Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Murray-Darling Basin: still negotiating « Previous | |Next »
August 28, 2012

The states are still negotiating the Murray-Darling Basin plan. The current plan on the table, designed by the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority, suggests a range of between 2400 and 3200 gigalitres, depending on water-saving measures plus a small increase in the amount of groundwater extracted from the system. NSW wants much more groundwater extracted.

The southern states of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are where the contests over water and related funding are most severe in that Victoria and NSW believe the target should be 2100 gigalitres returned to the river.

RiverMurrayMouth.jpg River Murray mouth

The conflicts over water and funding are there because this is where most of the over-allocation has occurred, and the Murray-Darling Basin plan, reinforces and asserts the eastern states' hegemony – again. From this perspective South Australia is the recalcitrant state because it wants too much water returned to the river to sustain wetlands. The SA figure is 4000 gigalitres.

The policy impetus can be gleaned from the Windsor Inquiry's report--- Of drought and flooding rains: Inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The key recommendation is that the government build irrigation infrastructure instead of buying back water entitlements from willing sellers.

The aim was to find measures to increase irrigation efficiency, in response to rural angst about water buybacks. The investment in regional futures involving investment to improve irrigation efficiency would allow water to be reallocated. However, it is quite apparent that inappropriate and largely unproductive agricultural enterprises based on inefficient irrigation practices are no longer sustainable.

South Australia's position is that if a deal is done with NSW and Victoria which sells out South Australia's interests then the SA Government will challenge that plan in the High Court.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:22 AM | | Comments (4)
Comments

Comments

The states are currently making submissions that recommend changes to the basin plan. The idea is to use these submissions to develop a consensus document recommending changes to the draft plan.

This revised plan will eventually be taken to the federal Parliament.

Victoria is protecting its irrigators at the expense of the wetlands.The proposed return of water to the river will be too costly for regional communities and industries--- it's a “death warrant” for agricultural industries across northern Victoria.

Regional Victoria is quite prepared to sell SA down the river, if they can get away with it.

The old headline figure of 2,750 GL was inevitably a compromise between competing interests in the basin and it was arrived at through political pressure.

Scientists are in agreement that 2,750 GL is too little to keep the river healthy.

However NSW and Victoria are using their power to bring in more cuts. Each time the plan is revised the amount of water to be returned to the river is cut.

That is what consensus means--the more powerful states getting their way.

An annual average flow of 2750 GL [allowing for annual fluctuations of normal/flood drought around that number]is less than half the annual flow needed to keep the river healthy.
If climate change does not decrease average inflow into the entire catchment area in the middle to long term.