here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

This is a more effective use of a Hollywood actor’s time and resources than adopting children from Africa…

For more information, visit the Water Credit website.

Written by Paul Dalby on 13 March 2010

When I ask around, even the climate skeptics see the need to shift from out currently energy mix to an alternative, for reasons other than climate change. the majority of Australians support nuclear power as an option. There are powerful vested interests who would like to stop alternatives being developed, but they are not so powerful that a strong government couldn’t push through their concerns. The real problem seems to be that the Federal Government in particular raises so much money from coal royalties that they a terrified of a loss in revenue. So a plan to move Australia’s energy mix forward must address this issue. A solution to the gap in revenue to pay for hospitals, roads and stimulus packages needs to be found that is economically viable and politically acceptable.

Written by Paul Dalby on 5 March 2010

The idea of a community driven plan for the River is a good one.

Alastair and I would love your thoughts.

“I attended the Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting at Goolwa on Feb 2^nd and it was a total and utter waste of time. Scheduled to last for only two hours, it wasted the first forty five minutes on total trivia – nothing of substance was produced. I left.

The crisis that is the MDB needs action now. The River Murray is rapidly dying from its mouth upwards and twenty of the Basin’s twenty three rivers are listed as being in poor or very poor health. The time for endless consultation, discussion, review and debate is long gone. There is a wartime-like urgency for the MDBA to show leadership and take immediate action to address the long term causes of this crisis – gross over extraction of the Basin’s water, colossal losses associated with 13,000 kms of open channels, outdated, inefficient irrigation practices and dysfunctional/ non existent metering.

But the MDBA does nothing; its priorities are all wrong. It ignores these urgent causes and instead busies itself with trivial ‘community’ meetings that have all the urgency and relevance of a senior citizen’s tea party. It hides behind an endless, comatose bureaucratic process and puts its faith in a ‘Basin Plan’, a de facto code for continuing delay. A convenient escape clause that allows the authority to continue to avoid the hard decisions that are decades overdue. As a distraction, it puts forward obscure projects that address obscure problems and the Rudd government throws vast amounts of money at them, hoping they will go away. But they don’t and large portions of this money disappear into the black hole of bureaucracy, leaving little for the rivers.

The cold reality facing the Basin Plan is that it will be subjected to the same labyrinthine bureaucratic process and years will pass before actual results appear along our rivers, likely to be as late as 2014. These are critical years that our rivers cannot afford to lose.

And the reason for this appalling 40 yr paralysis?

Political parties operate entirely through a prism of self-interest. The Rudd government is paranoid that the solutions required will prove so unpopular they will be unelectable for a decade. So they put their narrow interests first, and nothing is done.

And the answer?

The communities of the Basin must bypass the politicians and bureaucrats and seize the initiative. They must become leaders and visionaries and take control of the Basin’s problems, leaving the politicians follow in their wake.

To do this they must produce a simple plan of action that can be adopted Basin-wide. When it has sufficient support, it should be taken to Canberra. If both major parties approved, the longstanding political paralysis and odium that has prevented progress for 40 years would be removed. Politicians would be relieved from the onerous task of finding solutions to the Basin’s problems. And the communities, the people who know the most about the rivers, would be free to forge ahead with their own remedies.”

Written by Alastair Wood, 8 February 2010

The reason we have a political process is to try to balance all of this information and all of these needs. You will never be able to model it perfectly and come up with THE right answer. We live in a political system where all ideas are contestable, even ideas based on very sound science. This is a good thing. Whenever communities have vested all knowledge and power in a few people – disaster has always ensued.

If scientists want to be influential in this world, they must be:

1. Very honest about what the science says. As we can see from the climate change debate, it does not help the cause of putting across a credible message on science when the results are exaggerated to try and build support for a particular cause. Let the truth tell its own story. In the end civilisations rise and fall on the political process. There is not much you can do to change that. Go along for the ride.

2. Very vocal about what the science says, but more circumspect about what the response should be. Scientists can appear arrogant when they presume that they know the right response. It is important to suggest policy responses and explain what you think the implications are of different approaches, but stick to your knitting and talk about what you know about most of all – the science.

3. Tell your story. People love stories, which is why singing contests, sport, soap operas and crime shows are more popular than shows about science. If you want to reach more people, put a story around what you are trying to say. Corey’s blog-post on  how frogs were disappearing because of the global appetite for frogs legs went viral because it was a interesting story. And the science message got out as a result. Some scientists  complain to me that this is “spin”. True, but not in the sense that you are trying to deceive someone, just that you are trying to get them interested. You are showing respect to your audience by “spinning” the message in an interesting way.

4. I need to hear it at least seven times before I’ve heard it. Putting out one media release, or one article or one presentation and thinking that you’ve done the job of communicating is delusional. Good communicators get their message out lots of times in lots of different ways. When your audience has heard the message so many times they are getting sick of it, (think Kevin Rudd and “working families” or Tony Abbot and “great big Labor tax”) they have finally heard it.

5. Maintain patience and pressure. It is sometimes frustrating that no action occurs even when you think it is obvious that it should. Don’t burn your bridges by taking it out on policy makers in government. You may need to work with them for many years to come, and they are likely to get more powerful over time, not less.  But on the other hand, don’t let up the pressure. Maintain a professional tone to your discussions and presentations in the media. In the end, you will mostly be respected if you keep telling the story about the science. And policy makers can be just as frustrated as you about the lack of action as you are, even if they are not allowed to show it.

I’ll finish this post with a quote from Machievelli, one of the great thinkers on political science, said that “… nothing is more difficult than to introduce a new order. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new…”

True

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 February 2010

Written by Paul Dalby on 19 October 2009

I see researchers becoming more interested in working across disciplines, working collaboratively and solving real world problems, but not for the sake of it, to discover new things and do things previously unimaginable. They still work alone and on narrow fields of intense specialty, because break-throughs are found there also. If trans-disciplinary research is going to become more widely adopted, it needs to demonstrate its value, and there need to be tools individuals can pick up to quickly adopt their current expertise to new problem solving processes.

Mike Seyfang’s blog on design, thinking and science describes nicely how transdisciplinary science is a substantially difference science than traditional science collaboration. It requires new skills. In a podcast linked to on Mike’s blog, Tamath Rainsford argues that for transdisciplinary science to succeed, we need  “specialising generalists”, people who know enough about a discipline to add value to discussions across a number of discipline areas (eg. Wayne Meyer from University of Adelaide can debate eloquently with economics, agronomists, modellers and soil scientists).  She also argues that we need to train scientists with new tools  so that they can more effectively participate in transdisciplinary research, such as soft operations research, systems thinking, heuristics, philosophy, working in teams, communication, risk management, decision making processes.

I have seen scientists training their students in these tools for the last 5-10 years, and the number who are is growing. Hugh Possingham, now at the University of Queensland, trains his students in these tools, as well as games theory. His research group is one of the most successful ecological research teams in Australia.

Mike list some common themes that emerge from his reading and thinking on transdisciplinary research. Mikes learnings are in italic, followed by my comments in normal txt:

• Play – a key ingredient in emergent behaviour, playing around with stuff leads to interesting possibilities and great questions. Who resources this stuff? The challenge fopr me is that I need to grow the business. Play must lead to tangible results reasonably soon, or must not distract (too much) from going to where the resources are
• Expand – pure reductionist thinking and methods have served us well in the scientific method and will continue to do so. While we are busy learning more and more about less and less, we should take time out to expand our horizons from time to time. Agree, but again, who is encouraging, rewarding and resourcing? Is this why large research programs are successful over small, short term projects. They give people the opportunity to experiment and play?
  
• Work at the boundaries – one of the key tenets of Transdisciplinarity is to step outside the comfort zone of a single discipline, go beyond collaboration with other disciplines by working at the boundaries. Warning: will expose one to risk and possibly the need to develop new language. (worth it). I’ve seen some of the most exciting ideas for research invented around a table when two specialists meet for the first time. It is beautiful to watch.
• Embrace Risk – learn to fail cheaply and often. You have described my life.
• Open Co-operation – pass it forward, share. The best minds do this. They are not afraid to give ideas away. Because they know they have too many for one lifetime to resolve.
• Swim up-stream and be counter-cultural. I’m not sure this relates to trans-disciplinary science, but it makes old rebels like Mike and I feel smug saying it.
• Trans-disciplinary does not replace traditional research – is an added component. Let’s be careful about telling over-worked, under-paid scientists that they need to throw away their old models and adopt our new great ideas on how they should be doing research. These are new tools to add to the researchers amoury, along with statistics, gell blocks and coffee.
• Speed the Process of Innovation through prototypes, enabling more breakthrough. I have been slow on the uptake on this. I have been resistant to the idea of investing development funds on research, but perhaps if targeted cleverly, will lead to good returns in terms of new business.

Would love to read responses to these thoughts.

Written by Paul Dalby on 1 October 2009

This makes me think more carefully about the purpose of putting information online. What is “news” and what is “content”. In fact, if I make information available in the way Mike is suggesting, “news” is “content”, so must be carefully constructed so that it makes sense as consumable news and as long term content that has value years from now.

Barry Brook’s blog “Brave New Climate” is a case in point. It is a mix of news and content, but the news remains of interest in the context of the rest of the blog-posts. Over time, he has build up a valuable library of content, and his army of readers and commenters grows at an ever increasing rate.

It also reminds me that communication is about listening as well as talking/writing. By seeing Adelaide Now re-interpret Mike’s original videos, he gets to listen to how others perceive his original content. Too often organisations lock their material down making it difficult for others to re-interpret. Does this mean they are not interested in listening?

Written by Paul Dalby on 17 September 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 September 2009