Murray Darling Debate-Summary of My Key Thoughts

"I represent no one except myself.My background is grazing including flood plain grazing, dryland farming and irrigation, mostly cotton. Geographically it is mainly influenced by experience in the Lake Eyre Basin, the Darling Basin, but also includes the Lower Darling and the Murrumbidgee (Tandou). 

My only motivation is not to see  Australia's future productive capacity damaged by environmental over-reach.

I believe the Plan/Act is deeply flawed (Briscoe). Given the massive variability of MDB river flows the statistics thrown about are non-sensical, including setting single figure Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL's), albeit they are claimed to be averages. There is widespread misunderstanding about the 2100 GL.entitlements purchased by the the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH). Without allocations this is "phantom" water, yet people believe it is real water and that man rather than nature is in control (Menindee drama). I understand that when allocations against entitlements are made then what the CEWH does with its water is a big issue. I thought the environmental needs were to be covered prior to allocations being made. Thus the CEWH strikes me as a second environmental dip-but perhaps we are too far down that road and a lot of money has been spent.

The variability demands adaptive management and this can be achieved by the Allocation process. This is clearly demonstrated by the yearly variation in MDB diversions as produced by the Bureau of Stats."

Murray Darling Basin Plan

The NSW Irrigator's Council submission to the SA Royal Commission should be compulsory reading for all those who attack the irrigation industry and the cotton and rice industries in particular. Whilst any submission from irrigators on water usage will always be subject to the "they would say that" syndrome, the submission is clearly expressed and loaded with defensible facts. I would particularly draw attention to 'Illegal Take' on page 5, 'Irrigated Crops' on page 7 and 'Darling River and Menindee Lakes' on page 8. Once again the ABC are shown to have done Australia a great disservice with biased reporting.
https://mdbrcsa.govcms.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3846/f/mdbrc-submission-mark-mckenzie-nsw-irrigators-council.pdf?v=1528333882

Submission To the Murray Darling Basin Authority On the Draft Plan 10th April, 2012

Submission To the Murray Darling Basin Authority On the Draft Plan
10th April, 2012

Preamble

The debate over the last year or so on the Draft Plan and its predecessor has revealed glaring flaws in both the Water Act (2007) and the Draft Plan.

So much so that if we are serious in securing better natural resource management in Australia we need to go back to the drawing board and repeal the Act.

I remain greatly concerned that as a consequence of misguided action by Government we will cause great socio-economic damage, unnecessarily limit future production, and do little or nothing for the environment.

I make these comments from the perspective of somebody who has followed the Basin debate closely, and has had long experience in water management particularly in my past role as Chairman and Chief Executive of Clyde Agriculture which was not only an irrigator but had extensive floodplain grazing and dryland farming operations.

Base Position
The Millennium Drought had a major impact on the Basin. (The renowned recuperative power of the Australian landscape has been demonstrated in its spectacular recovery since the drought broke.)

Water extractions were well controlled by the adaptive management approach embodied in the allocation process, guided by the Water Sharing Plans. 

Natural impacts from extreme drought are being incorrectly labelled as chronic ill-health.

At the top of the Murray and Murrumbidgee the Snowy Scheme is not being managed in a manner which optimises its original water conservation objectives. 

At the bottom, the Murray River has been deprived of its estuary by The Barrages and this has created serious environmental problems, and the call for ever more fresh water. The diversion of fresh water flows in the South-East of S.A. to the sea, flows which once drained to the Southern Lagoon of The Coorong, has also caused environmental problems.

Asking the CSIRO to come up with single figure Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL's) for the rivers within the Basin reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our inland rivers and their massive variability. To argue that these numbers are "averages" doesn't help, given the enormous spreads around the averages. In using absolute numbers as the MDBA has done, to prescribe acceptable extractions/diversions limits without relating these to actual flows (availability), is really nonsense. 

One has to wonder whether we are proposing to "throw the baby out with the bathwater' in moving to a centralised Commonwealth water management regime.

Our current water bureaucrats could do worse than study how the existing control system operates. It works rather well. 

Drought Induced Perceptions

In 1990 I toured China, Vietnam and Laos with a delegation from the NSW Department of Water Resources. The delegation included the State Minister, the Departmental Head and the Chairman of the MDBC. One of our objectives was to explain to our hosts how different jurisdictions could successfully manage a river-in their case the Mekong. The successful model was the MDBC which at the time was held in the highest esteem. How perceptions have changed!

More Conservation

If we had more dams, in the big wet events, we could store very substantial additional amounts of water, yet they would represent only a tiny percentage of the big flows. A consistent misunderstanding relates to failure to appreciate the magnitude of the water flows in these totally irregular, but surprisingly frequent events.

Toorale Station Lesson

The Government purchase and closing down of Bourke’s most productive property, Toorale Station in 2008, is a microcosm of the Basin Plan. If Toorale had continued to operate it would have reduced river flows in the Darling River past Louth in 2010/11 by 0.01%! 

In other words, great social cost, for no environmental benefit. 

2012 Outlook Conference

The MDB session at the recent Agricultural Outlook Conference disturbed me for a number of reasons-

• The opening graph showed no impact from the allocation system which dramatically reduced extractions during the recent drought.
• There was a broadbrush comment that MDB extractions were usually "around 10 to 11,000 GLS."
• There were many comments such as "recovering water" and "closing the gap" without it would seem an understanding that Government buying entitlements is simply changing ownership from the private sector to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH).

Recognising the Difference Between ‘Entitlements’ and ‘Allocations’

According to the ABS, during the most recent years of the drought the allocation system guided by the very effective water sharing plans for each of the Basin's rivers, reduced extractions to-

(GL'S)

2005-06     7369
2006-07     4458
2007-08     3141
2008-09     3492
2009-10     3564

not around "10 to 11,000 GLS" as quoted at the Outlook Conference


Water entitlements without allocations amount to 'phantom water'. An 'entitlement' only grants the holder a share of 'allocations' when there are any. The entitlements held by the CEWH will apparently still attract allocations (when water is available) and nobody really knows what this new player (the Government) is likely to do with them.

So, we have a situation whereby before allocations are granted the water sharing plans call for a priority to 'critical human needs' and assessed ‘environmental needs’. Once these are met then allocations for 'consumptive' use are made. So, in what is proposed the CEWH gets a second bite, presumably mainly for environmental needs and becomes a player in the water market. This gives rise to some interesting conflicts of interest.
It seems to me that if the assessed environmental needs are not covered adequately under the water sharing plans, which I doubt, then it is those plans that should be changed. Not have the "dog's breakfast" that is now proposed.

Summary
I contend that the fact remains that we have confused the natural impact of a very severe drought with "ill-health" and invalidly blamed it on extractions. A situation which has been wonderfully and dramatically corrected in the time honoured manner by the flood flows of the last three years.

We should repeal the Water Act and begin the process anew along lines proposed by a former NSW Director General of Water Resources who has had extensive global experience in river management.

I have serious doubts of the wisdom in centralising control in Canberra. The former MDBC/Ministerial Council approach with all the tensions and debates between the States that water management inevitably involves, was once held up around the world as an example of how to do water management properly.

I can do little better than conclude with the words of Harvard Professor John Briscoe-

"My conclusion is stark. I believe that the Water Act of 2007 was founded on a political deception and that the original sin is responsible for most of the detour on which Australian water management now finds itself. I am well aware that unpredictability is an enemy and that there are large environmental, social and economic costs of uncertainty. But I also believe that Australian cannot find its way in water management if this Act is the guide. I would urge the Government to start again, to re-define principles, to engage all who have a stake in this vital issue, and to produce, as rapidly as possible, a new Act which can serve Australia for generations to come. And which can put Australia back in a world leadership position in modern water management."

J.D.O.(David) Boyd

10.04.12

Murray Darling Basin Plan -Overview 2014 Updated 2018

Murray Darling Basin Plan-Overview 

From the time that the Howard Government, in an attempt to garner "green" votes, decided to throw $10bn at the Murray Darling Basin, the management of the Basin has been a political football. This vote chasing initiative arose as the great Millennium Drought was biting hard and water shortages, the natural consequences of drought, were being erroneously blamed on extractions for irrigation. The term "over-allocation" entered the national lexicon.

In the years preceding the drought there was extensive reform of water regulation throughout the Basin. "The cap" limiting extractions to the 1993/4 level was introduced and John Anderson's National Water Initiative was passed introducing property rights and market trading of water entitlements and water allocations. These were all positive moves and reinforced Australia's international reputation as a leader in effective water management.

It is fundamental to a proper understanding of water management to recognise the difference between entitlements and allocations. Entitlements grant the holder an ongoing share of consumptive water when there is an allocation. An entitlement without an allocation is phantom water. For each of the Basin rivers there is a water sharing plan which guides the granting of allocations. These plans give priority to critical human and animal needs, followed by assessed environmental needs and then and only then, are allocations for irrigation extractions even considered.

These principles are applied in a regime of massive natural variability. Our rainfall and run-off is arguably the most variable in the world. Given this variability, asking CSIRO to come up with single figure "Sustainable Diversion Limits" is really nonsense and only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our rainfall variability. Averages are really meaningless when one looks at the spreads around the average. Our major dams and the Snowy Scheme diversions have "flattened out" some of this variability, particularly in the southern Murray catchment, and have provided additional water to the west, but compared with the severity of our droughts and the magnitude of our floods, we really only "fiddle at the edges". 

Additional dams, with appropriate by-passes to allow small flows to pass, would further assist and would only "hold back" a tiny percentage of our big flood events.

Our ecology is geared to this extraordinarily variable environment and there is no better example than recent years with the severity of the Millennium Drought and the big flood events that followed.

To gain the necessary authority over the States in the Australian federation the Commonwealth relied on international environmental agreements. As a consequence we have a Commonwealth Water Act which lacks proper balance between social, economic and environmental needs. We have tarnished our previous reputation to be world leaders in water management. The Act should be repealed.

Against this backdrop it can be seen that the Government’s massive purchase of entitlements ("phantom water") will do nothing for the environment in the lean years, when allocations will be limited or non-existent. But in better years, with the Commonwealth now being by far the biggest holder of entitlements and an active player in the allocation market, we are likely to see decisions made for political reasons at the expense of sound commercially driven decisions, had the entitlements remained in private hands.

The most negative human induced environmental issue in the Millennium Drought was the management of the Lower Lakes in South Australia and the controversial Barrages which close-off the Murray River estuary from the sea.

With the piping of fresh water from upstream to the Lower Lakes environs there is now no reason for the South Australian obsession with keeping the Lakes always fresh to prevail. Failure to open the Barrages during the drought and allow salt water to enter, when there was simply no upstream fresh water available for any purpose, quite unnecessarily allowed the emergence of acid-sulphate soils. The huge evaporation of fresh water from the Lower Lakes is a wicked waste of a precious resource.

The commitment of additional water to the Lower Lakes in the latter part of the Plan negotiations and the target of keeping Lake Alexandrina open to the ocean 90% of the time, is a classic example of the political football approach at the expense of objective analysis, which has pervaded the whole Murray Darling Basin issue.

Sadly, the management of the Snowy Scheme has been expressly excluded from the MDB deliberations of recent years. There needs to be more focus on the original water storage/irrigation objectives. Improvements could be made without detracting from the all important hydro/electricity production objectives. If Snowy Hydro is to be privatised, a prerequisite should be a new operating agreement which gives greater weight to water storage for food and fibre production.

High Praise For Murray Darling Water Management

06.05.2011
A leading world authority on water has lavished praise on Australia's water management during the Millenium Drought which has now broken so spectacularly.

Harvard Professor John Briscoe is a former Senior Water Advisor at the World Bank and was called in as an advisor to the Murray Darling Basin Authority in the preparation of the controversial Murray Darling Basin Plan. He has now made an invited submission to the Senate's Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

In commenting on Australia's inland water management during the drought he states "Over the last 10 years Australia did something which no other country could conceivably have managed – in a large irrigated agricultural economy (the Murray Darling Basin) a 70% reduction in water availability had very little aggregate economic impact. Before the buts and the buts and the buts, this extraordinary achievement is, in my view, the single most important water fact of the 21st century, because it shows that it is possible (with ingenuity and investment) to adapt to rapid climate change and associated water scarcity". He goes on to say "how dramatically this perspective is different from the political and public perception, which is largely that “we have done a terrible job”. High praise indeed.

Professor Briscoe goes on to quote Malcolm Turnbull saying “our water management has been extraordinarily ill informed in years past” and the Murray Darling Basin Plan saying “over the past few decades….the focus has swung to looking at economics …and the role of the environment has been overlooked.” He finds these two comments to be "(a) extraordinarily widespread and (b) extraordinarily erroneous." He adds "What is obvious to me is that the overwhelming factor behind the dismal situation in the MD Basin was the dramatic reduction in rainfall and even larger reduction in river flows. It is equally clear to me that the institutional response (of the Murray Darling Basin Commission,the basin states, and farmers) was extraordinarily innovative and – within the bounds set by nature – effective. Not only for the economy but, as shown by the National Water Commission,for ameliorating the environmental damage of the terrible drought."

In his submission Professor Briscoe analysis the impact of the Commonwealth Government using international environmental treaties to gain power over the States and how this had prevented the Water Act gaining a proper balance between environmental and socio-economic factors.

He concludes his submission with the following statement:
"My conclusion is stark. I believe that the Water Act of 2007 was founded on a political
deception and that that original sin is responsible for most of the detour on which Australian
water management now finds itself. I am well aware that unpredictability is an enemy and that there are large environmental, social and economic costs of uncertainty. But I also believe that
Australian cannot find its way in water management if this Act is the guide. I would urge the
Government to start again, to re-define principles, to engage all who have a stake in this vital
issue, and to produce, as rapidly as possible, a new Act which can serve Australia for generations to come. And which can put Australia back in a world leadership position in modern water management."

We would do well to take careful note and act on these objective comments from a knowledgeable analyst untainted by Australian domestic politics.

Murray Darling Basin Plan-Big 2016 Wet-Reminder

04.10.18
The big winter wet of this year (2016) is a timely reminder of the flaws in the MDB Plan. I have long been fascinated by inland water flows in this very flat land, with highly variable rainfall, which is the predominant feature of Australia. Dorothea Mackellar got it so right with her classic line "Droughts and Flooding Rains". She might well have added "And not much in the middle".

My interest in the subject became even greater when I found myself Chairman and CEO of an agricultural company whose interests included an irrigation business growing cotton on the Darling River upstream and downstream of Bourke.

My first impressions as I familiarised myself with this business were:-

1. The human characteristic of always seeking to blame somebody for water shortages and the reluctance to attribute these shortages to natural factors.
2. The meaningless of average statistics when the spreads around the average are enormous.
3. The failure of water authorities to appreciate the massive magnitude of the big events, and their frequency, albeit irregularity.
4. The persistence of these authorities to maintain an attitude of "we must determine how much water for this or that" when "we" have very little control. Man fiddles at the edges. Nature dominates.

For the MDB Authority to ask CSIRO to come up with single Annual Volumetric Limits (AVL's) for each of the significant rivers in the basin is a stupid question from people who clearly do not appreciate the above facts. Limits should be based on percentages of actual flows. Note that from the big events , a very small percentage can amount to a huge amount of water. This massive variability cries out for more dams to spread the benefits.

The 2016 'big wet' winter, following an extremely dry period with no flow in the Darling River below the Menindee Lakes, is a wonderful demonstration of the key characteristic with which we live in this fascinating country. The volume of water that has flowed past Bourke in the last fortnight now exceeds the volume attributed to Sydney Harbour-500,000 megalitres or 500 gigalitres.

David Boyd

27.10.16

Murray Darling Basin-Entitlements and Allocations

Recently a  radio commentator signed off by saying "we have spent billions of dollars on the MDB, yet the Lower Darling has ceased to flow". The speaker clearly believed that this statement said it all. In fact, it is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow that spending billions will create flow events. Nature dominates and man fiddles at the edges.

Most of the MDB Plan expenditure has been in the purchasing by the Government of water entitlements from private irrigators. A water entitlement gives the holder the right to a share of a consumptive pool when there are sufficient flows for allocations to be made. No substantial flows/no allocations.

In an "event river" like the Darling above Menindee Lakes, with no major State owned storages to regulate flows and which fluctuates from feast (massive flows) to famine (no or very low flow), changing ownership of entitlements does not increase the events. What is frequently reported in terms of Government purchasing water, actually refers to entitlements. In other words "phantom water" until such times as rain and river flows are sufficient for allocations to be made or in the Darling's case river height pumping thresholds to be reached and exceeded.

If there were no extractions for irrigation whatever in the Upper Darling when the last substantial flow allowed pumping to take place, the Lower Darling  today at say, Wilcannia (of river bed cricketing fame), would be exactly as it is-not flowing, as there have been no subsequent events, other than the small flow now occurring, when extractions have responsibly been embargoed. The problem is lack of rain and significant run-off.

David Boyd
02.04.18
(David Boyd is the former Chairman and C.E.O. of Clyde Agriculture Limited and a former General Manager of the Rural Division of Dalgety. Clyde was a major irrigator on the Barwon/Darling River in NSW, a large flood plain grazier on the Castlereagh River (Wingadee), the Macquarie River (Oxley) and the Warrego River (Toorale). It was also a dryland grain producer and the nations largest wool producer. Mr. Boyd has had a lifelong interest in inland Australia's water flows and had had first hand experience in rural Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. He was until recently a Director of Tandou Limited a major irrigator on the Lower Darling and Murrumbidgee Rivers and is Chairman of agricultural research fund the McGarvie Smith Institute.)

Murray Darling Basin Statistics

Reminder from 2011
Remember that book "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"? Well,we are seeing that theme borne out in the debate leading up to the next iteration of a Murray Darling Basin Plan. Leaks from Canberra have suggested that the new report will state that 2,800 GL should be recovered "for the river" by way of the purchase of Licenses covering this amount of water. Some are arguing that at least 4,000 GL's should be recovered.

Where would 4,000 GL's go this year when there is more water around than "you can poke a stick at" and it would only add to the 000's of GL's flowing from the Murray mouth. In the drought years where would the extra 2,800 (or 4,000) GL's have come from when there was no water for anyone.

Critics will leap at me and say we are not talking specific annual figures,but averages. However, when the spreads around the average are so enormous surely average figures are meaningless.

Let's look at how the system really works. All irrigation licenses are subject to seasonal allocations. A license without an allocation represents phantom water. No allocations means no water. Thus we have a self regulating adaptive system that governs irrigation extractions in line with available water. Critical human needs and designated environmental needs have priority over irrigation. All of this is spelled out in Water Sharing Plans.

The much criticised "Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan" constantly refers to 13,700 GL's as the irrigator's surface water usesage figure. A close reading of the report reveals that that number is an average.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, actual extractions for irrigation in the Murray Darling Basin over the last five years have been-
(GL'S)
2005-06 7369
2006-07 4458
2007-08 3141
2008-09 3492
2009-10 3564
These figures suggest that the allocation system is working well. In a highly variable flow regime an adaptive methodology such as this would seem ideal. Some suggest that irrigators seek greater certainty. I contend that irrigators understand and accept the variability risks and in any event "certainty" is a concept foreign to Australian farmers!

It seems to me that we really need to go back to basics. Were our rivers really unhealthy or are we confusing the natural results of extreme dryness with lack of health? If they really were (or are) unhealthy, how did this manifest itself and what were the underlying causes? Perhaps throwing water at the perceived problem is not the answer.

I note that the Australian Conservation Foundation describes the Murray Darling Basin as being at the point of eco-collapse, which really is complete nonsense. I have travelled over much of the Basin in recent months and the recovery following our flooding rains is a joy to behold.

Water

The linked article is one of the very best I have read. I commend it to you.

Murray Darling Basin Plan

11.02.2015

My thoughts, in brief, provoked by recent press comment and the ABC Landline TV programme-

• water shortage environmental impacts in the Millenium Drought were caused (mostly) by lack of run-off -the natural impact of drought-not by "over allocation".(Not to mention the Lower Lakes fiasco of not allowing sea water to enter).
• the very wet years that followed did much natural recuperative work and following the drought are a classic example of the natural variability of the basin, which is its central characteristic.
• The Government (CEWH) bought entitlements -"phantom water"-not real water. This remains phantom water until such time as there are allocations. By way of example the current Macquarie and Lachlan issues appear to mainly relate to lack of allocations.
• the Darling catchment (as distinct from the Murray) is again suffering extreme drought particularly in run-off terms.
• the massive variability of our run-off largely dictates water availability, particularly in the Darling catchment and our storages, whilst very beneficial, really only "fiddle at the edges".
• Richard Kingsford will say anything to support his anti-irrigation stance.
• given the massive variability, setting single figure SDL's, even if they are averages, is nonsense.
• the Murray Darling Basin Plan is an academic, impracticable "dog's breakfast" which will do huge damage to productive capacity and "bugger all" for the environment.

Murray Darling Basin Debating Terms

28.05.2011
Those of us who care about Australia's future (sustainable) productive capacity,must beware of being lulled into a "negotiating stance". If we believe, as I do, that talking about reduced extractions in terms of absolute numbers which relate to the maximum (100% allocation) figures applicable to Licenses, (7000 or 4,000 or 2,800 GL) is meaningless, then we should refuse to debate/discuss in those terms.

Even high security licenses require allocations. It always seems to me that if less water is to be extracted, it is the seasonal allocations which should be addressed not the licenses on issue. One view is that if allocations are more generous (when there is adequate water) as a consequence of there being fewer licenses in operation, then nothing is saved. Almost no one seems to accept that buying licenses in, say, drought times when allocations are nil, is buying phantom water. The Bureau of Stats. figures for extractions in the MDB show clearly how extractions drop in drought years when allocations are constrained.

We should constantly make the point that in a highly variable water flow situation these numbers are meaningless and are irrelevant to actual extractions and their environmental impact. By way of example, another 10,000GL extracted this year would have had bugger-all impact and would have been flood mitigation positive. In one of the recent drought years it would have been intolerable.

One needs to constantly go back to the objective. Healthy rivers and wetlands (which includes being occasionally impacted by our irregular, but much too frequent droughts); responsibly high levels of production as we meet our moral obligation to provide food (and fibre) for a hungry world; etc.

Murray Darling Basin Plan and Variability

November, 2011
John Cox has written a great article putting some hard numbers on my much repeated point about Australian river flow variability and the difference between allocations and entitlement volumes. Here is an extract.

There is no evidence that the sustainable diversion limits in this report were influenced by any social or economic outcomes, as the main thrust of the proposed report is still on satisfying environmental outcomes in the basin with environmental watering plans, water salinity targets and end of valley targets for river flows to keep the mouth of the Murray open.

Despite the Chairman's urging that we see this revised report as "more than just a volume of water" to be cut from irrigators, the proposed Basin plan still places this single cut in irrigators allowance front and centre without any explanation on how this single figure can apply to the widely varying annual flows that we know are a hydrological feature of the Murray Darling basin.

If this 3,573 GL of water buybacks for the environment had been in place between 1984 and 2000, when irrigation diversions averaged about 11,500 GL per year, then agricultural production would have been reduced by 33% for no real reason at all, as flows over the Goolwa barrages averaged about 5,000 GL over this period.  This waste of Australia's scarcest resource will also occur in future years of average and above average flows if these cuts are implemented.

If this 3,573 GL had been in place between 2007 and 2010, when irrigation diversions were reduced by about 6,000 GL to about 5,000 GL for these four years, then such cuts would still not have been enough, as there was just not enough water around during these drought years. 

It would seem logical to have produced a more dynamic model where irrigation allocations are not cut by a single figure but are dependent upon the water availability in the Murray Darling basin each season. 

In fact, the State water agencies have developed quite an expertise in this dynamic modelling area  during the recent drought years and progressively set percentage allocations during the season for both high security/reliability water used on permanent tree plantings and low security/low reliability irrigation water that is used on annual crops like cotton or wheat.   It is difficult to see why this system needs to be changed.

The second major problem in the report is the lack of any real discussion on the waste of scarce water from evaporation in the artificial fresh water lakes of the Murray Mouth and whether fresh water flows to keep the mouth open 90% of the time would be necessary if the barrages were kept open and the lakes revert to their natural state of tidal fluctuations.

A lock between Wellington and Tailem Bend and opening of the barrages in drought years to form an estuarine environment would not only save 800 GL of evaporation, or more than half of the 1468 GL still to be recovered between 2012 and 2019, but convert this barren fresh water monoculture of carp into a diverse, vibrant ecoculture that would be similar to the Lakes Entrance estuary in Gippsland. Not only would the Murray River have an estuary and open mouth like all of the world's great rivers but an increase in tourism would also be an economic boost to local communities.

We should also be clear about the outcomes of a further 2,750 GL cut in irrigation allocations which would be similar to those of a 3,000 GL cut that was modelled in the draft report.  This report stated that in an average run off year, these cuts to irrigators would result in 1,000 GL being made available for environmental watering projects within the basin and an extra 2,000 GL would flow out to sea, making 7,000 GL per year in total.  Is this scandalous waste of Australia's most precious resource what Australians really want?

John Cox is a citrus grower in Waikerie, SA

Murray Darling Basin Plan-Malcolm Turnbull

18.12.2010

I follow Malcolm Turnbull on Twitter. Why? Because I have found him intelligent and interesting. When he was John Howard's Parliamentary Secretary for Water we had him out to Bourke to discuss irrigation issues and I was very impressed how quickly he got his mind around them. I was surprised by his commitment to the ETS and to global warming in general, but was inclined to write it off as the ex-merchant bankers enthusiasm for another trading instrument.
So when his Tweet alerted me to his written declaration on the MDB Plan I quickly looked it up. My reaction is best summarised in my two comments on his website:
David Boyd says:
December 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Malcolm,
You can do better than serve up some of this conventional wisdom! Have a look at the ABS statistics of actual diversions compared with the meaningless averages referred to in the Plan. The water sharing plans appear to be working rather well. Get your mind around the sheer quantum of the current flows. The last decade of drought and now these massive floods, highlight the natural variability of the Basin. We need more conservation (read dams), which in current circumstances would amount to holding back a miniscule percentage of the flow. We need to be careful not to confuse the natural results of dryness with bad river health. Where is this “ill health” today?? Nature is all powerful!
and
David Boyd says:
December 13, 2010 at 4:48 am
Malcolm said ” at the core of so many of our problems is trying to europeanise our australian landscape and hydrology.”
Wow! That is classic dark green dogma. He has come out of the closet and revealed himself as an ideological dark greenie! What an insulting comment to all of those world class Australian agricultural scientists who have led the world in sustainable, arid land agriculture. It is a fact that the Murray Darling Basin has never been more sustainably productive. Yes, it has always been subject to huge variability, and there is no better example than the last ten years of record low rain (and run-off) and now massive floods. We must stop claiming that the natural results of dryness amount to river “ill health” and blaming that on extractions, when low availability has meant very low allocations/extractions (if any). Our forebears did a much better job than they are being given credit for. A significant exception is the acid sulphate soils of the Lower Lakes. Not allowing salt water in, as happened naturally in dry times, has been a gross error and the evaporation losses of fresh water are indefensible. Certainly we can manage the system better, but let ’s concentrate on making the cake bigger and stop all of this self flagellation and accept the dominance of Nature. Examine the numbers!

Murray Darling Basin Plan

In a great article in the SMH on 4th December, 2010 Paul Myers wrote (extract):-
"Despite recent claims to the contrary, the authority had, at best, a vague responsibility to consider the economic and social impacts of its recommendations. Its priorities, put in place by Malcolm Turnbull as water minister, were environmental.

So it was little wonder that when, in early October, the authority suggested 27 to 37 per cent cuts in irrigation water entitlements - all for the environment - there was such a savage response. Previous cuts in groundwater use and surface irrigation in the past several years had already bitten hard.

Coupled with severely reduced allocations during the drought, it has slashed basin irrigation water use well below the authority's new recommended cap: to just 3492 gigalitres in 2008-09. It was 3141 gigalitres in 2007-08 and 4458 gigalitres in 2006-07.

This seems to prove that the current, much-maligned allocation system - whereby state water authorities decide how much of a licensee's entitlement can be used - is an effective self-correcting mechanism. This, however, is not the public perception, nor does it hold water with the authority, environmentalists, scientists and the former water minister, Wong, all of whom have been determined to slash irrigation entitlements."

Why are the MDBA,the scientists,environmentalists and politicians so set on this misguided path??

Murray Darling Basin Plan

26.10.2010
Preamble
As I listen with interest to the media debate and the reporting of the meetings with irrigators, I am increasingly alarmed at misunderstandings and perhaps deliberate falsehoods. I am provoked to write the following because I am passionate about building an ever stronger Australia with a strong, sustainable agricultural sector. I take two things as a given. First, farmers above all others have a vested interest in not debasing the physical assets (environment) on which their long term future depends. Those who fail to do this inevitably fail economically and successful farmers repair the damage. Australian land is renowned for its recuperative capacity. Second, in a global context, Australia has a moral responsibility to maximise its food and fibre production, always providing this can be done sustainably.

More specifically, we need to recognise that the most significant feature of Australia's weather is massive variability. All of our Murray Darling Basin rivers on occasions stop flowing, entirely as a consequence of lack of rain. As Henry Lawson wrote, "they can be either muddy gutters or second Mississippi's". The "big wets" are surprisingly frequent, but totally irregular. It has been forever thus.

We also need to bear in mind that water is dynamic. It doesn't hang around and wait to be used. It either runs to the sea or to some wonderful inland wetlands, evaporates, or is used to grow things. There is no shortage of water in the world and Nature has given us a wonderful recycling system whereby salt water is continually converted to fresh water. There is, however, in many countries a limited supply of fresh water and in Australia in particular, we need to conserve water from the big wet events to even out the abovementioned variability. I see evaporation of fresh water as very wasteful. Some 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by (salty) oceans-plenty of water for cloud formation.

Where you have massive variability it seems to me to make little sense to debate using absolute numbers in respect to the aggregate level of desirable extraction limits or in stating flows. Averages can be very misleading. When absolute statistics are used they need to be be related to the highly variable flows.

The Plan
The Plan effectively blames extractions ("over allocated") for the extremely low river flows of recent years.  Farmers are being blamed for the drought. No wonder they are upset.

The Prime Minister has said "we cannot go on as we are". The Opposition Leader has said that "we are taking too much water out of our rivers". I do not accept these statements and believe they reveal a lack of understanding of how our system of managing irrigation actually works.

The two key terms are "Licenses/Entitlements" on the one hand and "Allocations" on the other. They are constantly confused in the current debate.

State Governments have issued "Licenses/Entitlements" to farmers, but the usage of these has to be triggered by the granting of "Allocations". Allocations are granted seasonally by Governments in accordance with available water. This is how variability is dealt with. When water is short, allocations are low or non-existent.

The Governments action in granting, or not granting, allocations is governed by a "water sharing plan" for each irrigation river in the basin. These water sharing plans take account of water availability, environmental, livestock and domestic needs before irrigation extractions are allowed. Whilst water sharing plans are hotly debated by people pushing the various competitive needs, it is a most sensible and effective approach.

However, of recent times there has simply not been enough water to go around and quite correctly it is irrigation extractions which have been severely constrained. Few realise that if it were not for the headwater storages, the Snowy Scheme diversions and severe restrictions on irrigation extractions, the Murray River would have actually stopped flowing altogether, as it has done under very dry conditions several times in recorded history. Through this drought we were able to keep it flowing and to maintain at least some water in the Lower Lakes at the mouth of the river as a result of these factors.

Blame
In my time with Clyde Agriculture I had the experience of being an irrigator and a flood plain grazier. For example, the Clyde property Oxley Station downstream from Warren is the largest property in the famous Macquarie Marshes. Properties such as this receive great benefit from what graziers term "beneficial flooding". Shallow flood water acting as natural irrigation with resultant prolific growth of natural grasses. It is great cattle breeding and fattening country. When water is short the "marsh graziers" invariably blame the upstream irrigators even when they also have no water. At Bourke, Clyde is an irrigator and when water is short downstream graziers invariably blamed the irrigators for taking it, even if they had been unable to extract water for months. It seems to be a quirk of human nature to blame other people rather than accept the power of Nature to dominate us all.


The Lower Lakes
One of the main arguments put forward to demonstrate that the Murray in unhealthy is the presence of acid sulphate soils as the fresh water in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert (the Lower Lakes) dries back. In discussing the Murray Darling Basin I often say "beware the South Australians", where the "blame factor" is most apparent. If you live in the driest State in the world's second driest continent (I understand Antarctica is the driest), and you only have one major river in your state (the Murray) and you live at the end of the stream, you are going to have a "hang-up"! From the time young South Australians are in short pants they are told that those awful farmers in Queensland, NSW and Victoria "take all our water". It is not an unfamiliar story around the world. It led Mark Twain to his famous comment "whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting over"!

The facts are that the South Australians have played the "victim's card" very well over the years and in terms of water sharing appear to get the best deal of any of the States in the basin. Furthermore, largely to support a small irrigation industry, which can be catered for in other ways, they converted the Lower Lakes into a permanent, highly inefficient, fresh water storage. Under natural conditions the Lower Lakes formed the natural estuary of the Murray River and depending on river flows, were sometimes fresh and sometimes salty. (See lakesneedwater.org).

Evaporation of fresh water from these lakes is enormous and it is truly outrageous that under dry conditions, upstream users are deprived of water so as to send large quantities of fresh water down to the Lower Lakes to mostly evaporate.  Under natural conditions salt water would have flowed in, but this is blocked by "The Barrages", as the series of weirs are called.

The problem of the Lower Lakes is, in my view, more a downstream problem than an upstream problem. However, the South Australians refuse to address anything other than what they term a "fresh water solution".

In dry times, before The Barrages were built,salt water has been known to come quite a long way up the main stem of the Murray.The Barrages, for much of the time, also prevent fresh water from entering the northern end of The Coorong.

The Lower Lakes will require much less fresh water if they are maintained in their natural estuarine state. In times of low flow the sea would always be able to keep water in the lakes at sea level and the problem of acid soils would be resolved.


Conclusion
From the foregoing I conclude that:-

• we need to specify just what is meant  by the statement that we need to "restore health" to the system. Are we not simply calling the natural results of the driest period in our relatively short records,"unhealthy"? Australia has always been subject to long periods of very dry conditions;
• buying back irrigation licenses/entitlements when there are no allocations will do nothing for our rivers (this really is "phantom water") and will only constrain production when water supplies are plentiful;
• if our rivers are "over allocated", and to claim this we need to specify under what flow conditions we make the claim, then it is the water sharing plans which should be addressed. There is no point in withdrawing licenses/entitlements which under flood conditions may well be a means of flood mitigation; 
• our forefathers did a great job of dealing with our massive run-off variability by building deep dams and diversions (Snowy) in the mountainous headwaters of our major temperate Australia river system. We need to make the cake bigger, by doing more of it;
• we need to address the efficiency (read evaporation) of some of our water storages, including the Menindee Lakes. The Barrages at the mouth of the Lower Lakes should be removed and the Murray given back its estuary. The proposal to service irrigation by building a weir above the entrance to the lakes should be pursued.
• the Water Act 2007 (Commonwealth) is excessively weighted towards environmental issues. It needs amendment, or at least be differently interpreted, so as to strike a proper balance.

Finally, from all of the above, one must conclude that the Murray Darling Basin Plan, as presently presented in the Guide, is deeply flawed.

David Boyd has spent over 50 years working in Australian agriculture. Prior to retirement in 2007 he was Chairman and a very "hands-on" CEO of Clyde Agriculture. Clyde was a major grazier (wool and beef), dryland grain producer (wheat) and irrigator (cotton). He has had a lifetime interest in water flows. 

Letter to The Land-15.03.2012

The following letter was given 'Letter of the week" status in The Land of March 15-
The letter from Diana Gibbs (The Land,March 1) a Board Member of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, raises some fundamental issues. We need to remember that the  Water Act was drafted at a time of extreme pressure from drought and green group agitation. We had the likes of Tim Flannery arguing it was never going to rain again which, among other reactions, saw our States undertake a scramble to build de-salination plants most of which would now appear to be white elephants. We saw a massive demonstration of the "blame factor"- a tendency to blame  stressful conditions on human actions rather than on natural causes. An examination of the statistics reveals that during the drought the water sharing plans for the Basin's individual rivers worked well. The allocation process saw irrigation extractions drop to very low levels and with the help of the upstream dams (particularly on the Murray) and the Snowy Diversions, we managed to keep the Murray river flowing through the worst drought in our recorded history - an unprecedented achievement.

Now after three years of flooding rains we have been reminded how Dorothea Mackellar and her "droughts and flooding rains" got it so right. We need to step back and calmly re-assess before we take actions which may unduly constrain our productive capacity with very negative impacts on socio-economic activity throughout the basin, yet achieve negligible environmental benefits. The Basin has probably never been in better condition than it is at the moment. No room for complacency, but time to make sure what we are planning to do is the right path for the future strength of the nation.

The Water Act is clearly deeply flawed, drafted as it was to give the Commonwealth power over the States by drawing on international environmental agreements. As a former NSW Director General of Water Resources has pointed out- (quote) "The Commonwealth Water Act is framed in such a way that it prevents integrated river basin management in a way that is consistent with international best practice." (end quote). It fails to address the contentious issue of the Lower Lakes and The Barrages and the Act precludes from consideration the optimising of water conservation objectives from the Snowy Scheme. These facts, together with former MDBA Chairman Michael Taylor's warning that the Act does not allow a properly balanced outcome, leads me to the view that the Act should be repealed.

I remain greatly concerned that as a consequence of misguided action by Government we will cause great socio-economic damage, unnecessarily limit future production, and do little or nothing for the environment.

(I make these comments from the perspective of somebody who has watched the Basin debate closely, particularly in my past role as chairman and chief executive of Clyde Agriculture which at that time was not only an irrigator but had extensive floodplain grazing.) 

I often cite the Government purchase of Toorale Station at Bourke as a microcosm of the Basin Plan. If Toorale had continued to operate it would have reduced river flows in the Darling River past Louth in 2010/11 by 0.01%! 

In other words, great social cost for no environmental benefit. 
David Boyd
St Ives NSW

Murray Darling Basin "Over-allocation"

11.05.2012
In a speech to the Practical Responses to Climate Change Conference on 2nd May the C.E. of the Murray Darling Basin Authority said the following:-

"Leaving aside the challenges of climate science uncertainty for a moment, I would like to turn to what we can be certain about.  There is more than enough information to be confident about the two key challenges in managing the water resources of the Basin:

The first – is over-allocation.  At some point, after the middle of last century, we, the collective governments, began to over allocate the water resource.  The early signals were rising salinity levels during the 1970s, the closing of the Murray Mouth in 1981, the massive blue-green algae blooms in the Darling River in the early 1990s, all well before the significant environmental deterioration we saw in the recent Millennium drought."

Let me deal with each of these claims-

Rising Salinity-it is widely acknowledged that since the introduction of the salt interception schemes salinity has been trending downwards.

Murray Mouth Closing in 1981-The Murray Mouth is a narrow and shallow inlet between sand dunes which naturally closes over.  But the problem has been made worse by the 7.6 kilometres of barrages (sea dykes) which limit natural scouring of the Murray’s mouth by the tide.

Darling River 1990's Blue Green Algae Bloom-We haven’t experienced a  bad algae bloom since 1991. Water quality is improving because of initiatives to reduce the point sources of phosphorous and fertilizers.

Millennium Drought-The allocation process, guided by existing water sharing plans, saw extractions appropriately drop like a stone during the drought.  It is wrong to categorise the natural consequences of drought   as "environmental deterioration".

This excerpt highlights the fact that the Water Act (2007) and the Murray Darling Basin Plan are based on the false assumption that there is unacceptable environmental damage being caused by excessive extractions.

Murray Darling Plan-Disallowance Motion-Leyonhjelm Spot-On.

​Hansard​ 13.02.18

Senator LEYONHJELM: I'm tempted to vote in favour of this disallowance. What holds me back is that I'm not sure if New South Wales and Victoria would, in fact, stand by their decision to walk away from the plan. But I wouldn't be too upset if they were to walk away from the plan, because the plan is deeply flawed. It requires social, economic and environmental issues to be equally balanced in terms of managing the water in the Murray-Darling Basin. However, the problem is that only one of those three—environmental issues—is seriously taken into account.

The plan arose in the context of the millennium drought, the most severe drought for 100 years. It prompted panic about climate change and it led some to conclude that droughts were the new normal, that it would never rain again, that water would always be scarce and the environment was facing catastrophe. 

Sensible people knew otherwise. Droughts always end, and, in 2010-11, that happened. There was widespread flooding and the recovery of wetlands. Birds bred enthusiastically, frogs and fish proliferated, and life carried on as it always has. Dorothea Mackellar's Australia—'a land of droughts and flooding rains'—was never better demonstrated.

During the drought, this plan was devised—first by the Howard government and then by the Rudd-Gillard government. Its intention was to remove water from agriculture in order to save the environment. The details were negotiated during the Labor government period against a background of panic over the drought, state bickering over water sharing, and the threat to Labor from the Greens. As a result, the plan was one per cent science and 99 per cent politics.

The plan calls for the return of 2,750 gigalitres of water to the environment, to be obtained both by buying back water rights from farmers and efficiency measures. There is a further 450 gigalitres to be returned, subject to certain conditions. Water rights have been bought back from farmers in southern Queensland, the northern basin area, New South Wales and Victoria, and a small quantity from South Australia.

In 2015 and 2016, I chaired a Senate inquiry into the effects of the plan's implementation. We held hearings all over the country. What we found was that the loss of irrigation water in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria was having a very profound impact on rural communities. Farms that previously grew irrigated crops—fruit, cotton and pasture for dairy cows—were now growing dryland crops or running a few sheep. They required far fewer inputs—machinery, fertilisers, seeds and so forth—and, as a result, those input suppliers were the ones who were missing out and their workers. 

The farmers who sold their water were fine, but everybody else who benefitted from those farmers and those farms being active were really suffering. Workers moved away from towns. Communities had fewer people. There were fewer children in schools, volunteer firefighters weren't there and there were fewer customers in local shops and so on.

What we also found was that there's very, very poor understanding of the plan. There's this almost religious belief that the environment simply needs water—just add water and it will all be okay. It doesn't really matter whether it's in the right place, in the right quantities or at the right times—just add water was pretty much what we heard. The fact is, of course, that too much water in the wrong place can do more harm than good.

There is another factor, which nobody seems to be addressing, and that is the river at the moment, in particular the Murray River, is running pretty much right up to the top of the bank. More water added to it, as the 450 gigalitres extra would do, couldn't be carried. The river could not carry that amount of water. Nonetheless, it is often heard that unless that water is added some sort of environmental disaster is going to occur.

I struggle to see why this was ever a South Australian issue, particularly in relation to the Northern Basin Review. The northern basin is all about the Barwon-Darling rivers. The amount of water from those two rivers that ever reach South Australia, or even join up with the Murray at Wentworth, is tiny—on average, across all years, six per cent. It's a tiny amount. It wouldn't matter if irrigation stopped in the entire Queensland and New South Wales areas, where it currently occurs; there would be very, very little additional water ending up in South Australia.

The other problem is: when it does end up in South Australia, what's it used for? It's not as if irrigation in South Australia has been suffering. It ends up in Lake Alexandrina. Lake Alexandrina is kept artificially fresh. It is not a natural freshwater lake. It is an artificial freshwater lake. Large amounts of water, an estimated 900 gigalitres, evaporate in Lake Alexandrina. 

Here we are taking fresh water, which could be used for agriculture, away from what were thriving rural communities—used for irrigation and so forth to produce food and fibre—and it is running down the river and ending up in South Australia to be evaporated. It's an absolute travesty. If that plan were to blow up and not be re-established unless on more sensible terms, I, for one, would not really mind.

The other issue is South Australia's water supply; it was never in doubt. There is plenty of water for Adelaide. There is plenty of water for South Australia. In fact, there is a guarantee in the plan of 850 gigalitres—more than enough. I am hugely sympathetic to those poor farmers in northern Australia, in Queensland, and in northern New South Wales, who, in the Northern Basin Review, have lost their water. I'm immensely sympathetic to them. 

Taking more water off them, which would occur if this review were not implemented, would be an absolute tragedy. I will be voting against the disallowance, but, if I thought that voting in favour of it would blow up the plan then that's where my vote would be going.

Profound MDB Comment

Letter to the Editor of the Australian

In its penultimate paragraph your article “Up to their eyes in it but entitlement denied”-The Australian 17 October; reads”....nature has remained the true determinant of the health of the Murray Darling”. This is a profoundly accurate truism. The failure of our scientists and water bureaucrats to recognise this, is at the heart of the totally flawed Murray Darling Basin Plan.
In the depths of the Millennium Drought we mistakenly blamed the natural impact of low river flows on “mismanagement and over allocations”. We then developed highly impractical mechanisms to remedy the situation at great cost to production and socio-economic health.
Recent flooding has dramatically demonstrated the highly variable nature of our river flows and the limited power of man to intervene. The Plan should be rescinded and practical knowledgeable people involved in its re-writing.

David Boyd
17.10.16

Submission to the Select Senate Committee on the Murray Darling BasinPlan

From the time that the Howard Government, in an attempt to garner "green" votes, decided to throw $10bn at the Murray Darling Basin, the management of the Basin has been a political football. This vote chasing initiative arose as the great Millennium Drought was biting hard and water shortages, the natural consequences of drought, were being erroneously blamed on extractions for irrigation. The term "over-allocation" entered the national lexicon.

In the years preceding the drought there was extensive reform of water regulation throughout the Basin. "The cap" limiting extractions to the 1993/4 level was introduced and John Anderson's National Water Initiative was passed introducing property rights and market trading of water entitlements and water allocations. These were all positive moves and reinforced Australia's international reputation as a leader in effective water management.

It is fundamental to a proper understanding of water management to recognise the difference between entitlements and allocations. Entitlements grant the holder an ongoing share of consumptive water when there is an allocation. An entitlement without an allocation is phantom water. For each of the Basin rivers there is a water sharing plan which guides the granting of allocations. These plans give priority to critical human and animal needs, followed by assIessed environmental needs and then and only then, are allocations for irrigation extractions even considered.

These principles are applied in a regime of massive natural variability. Our rainfall and run-off is arguably the most variable in the world. Given this variability, asking CSIRO to come up with single figure "Sustainable Diversion Limits" is really nonsense and only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our rainfall variability. Averages are really meaningless when one looks at the spreads around the average. Our major dams and the Snowy Scheme diversions have "flattened out" some of this variability, particularly in the southern Murray catchment, and have provided additional water to the west, but compared with the severity of our droughts and the magnitude of our floods, we really only "fiddle at the edges". 

Additional dams, with appropriate by-passes to allow small flows to pass, would further assist and would only "hold back" a tiny percentage of our big flood events.

Our ecology is geared to this extraordinarily variable environment and there is no better example than recent years with the severity of the Millennium Drought and the big flood events that followed.

To gain the necessary authority over the States in the Australian federation the Commonwealth relied on international environmental agreements. As a consequence we have a Commonwealth Water Act which lacks proper balance between social, economic and environmental needs. We have tarnished our previous reputation to be world leaders in water management. The Act should be repealed.

Against this backdrop it can be seen that the Government’s massive purchase of entitlements ("phantom water") will do nothing for the environment in the lean years, when allocations will be limited or non-existent. But in better years, with the Commonwealth now being by far the biggest holder of entitlements and an active player in the allocation market, we are likely to see decisions made for political reasons at the expense of sound commercially driven decisions, had the entitlements remained in private hands.

The most negative human induced environmental issue in the Millennium Drought was the management of the Lower Lakes in South Australia and the controversial Barrages which close-off the Murray River estuary from the sea.

With the piping of fresh water from upstream to the Lower Lakes environs there is now no reason for the South Australian obsession with keeping the Lakes always fresh to prevail. Failure to open the Barrages during the drought and allow salt water to enter, when there was simply no upstream fresh water available for any purpose, quite unnecessarily allowed the emergence of acid-sulphate soils. The huge evaporation of fresh water from the Lower Lakes is a wicked waste of a precious resource.

The commitment of additional water to the Lower Lakes in the latter part of the Plan negotiations and the target of keeping Lake Alexandrina open to the ocean 90% of the time, is a classic example of the political football approach at the expense of objective analysis, which has pervaded the whole Murray Darling Basin issue.

Sadly, the management of the Snowy Scheme has been expressly excluded from the MDB deliberations of recent years. There needs to be more focus on the original water storage/irrigation objectives. Improvements could be made without detracting from the all important hydro/electricity production objectives. If Snowy Hydro is to be privatised, a prerequisite should be a new operating agreement which gives greater weight to water storage for food and fibre production.

Failure to achieve a better balance between environmental and economic/social needs will unnecessarily limit Australia's productive capacity at the great expense of future generations and a growing world hungry for additional production.

(David Boyd is the former Chairman and C.E.O. of Clyde Agriculture Limited and a former General Manager of the Rural Division of Dalgety Australia Limited. Clyde was a major irrigator on the Barwon/Darling River in NSW, a dryland grain producer and the nations largest wool producer. Mr. Boyd has had a lifelong interest in inland Australia's water flows and had had first hand experience in rural Queensland,NSW,Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. He was until recently a Director of Tandou Limited a major irrigator on the Lower Darling and Murrumbidgee Rivers and is Chairman of agricultural research fund the McGarvie Smith Institute.)

JDO(David) Boyd

7A Eastern Arterial Road,

St Ives NSW 2075

Tel. 0429 999 444