Yesterday (18/6/08) a news item motivated me to post this message. It was suggested that the Murray-Darling system is dying. I don't no whether this assertion is true, but I DO know that common pasture is being irrigated over millions of hectares in the Murray-Darling Basin as we speak. Weather patterns have not been favourable in the Basin for a decade but we continue to demand that the sick man runs a marathon. Blaming cotton and rice farmers for this situation misses the point. It is only by addressing the WHOLE issue of use and abuse of water in Australia that we have a hope of saving ourselves. After all, the prosperity of our country largely rests on mining (a finite resource) and the Murray-Darling Basin.

The funny thing is they said they have only 6 month to "act", yet there is nothing they can do without rain. Its all in the hands of the weather now. But I agree if winter rains did not fall in the next 3 month then its goodbye Murray River, it would not be there next year.

Well I can tell you that at least for the MBD only small parts would be getting irrigated now as it is the end of irrigation seaon and most have bugger all allocation to use anyway. Modern day society feels the need for sombody to be blamed for everything that is bad in our lives. It missed the point to blame farmers full stop. We do not grow food/fibre and simply dump it. It is grown to feed/clothe people.

There would be no point farming if we were not feeding/clothing people so to blame farmers for ruining the river is stupid. People need the produce coming from farms so they should also think themsleves to blame.

Just like balming oil companies for high prices. It is our fault for using so bloody much of it!

I don't have time for further comment so I will add to this later but I will leave it for now with the point that if we didn't have an irrigation system out there we would be importing all of the food that relies on an irrigation system. How much more would we pay and what other river out there would be ruined to feed out apetites? Seems that people forget that in order to have a population the size of our planet, things cannot be kept pristine all over the planet and still feed them all. I think that maybe another question that needs to be put forward is should we have some areas of the globe FULLY devoted to agriculture and therefor it is the most important thing and have other areas TOTALLY protested for nature. Having to keep trees and wildlife in a farming situation hurts production and complicates our businesses

Adon,
I don't understand how the allocation system works, I have to admit. But I have seen South Australian farmers irrigating what looked to me like sand-dunes while next door (so to speak) Lake Albert is supposed to be dying. That was in February, but a month ago flood irrigation was in evidence in Victoria from Cohuna to Pyramid Hill. Admittedly, irrigation around Kerang is no longer popular. Something to do with salt, I believe. Towns like Mildura and Griffiths are lush oases in a dessicated landscape. But how long can this fool's paradise last. How long can the Waranga channel be allowed to overflow with water while the whole basin is bled to death?

We irrigate places like the riverina and MBD, which is semi desert in places, because we're building houses all over the viable farming land closer to the coast. We can't grow the food close to where people live, so they've cleverly come up with a Scheme where non-viable areas are irrigated so food can be grown.

When they came up with it, it was a "miracle", man's mastery over nature. Now we're seeing the result.

We have to stop having/importing more people, that's the first step. we can't keep growing like we're doing.

The only way to solve the problems is through national investment. Agriculture is backbone of human society and production of food is as important as it gets. Obviously we have over allocated water but we cant just go and destroy the livelihoods of the farmers we all depend upon. The government should invest in converting farmers from unproductive high water crops to more efficient methods. For instance olives would be perfect for many inland environments but they require long term investment at the expense of short term income. Farmers cant afford that but governments could.
cheers

Funny that the lakes in SA are being used as "proof that the murray is dying. Truth is that they are regulated and if they were to "save" them, the best thing to do would be to open the gates to the sea and let it pour in. A hell of a lot of the lakes over there are "reclaimed" esturine systems that in times of low/no flow they would be salt water. ATM the levels of the lake are BELOW sealevel.

Yes there is a hell of a lot of water taken out of the system now and untilo very recently more irrigation liceances were being release and may still be happening. The fact is that all of the hype going around about saving the river is not helping becasue the only thing that will help the river is water and we need rain to get flows. If greenies got their way and the dams were opened up, there would be maybe a few weeks flow and then nothing again but this time there would not even be a trickle. A flush would be nice but that would mean nothing in the longer term. But once again the river is being used as a political football for pointscoring. The river is SUPPOSED to go dry in drought. We have been far too familiar with the river being regulated and happily flowing all the time when infact in it's natural state, the river would be very low or back to water holes every summer/Autumn.

NO - that would be the worst thing to do....
There are only 2 lakes - not 'a hell of a lot', and they are freshwater lakes.... and also not 'reclaimed'...

Dunno about that Tim E. The salt sea water used to go up as far back as Mannum when the river used to stop flowing before dams started on the Murray I have heard from several sources over the years!

yes but they arent called salt water lakes - they are fresh-water lakes.
Wouldnt salt water just increase the salinity problems that are currently ruining the lakes atm?

I assumed they were estuarine lakes (you know, various levels of brackishness). Be a tourist and go down there. The barrages were installed to convert Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina into fresh-water reservoirs for irrigation. The South Australian government is considering a new barrage at Wellington. Whether they would then demolish the barrages into the Coorong, I don't know. But I'm with Adon on this:-THEY SHOULD DO, and return the Lakes to something approaching their natural state. Needless to say, local vested interest is horrified: "We can't put salt water on our sand-dunes!!!"

Ok well it depends on if you want to see all the local dairy farmers leave plus a whole heap of other people who rely on the lakes for fresh water...
Not to mention kill off several marine animals etc...
I'm just wondering which option would make more sense...

Well it would depend on what you want to achieve for the area. This argument comes up often when we talk of what we believe to be natural eco-systems - up here in the Mountains it's all to do with fire regimes, down there it's to do with flow regimes.

If you want the lakes to return to pre-european conditions then you have to open them to the see, if that is indeed what used to happen. The marine eco-systems will change, just as they did when the lakes were blocked off. But any animal that is there that cannot survive in salt or brackish water shouldn't be there.

From our point of view these new eco-systems become the norm and individuals and environmental groups get it in their heads that these are the ecosystems that we must protect - even if they're exotic to the area.

Recently my parents applied to local council to have a tree removed from their land. They were rejected on the basis that the tree is locally endangered. What they failed to inform my parents was that the reason it was locally endangered was because it was growing about 500m higher than it would normally have grown and the first fire through would have killed it.

:cheers: Will

Yes that was one of the first attempts at regulation that was installed. The lake are below sea level and the lakes would not have been fully salt water but they would have varying level of salt depending on flow. The lake would not have been fully salty because of the sand at the mouth would block off the lakes to the sea. Our green "friends" think that keeping the mouth open is vital where is this was natures version of a barrier. This would build up and eventually blok off the lake to the sea before the water got too salty in Pre European times. When flows would come back, the lake lavel would rise and eventually break the sand barrier and blow the mouth out returning to a decent size. The sight of a digger trying in vane to keep a channel open is just stupid and shows how little these people actually know about the river. It is not a european river running a banker all year but a seasonal river with high and very low/no flow depending on the time of year and the seasonal conditions.

I would not be so annoyed if these people faced the fact that they are farming in a reclaimed area and it should not be used for political fights. Bleeding out "save the river" while they are really wanting sombody else's water is wrong. An action to save the river should be across the board with everybody having to ive somthing up. That includes the people who consume the food as well. These dairy farmers that rely on the lake may have to adopt a system more like dryland farms. A bad season they may just have to shut down and wait it out. Keeping a lake the size of those very shallow inefficient storages is hurting areas further upstream. The evaporation from them is huge. If the lakes were returned to a more natural state, it could bacome a very good tourist area. The esturine lake would not take so much fresh water to keep it right and could help way further upstream.

Pompoota which is slighty downstream from manumn is aboriginal for "hieght of the tide" apparently so it did indeed flow that far up steam before dams and wiers

I would have thought that a good start to fixing the MDB would be to conduct a thorough land-use review. Irrigation would only be allowed where 3 conditions existed:-
1. Good quality soil
2. No salt problems
3. Good quality water available at low infrastructure cost.

Otherwise, all marginal land should be reverted to range-land. And I tend to include Mallee wheat farms in that, too.
To wish and hope for rain in the Basin is, as a former politician was fond of saying, living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land!

I think we are looking at it the wrong way. I see it as our wonderful plan to keep the river full all year round and utilize the water from it is coming to a end. The government in all the states that the river runs through have been to greedy and over allocated the resource. Let it return to a trickling stream in late summer like it was before the barrages stuffed it up. I wonder what the environmental impact statement would read if they wanted to barrage a free flowing river now days. The flora and forna coped once with the change to a year round supply of water. I am sure it will be able the cope again. They only species that wont is us!!

Farmers are the best judges of what to grow on their own farms and how to grow it. If they make a mistake, they suffer. And if they make too many mistakes, they go broke.
Do you really think a land-use review would demonstrate that irrigation farmers are so stupid that they are using precious irrigation water to grow crops on:
1. Bad quality soil;
2. With salt problems; and,
3. Using high cost, bad quality water.
As long as water rights are freely transferable, irrigation water will be used for the most productive enterprises and on the most productive crops.
And as far as (dryland) Mallee wheat farms go, the situation is similar. If they couldn't make money growing wheat in the Mallee, they wouldn't be doing it.

That would be fine BM if corporate entities stayed out of agriculture where their care factor is far far lower and short term profit grabs are the main driver of land treatment.
I agree, farmers are pretty good judges. Corporate desk based jocks with dollar signs rarely are.

Part of the answer has to be a serious look at population ideals for this country doesn't it? IOW just what is the sustainable carrying capacity of humans in this country taking into account food, water and quality of life. The dollar needs not be a part of this equation if it is to work. IMO the paddock is already too full.

However I am an idealistic fool

Sorry, this is going to be a bit long winded guys

So what sort of condition should the Murray-Darling be in? I think that is the question that needs to be answered. As others have already highlighted, prior to "whiteman's interference" the Murray-Darling would have already been a dry sandy river bed not capable of giving the roos enough to drink let alone any kind of settlement. This I think is the reality compared to the romantic notions peddled by green interest groups.

I'm more inclined to think of dams and weirs on our river systems more like the rain water tanks everyone is installing. Without dams, weirs and water tanks, that water ends up going straight down the drain and out into the ocean, of course it doesn't matter when the city resevoirs are full but when you have a level 6 water restriction slapped on you its funny how many people wisen up to holding back a few litres so they can use it after the clouds have packed their bags and left.

As far as the conditions for irrigation go...

1. Good quality soil - What is the yardstick for this? Fact is that Australia is a positively ancient patch of dirt that has been weathered for just a few years. Basically most of the good stuff is gone which is why graziers and livestock owners resort to vitamin, mineral and salt supplementation for their animals to keep them in good health. One needs only to head out to any of the fruit and vege bowls around the traps on a fairly regular basis to see what our growers have to do to keep their crops not only producing, but growing well making them more resistant to disease and infestation. It might pay to remind yourself that when you pickup an unwashed potato in the supermarket that you are actually holding someone's top soil in your hand, not to mention valuable minerals found within said potato have also come the producer's land. You can imagine the cumulative effect this has on the paddock? It's a crying shame!! So should we stop all farming once the soil is bad quality?? How about you stop eating first? :p

Importation of produce was up until recently a reasonably economical option but unless you have been hiding under a rock recently, oil is on the way up which means transport costs of food are escalating as well. I do not believe the answer lies in pillaging the Amazon rain forest so that we can sleep with full bellies and not get the guilts.

2. Soil Salinity - I've done a bit of reading on this over the years and it seems there is no simple solution to this problem. Soil types, land topography, rainfall, irrigation techniques and drainage all have a hand to play in determining how saline a particular patch of soil can end up. With a considered approach many land holders have managed to reclaim badly affected areas. Off hand I vaguely recall a fella in NSW who reclaimed a particularly badly affected block and turned it into an economically viable piece of land, he even controlled the erosion. I think the main part of his success came from filling in all water courses allowing flood water to spread across more land area thus taking some salt away and diluting what was left down to levels that allowed vegetation to grow and animals to graze on it. What was remarkable was that in the dry his land stayed greener (ie. more productive) for longer compared to his neighbours whose paddocks were just dust bowls. The irony is that he was ended up in quite a bit of trouble with the environmental departments because he altered a water course... As far as I'm concerned, this bloke addressed erosion problems and developed a technique which allowed him to utilise available water for longer which kept him productive and actually looked after the environment and his wallet better than what "those in the know" are advocating. WIN:WIN

3. Good quality water at low infrastructure cost - I agree with Bruce on this one, no farmer is going to irrigate his crop with water if he suspects it contains enough contaminates to stunt or kill his crop. That's just commonsense logic to me. I think though if we are talking about the possibility of irrigation water contributing to salinity levels in soil then we'd better all switch to demineralised water to stop this from happening, I can see it now, the local country bloke heading down to the supermarket for some demineralised water to irrigate his snow peas!!! Seriously though, if the irrigation water contains less salt then that of the soil it can actually be used to mitigate soil salinity with careful management.

As for the state governments over allocating water? Of course they do, that's how they make money!! Those prats will probably sell the same litre of water to three different farmers and we get angry at the oil companies? At least you pay for it once you've filled your tank, we had farmers here that were still paying for their allocations despite the foot valve on their pumps being high and dry. I wonder how many people here pay for Foxtel but don't have it connected? :rolleyes:

Edit: Pepsi, your first point is a good one that I hadn't even thought of. I would like to go one step further and say that foreign ownership of our valuable farming land removes the onus of responsibility even further, this does not sit well with me and I would really love to see some sort of policy addressing this issue. On one hand it is great to see cattle property in the Northern Territory going for $50 mil + and a farmer's investment in his land must be recognised but it would be even better if this land was owned by entities that actually reside in this country.