Murray Darling Basin Plan

Letter Published in "The Land" of 25h November,2010

I think we can all agree with Tony Windsor (Letters, 18th November) that "we have a problem". But, I'm not sure we would agree on what the problem actually is. As I and many others see it, the problem is the dominance of dark green ideology, and classifying the natural results of an extreme dry period (and mis-management of the Lower Lakes), as river ill-health. First, let's scientifically examine the symptoms one by one and see if the rivers really are "unhealthy" or simply water deprived. Second, let us examine the hard numbers, (not the loose meaningless averages thrown around by the MDBA), for run-off, river flows and extractions, to determine whether these low river flows are really the result of excessive extractions.

The MDBA quote the annual average surface water extraction limit at 13,700 GL. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the total extractions for the last three years all added together are only 11,092 GL and for 2008/09 alone, only 3,492 GL. The seasonal allocation system would appear to be working well!

Tony Windsor is in a wonderful position to help get some truth and common sense into the debate. There is no better place to start than correctly defining the problem.
David Boyd

Water

Letter sent to The Australian 24th October,2010
Your lead story-After the dry,here comes the overflow,Weekend Australian 23rd October-accurately reflects the joy of again having good flows into the Macquarie Marshes. Unfortunately the joy is spoilt by politically correct references to "government water buybacks" and an emphasis on conflict between irrigators and "marsh graziers". The reality is that over the last ten years both irrigators and graziers have both suffered as an all powerful Nature has failed to provide water for either. Now that same Nature has provided generously for both. Why are we humans so reluctant to attribute the extremes of our rainfall to factors beyond our control?
David Boyd

Irrigation

Letter published in The Weekend Australian on 16th October:
In your front page today (Heated backlash Forces Murray inquiry) you categorically state that:

"The move to reduce water usage is an attempt to address the fact that states have sold irrigators licences to extract so much water from the system that not enough water is being left in the rivers to preserve the environment."

This statement is factually incorrect. No water can be extracted by irrigators holding licenses unless the use of those licenses has been triggered by the State Governments applying  seasonal allocations. Allocations are only granted after assessed environmental needs have been met. The problem in much of the last ten drought years has been that there has been no water for the process to even begin. Irrigators are being blamed for Nature's failure, until recently, to send enough rain to cause run-off into our waterways. No wonder they are upset. 

David Boyd,St Ives,NSW

Irrigation

Letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 11th October-
Paul Myers cuts through all the political correctness to the facts. Our rivers flows are massively variable as a result of our notoriously variable rainfall. We have been through a ten year drought with the lowest run-off in Australia's recorded history. Recently the situation has reversed as it has always done in the past. Pity we didn't have the infrastructure in place (read dams) to conserve more. As the floods descended last month the residents of Shepparton would have been delighted to see some upstream flood mitigation in the form of greater dam capacity!
David Boyd St Ives

Irrigation

The following letter was published in today's The Australian:-

"There is water everywhere in the Murray-Darling Basin. Perhaps the answer isn't the federal government's big master plan, but rain!

David Boyd, St Ives, NSW"

Water and Irrigation

The recent flooding in Victoria and consistent rain in NSW has seen a great boost to storage levels in most of the major dams feeding the Murray Darling Basin. It is a timely reminder of the key feature of the Australian climate-massive rainfall variability. After some ten years of drought (on and off) and the lowest water run-off in our short recorded history, we are reminded just how fast things can turn around. It also reinforces how our philosophically green "water managers" have got it so wrong. I fear that we are going to see a graphic example of this when the long awaited Murray Darling Basin Plan is released on 8th. October.

How many times have we heard that our rivers have been "mismanaged and over allocated"? How many times have we heard that the problem is that "we are taking too much water out of our rivers"? When all the time the major problem has been simply lack of run-off creating rainfall.

Let's face it, water is dynamic and doesn't wait for you to use it. Rivers run to the sea, if they make it, and water in storage evaporates. Whilst we must keep a proper balance between environmental and socio-economic needs, in rugby parlance it really is a "use it or lose it" situation. Sure it would help if we could reduce evaporation from shallow storages and if we had more dams in the headwaters of our catchments. Consider that the Murray River would have stopped flowing altogether some four years ago, as it always did under very dry natural conditions, if it were not for the headwater dams (Dartmouth and Hume in particular), the Snowy diversions and restrictions on irrigation extractions. Yet we managed to keep water in the system and to our shame sent water down to the Lower Lakes, Australia's most inefficient water storage, to largely evaporate.

When are those upstream going to wake-up to the perpetual victim's attitude of most South Australians and insist that those wretched barrages at the Murray mouth are removed? They keep fresh water out of  The Coorong, stop the impact of tidal pulses keeping the Murray mouth open, and deprive the Murray of a natural fresh/salt water estuary.

When are we going to clearly explain to our well meaning city cousins (we failed with Penny Wong), the difference between a Water License/Entitlement and a Water Allocation? The former without the latter really is "phantom water". The  failure of the purchase of the Toorale Station water licenses to trigger any meaningful amount of additional water in 2010, is a wonderful case study demonstrating what little impact purchasing licenses, only triggered by big flows, actually has in a good flow year. Yet the negative socio-economic impact is very meaningful.

We need to explain that  we deal with the variability of river flows by way of seasonal allocations-no (or limited) water-no allocation. It's that simple. If we really are "over allocating" then we should reduce allocations, but why cancel licenses which in big flows may well contribute to flood mitigation. The residents of Shepparton would have liked to have seen more extractions (and/or more storage) upstream last week and a huge amount could have been stored whilst only being a very small percentage of the total flow!

Murray Darling Basin

On Sunday 15th August I sent the following letter to the Sydney Morning Herald.
"Senator Wong's response ( Phantom Water SMH 14th August) to Debra Jopson's expose on phantom water (SMH 12th August) clearly demonstrates how the Senator and her extreme green advisers just don't "get it". The "lack of water flowing down the rivers of the Murray Darling Basin" is not caused by "decades of mis-management and over-allocation". It is caused by the lack of inflows to which the Senator refers. Let me try to explain.

Australia's rivers are highly variable and water is dynamic, it either runs away to the sea or it evaporates. We deal with the variability by building storages and having seasonal allocations for irrigation. When there is no or very limited water, there are no allocations. Having some water in the headwater storages, with minimal allocations for irrigation, allowed the Murray River to be kept flowing through this drought of record low rainfall and run-off into the river and dams.

Buying back an irrigation license/entitlement when there is no allocation generates no water. It will "generate" extra water (leave it in the river) when there is a good flow or flood and there would have been an allocation, but that is not when our rivers most need it and that will limit agricultural production for negligible environmental benefit.

By way of example, the first major water buy-back by this Government was the purchase of Toorale Station, Bourke in 2008 for $23.75m. There has been additional water in the Darling River as a consequence of this purchase during the big flows earlier this year. This additional water amounted to less than 1% of the flow past Bourke! Of the flow past Bourke that reached either the Menindee Lakes Storage or the Lower Lakes Storage at the mouth of the Murray, at least 50% will evaporate.

Engineering changes to reduce evaporation of fresh water in these storages could make a meaningful impact. All we have seen so far is political action pandering to misconceptions which will do little for the environment but have a long term negative impact on our ability to produce agricultural products for a hungry world."

Irrigation-Politics and Sovereign Risk

I was recently asked to write an overview of the politics of Australian irrigation with emphasis on the Barwon-Darling River. This is what I wrote:-

Big Picture-Background
Australia is claimed to be the most urbanised country on earth with the great majority of the population clustered in coastal cities. The very strong democracy, highly visible in a pre-election environment, appropriately has the voting power where the people are. Thus, the people with the electoral power are geographically separated from rural activities and generally have little knowledge of agriculture.
Furthermore, Australian urban voters have been strongly influenced by environmental advocates who are given significant exposure by the media. The “virtuous greens” are a significant market segment in our cities and like to feel they are playing their part in “saving the planet”.
There is a widely held perception that our inland rivers, from which irrigation water is extracted, have been “over allocated and mismanaged” by previous authorities, who did not have the benefit of today’s environmentally enlightened incumbents. This is mostly nonsense, but I believe it is a widely held belief.
Australia’s rainfall and thus river flows, is highly variable and thus it makes good sense to conserve water in efficient dams when flows are big. This can be for later use and/or flood mitigation. Usage by irrigators is controlled by variable allocations within each water year. An irrigation license/entitlement allows water to be extracted from the river only when defined conditions are met and allocations are made. When flows are low or non-existent, allocations are likewise low or absent. Irrigators understand this and knowingly accept the risks involved.
The drought of recent years has seen the run-off into our major state owned dams at the lowest level since white settlement and this has still not been corrected. This fact if by far the most significant cause of low river flows. Yet the belief that our rivers have been “over allocated and mismanaged” has seen Governments (mainly Federal) attempting to correct the situation by the purchase and effective cancellation of irrigation licenses. This will do nothing for our rivers when flows (and thus allocations) are low and will only constrain production when water supplies are plentiful. But, that does not appear to be understood.
Most of the focus has been on the Murray Darling Basin which covers Victoria north and west of the Great Dividing Range (GDR), all of NSW west of the GDR, and the southern half of Queensland west of the GDR until the Lake Eyre catchment in the far west of that state. This area includes some of Australia’s very best country (soils and rainfall) and some 80% of its irrigation. After the Murray and Darling Rivers join in south western NSW the river flows west in to South Australia before turning south and flowing in to Lakes Alexandrina and Albert (the Lower Lakes) from where it originally flowed in to the Southern Ocean. However in the 1930’s, the South Australians built a series of weirs (“The Barrages”) just above the ocean entrance to convert the Lower Lakes from their natural state of being sometimes salty and sometimes fresh, depending on river flows, into a state whereby they always contain fresh water and the sea is obstructed from entering. The Lakes are wide and shallow and evaporation losses of fresh water are huge.
South Australia is the driest state in the second driest continent on earth, (Antarctica is the driest), and the Murray River is the only decent river in the state. South Australians adopt a “victims attitude” and children are taught in primary school what a poor deal the state gets with upstream irrigators, in particular, extracting water that is “rightfully theirs”. The inefficiencies of water use, particularly the evaporation losses from the Lower Lakes are taboo subjects, rarely mentioned.
It would seem, perhaps by accident, that South Australians hold most of the key posts in the Commonwealth Government involved in the management of water. Senator Penny Wong the Minister for Water and Climate Change is a Senator for South Australia. Senator Nick Xenaphon is also a South Australian Senator and came to Canberra with one of his key objectives being to “save the Murray”. The new CEO of the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is a former South Australian water bureaucrat. Professor Mike Young, probably Australia’s best known water scientist and a prominent member of the philosophically “dark green” Wentworth Group of “concerned scientists”, is Adelaide based and will not publically acknowledge the problem of “The Barrages”.
Against this backdrop, the Federal government has passed legislation to give it greater control over management of the Murray Darling Basin and the Murray Darling Basin Authority has been charged with writing a management plan for the Basin which in terms of the Water Act 2007 gives very much more weight to environmental issues than it does to socio-economic issues. The Productivity Commission has recommended that the Act be amended to correct this, but there would appear to be little public support for such a move. Irrigators are very concerned that the MDBA plan will recommend significant reductions in entitlements for irrigation.
Today it was announced that release of the MDBA Plan will be delayed until after the election. A change in Government would probably see greater sympathy for the irrigator’s position and certainly the junior member of the Coalition, The Nationals have a better understanding of the situation than do the Labor Party representatives.


NSW and the Cap
In the mid 1990’s the Australian States agreed that a cap should be placed on further irrigation development and extractions in the Murray Darling Basin. The agreement broadly was that extractions should be capped at the 1994 level, based on water that would be extracted, under the then management regimes to service the level of development which then existed. This “cap” was progressively implemented river by river with the exception of the Mungindi-Menindee reach of the unregulated (meaning no physical regulation by way of a major dam) Barwon Darling. The Barwon Darling cap implementation was complicated and delayed by the highly variable nature of river flows, a lack of reliable historical information and a very strong lobby by local irrigators.
In 2006 a deal was struck between the Government and Barwon Darling irrigators to apply the cap at an interim level of 173GL (173,000ML). This compared with the total entitlement of 517 GL-a cut of 67%. The 517 GL was the aggregate of all licenses including “sleepers” and the total amount had never been used. Usage was more in the area of 250GL. The interim figure was based on a computer model of the river in which the irrigators had little confidence. The model was to be reviewed by a representative “working group” and many thought the correct figure would be more like 240GL, once metering errors and the like were corrected. A particularly strong argument was that the area of cotton grown in 1994 could certainly not have been grown with only 173GL. The agreement had some attractive features including introduction of carry-over water in years when extractions were below individual irrigators share of the 173GL’s and the introduction of an initialisation amount credited to individual irrigators water accounts.
This working group had one or two meetings, but never completed its work. Then out of the blue, earlier this year, the Barwon Darling (Mungindi/Menindee) irrigators received from the NSW Office of Water a convoluted letter advising that the 173GL figure was to be reduced to 143GL’s (a further 17% cut) on the basis that the Murray Darling Basin Authority supported by the Independent Audit Group, claimed that the Darling River was continually exceeding cap. Cap was defined not as the simple 173GL number, but yet another modelled figure which apparently took account of river heights and calculated a different cap figure. This was news to the signatories to the agreement with the Government who without exception believed that the cap figure (interim) was simply the 173 GL’s against which actual metered extractions would be compared.
The NSW Government appeared to accept the irrigator’s argument and the point that if they had a problem with the MDBA/Ministerial Council they needed to deal with it in the context that they were bound by their agreement with the Barwon Darling irrigators. The government has now deferred the matter for twelve months mainly to monitor what happens in 2010 when river flows have been so much greater. In legal terms the Government has great power and any legal action by the irrigators would be unlikely to be successful.
Summary
There is little public sympathy for the irrigator’s position. Yet:
• Irrigated agriculture contributes approximately 25 per cent of the gross value of Australian agricultural production, 3% of GDP, 22% of exports, but only uses 0.4 per cent of Australia’s farming area (Source: CSIRO, 2006)
• Australia utilises about 8% of its available water for industry, agriculture and support of the population, with agriculture using about 65% of this, or less than 6% of Australia’s water (Source: National Land and Water Audit 1997 – 2002)
• In their ‘natural’ state, the rivers located in the southern half of Australia experience more variable flows than virtually any other rivers in the world (Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2005)
• Between 1885 and 1960, the Darling River stopped flowing at Menindee on 48 occasions – well before irrigation existed on the river or its tributaries (Australian Farm Institute).

On the local scene Mungindi/Menindee extractions average only about 6% of flows past Bourke. The final cap figure, be it 143GL or 250GL, compares with an annual average flow past Bourke of 2,500 GL’s, with extractions only allowed from the bigger flows. This would seem a small environmental price to pay for all of the socio-economic benefits derived, particularly to a series of disadvantaged towns along the river whose populations include a large proportion of indigenous Australians.
It should also be noted that water flowing past Bourke is usually stored downstream in the Menindee Lakes. A series of natural lakes engineered to form a highly inefficient water storage, where normally half the water diverted is lost to evaporation.
To my mind, the irrigator’s argument has “right” on its side, particularly if it is accepted that Australia has a moral responsibility to sustainably maximise its agricultural production. I remain sufficiently naive to believe that in the long run “right” will prevail.
David Boyd
22.07.10

Australian Irrigation Misunderstandings

Arguably the world's leading weekly, "The Economist" recently ran an article on this subject. A well informed commentator wrote the following comment.
"There are great misunderstandings about Australia's water/irrigation situation. I contend that 90% of current water problems are the result of drought and around 10% mismanagement and over-allocation. It is disturbing to see Ken Henry so misinformed. Allocating water to the Lower Lakes (an estuarine system at the mouth of the Murray River converted in to a highly inefficient fresh water storage principally for recreation)and storing water in the shallow Menindee Lakes are issues which should be addressed.The Government buying water entitlements when there is no water, will do nothing for our rivers in drought times and only restrict production when there is plenty of water around. Remember Australia's river flows are massively variable and water is dynamic, it runs to the sea or it evaporates, it doesn't wait for you.In the present drought if it was not for the big dams in its headwaters,the Snowy River diversions and severely limited irrigation extractions, the Murray River would have stopped flowing three years ago. Australia needs more storages, but they must be efficient(deep)and highly flexible to allow medium and smaller flows to pass.They would store water by taking the top off the big events. These events are totally irregular, but surprisingly frequent-just like what has happened in the Darling catchment since Christmas.The governments purchase of the famous Toorale Station to save its water extractions, has proven a great waste of taxpayer's money. Had Toorale been operating since Christmas it would have extracted 0.4% of the flow in the Darling. $23.75m for 0.4% of the flow!!!"

Water Management

As of today just under 1,400,000 megalitres of water has flowed down the Darling River past Bourke since Christmas. Water "saved for the river" as a consequence of the Government buying Toorale Station and its water licenses, remains at 10,000 megalitres-0.7% of the flow since Christmas.How's that for an investment of $23.75m.?

Lakes-Letter to The Australian 13th February,2010

Could someone please explain to me (As one lakes region comes to life, another is saved from death-The Australian February 13th-14th) why returning the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) to more like their natural state and allowing sea water to enter as it always did when upstream rainfall and flows were low, would be such a "natural disaster" equivalent to "death"?

River Management

Letter Sent to the Sydney Morning Herald on 10.02.10
Water Management in the Murray Darling Basin

Paul Myers (Only rain can solve riddle of the rivers -SMH 10th February,2010) is so right in his central point that only rain can solve the water shortages in the Murray Darling Basin. The Government buying back water licenses, when there is no water and no allocations, will do nothing to increase water when we are not receiving run-off generating rainfall. When we are receiving such rains, and water supplies are plentiful, the cancellation of these irrigation licenses will only restrict agricultural production so badly needed by a hungry world. We need to remember Dorothea Mackellar's line "droughts and flooding rains" to which we could add "and not much in the middle". The key characteristic of Australia's climate is massive rainfall variability.

Under these highly variable conditions there is something we can do to improve water supplies in dry periods. We need more dams to conserve surplus water in very wet conditions. These can also play a part in flood mitigation. Storages need to be deep so as to minimise evaporation losses - valleys in hilly country are best. The diversion of surplus flows from coastal flowing rivers (eg NSW North Coast), with damming and tunnelling, would not only mitigate floods, but also provide water for food production

The South Australian's claim that the dreadful condition of the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) is due to extractions and lack of fresh water from upstream. No mention of the fact that under natural conditions the Lower Lakes were sometimes salty and sometimes fresh depending on fresh water flows, or lack of them, from upstream in Victoria, NSW, and Queensland. No mention of the impact of the building of "The Barrages" at the mouth of the lakes which converted the Lakes to all times fresh with the expectation that there would always be sufficient fresh water flows from upstream.

Under natural conditions with no dams in the Upper Murray catchment and no Snowy diversions, with the minimal run-off of the recent drought years, the Murray would have stopped flowing some three years ago. Salt water would have entered the Lakes and the lower reaches of the river itself as it always did under such dry conditions in the past, prior to the building of the Barrages. So it can be argued that the dire condition of the Lakes is largely a man-made problem.It is only the water stored in the Upper Murray dams, the Snowy diversions and restrictions on irrigation that have enabled the Murray to maintain any flow at all.

Darling River-Flow Variability and Magnitude

At Christmas time the Darling River at Bourke had ceased to flow and real fears were held for the towns future water supply. Irrigation was out of the question. Then it poured across north/western NSW as the remnants of a cyclone made their way across the continent from the n/w of Western Australia.

The Darling River peaked at Bourke on 23rd January at major flood level height of 10.779 metres with a daily flow level of 47,219 megalitres.

Between the 28th December and the 4th February a total of 1,361,842 megalitres of water (almost three Sydney Harbours) flowed past Bourke. It is estimated that 30,000 megalitres was extracted to fields and off-river storage, by all irrigators from Brewarrina to Louth-2.2% of the total flow.

The water kept in the river as a consequence of the Governments (Federal and State) purchase of Toorale Station and its irrigation licenses was approximately 10,000 megalitres-0.73% of the flow. A pretty poor return on $23.75m!!

The river continues to carry a good flow.

Most of the water flowing past Bourke will be stored in the Menindee Lakes Storage Scheme where approximately 50% will evaporate.

As we Australians seek a better balance between socio-economic and environmental needs these sort of numbers and the fact that such events are not atypical, needs to be more widely understood.

Flood Water Flows in the Darling

The recent publicity about the flood flows in the Darling, the return to the river of Toorale irrigation water, the Menindee Lakes and the needs of the Lower Lakes in South Australia, highlights some of the misunderstandings that prevail.

I contend that the unique feature of the Murray Darling Basin and of Australia generally, is massive rainfall and run-off variability. This appears to be little understood as does the magnitude of our big rain/run-off events when they occur.The current event is a very good example of what happens quite frequently, but totally irregularly!

As a consequence of the heavy rains mostly in Northern NSW over the Christmas/New Year period there is now a moderate flood in the Darling River. So far some 800,000 megalitres of water have flowed past Bourke with considerably more to come.

The Federal Government have made much of their guess that Toorale would have extracted 11,000 megalitres had the water licenses not been purchased by the Government. This would be approximately correct, but would include stock and domestic retention in the Warrego Dams. In other words $23.75M was spent to save 1.4% of the flow so far!

The man engineered Menindee Lakes rank as the most inefficient water storage in Australia, surpassed only by the Lower Lakes themselves. Of water that enters Menindee Lakes, which have a total capacity of 1.8m megalitres, it is a fair to estimate to that approximately 50% will be lost to evaporation and seepage. Much is made of the fact that Broken Hill's water supply has now been secured for the next two years. I would hope so, as Broken Hill only uses approximately 10,000 megalitres per annum!

The South Australian's now claim that the dreadful condition of the Lower Lakes is due to extractions and lack of fresh water from upstream. No mention of the fact that under natural conditions the Lower Lakes were sometimes salty and sometimes fresh depending on fresh water flows, or lack of them from upstream in Victoria, NSW, and Queensland. No mention of the impact of the building of "The Barrages" at the mouth of the lakes which converted the Lakes to all times fresh with the expectation that there would always be sufficient fresh water flows from upstream.

Under natural conditions with no dams in the Upper Murray catchment and no Snowy diversions, with the minimal run-off of the recent drought years, the Murray would have stopped flowing some three years ago. Salt water would have entered the Lakes and the lower reaches of the river itself as it always did under such dry conditions in the past, prior to the building of the Barrages. So it can be argued that the dire condition of the Lakes is largely a man-made problem.

Perhaps NSW and SA should do a deal:-
1) Somehow secure Broken Hill's water supply without relying on Menindee Lakes. How did they get on in the mining hey-day before the Menindee Storage Scheme was built?
2) Engineer a much more efficient (deeper) storage at Menindee to service the needs of the Lower Darling irrigation industry.
3)Build the proposed weir at Wellington (SA) to service the Lower Lakes irrigation industry. 4)Remove The Barrages and return the Lower Lakes to more like their natural condition.

That should stir a few responses!!!

Submission to Productivity Commission

Submission to Productivity Commission on Water Recovery

Overview
This submission is brief, long on assertion and short on evidence. This is not because the assertions are not defensible, but rather because of limited resources. I would be happy to enlarge verbally should the Commission be interested.
Assertions
1.The key characteristic of Australia’s inland rivers (where most irrigation takes place), is massive variability. For example, the Darling River at Bourke has an annual average flow of approximately 2,500,000 megalitres. The spread around the average is zero (no flow whatever for 12 months) at the bottom end to a flow of 12,000,000 megalitres at the top end. Whilst this may be an extreme example, it is indicative of Australia’s highly variable rainfall and run-off.

In such circumstances it is really nonsense to ask CSIRO to calculate “Sustainable Water Yield” which I take to mean the annual amount that can always be extracted. Likewise the setting of Sustainable Diversion Limits makes no sense unless these are set at zero. Such an approach appears to take no account of variability. A fixed extraction amount in a year of high flow could be miniscule in terms of its impact on the environment. The same amount in a low flow year would be excessive.

2.This variability is dealt with by the use of allocations. Water licenses give irrigators the right to extract water when allocations are made and this only happens when flows are sufficient to allow this.
Thus, the purchase of water licenses by the Government will do nothing to increase water supplies when river flows are low and when there are no (or very limited) allocations and will only restrict production when flows are significant.

Much is made of providing irrigators with greater certainty. However, the facts are that Australian irrigators, like graziers, know and accept the risks involved in farming in Australia’s highly variable rainfall environment. The only achievable certainty would be a policy of zero extractions.

3.If Australia is to responsibly and environmentally sensitively maximise agricultural production, we need to take two key approaches. We need to conserve (read efficient storages) at time of high flows and build infrastructure that is flexible. This flexibility mainly manifests itself by way of storages that can allow smaller flows to pass unimpeded. These two key words (conservation and flexibility) need to drive our thinking.

An approach which uses fixed amounts, as with “Caps”, “Sustainable Yields” and “Sustainable Diversion Limits” seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Australia’s inherent rainfall and run-off variability.

David Boyd
12.12.09

Politics

On the 4th July, 2008 I sent the following email to my friend Malcolm Turnbull. I am tempted to say "I told you so"!
Dear Malcolm,
Listening to this morning's ABC Radio prompts me to 'write'. I have always had a predilection to telling other people, particularly politicians, how to do their jobs! Now that I don't have one myself (retired) I can further indulge myself in this annoying habit!

Murray-Darling

As a one time resident of S.A. I am acutely aware of the water hang-ups of the locals. If you live in the driest state in the driest continent and only have one decent river and you live on the rear (arse) end of that, you are sure to have a hang-up. Primary school children in Adelaide are taught that SA is discriminated against by those awful bastards upstream in Queensland, NSW (including the ACT) and Victoria who take all the water. The South Australians have, over the years, exploited this "I'm badly done by" attitude to the point that they have the best deal of all in the basin (have a look at their irrigation allocations in the last few years), pipe water all over the place and are quite profligate in its use.
The 'elephant in the room', which they never mention, are the barrages at the mouth of the river. Under natural conditions the water in the lower lakes varied from being salt to fresh depending on river flows. Once the barrages were built it became continually fresh and the expectation developed that there should always be sufficient fresh water from upstream to keep them high. The option of doing what would have happened under natural conditions and allow the salt water in, is never contemplated. Without this natural flushing it is no wonder the mouth of the Murray closes over more than it did under natural conditions.Most of the statements about the ecological collapse of the river refer to the lower lakes.

Against that backdrop, what a worry it is to have the key players in the debate now all S.A. based- Penny Wong, Mike Young and now Nick Xenothon!! I think Mike Young is quite right in saying that an absolute 'cap' figure is no way to manage a highly variable situation. We need to deal in shares of an ever moving total. However, he is quite wrong in never acknowledging the barrages issue and even suggesting that the massive evaporation of fresh water from the lower lakes should be a first call on the river.

Carbon Trading

It seems to me to be increasingly clear that the conventional wisdom is under very strong challenge. There has been no warming over the last ten years and the link between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and warming is very weak. If there is a problem, if India and China and the rest of the developing world do nothing, what is the purpose of Australians being 'holier than thou' and inflicting economic pain for no measurable impact on the global position. I hope you have a chance to read Colin Robinson's paper that I emailed you yesterday.

My, ever humble, view is that Australia should do nothing in a regulatory sense and allow all those "virtuous greens" who apparently make up a significant part of our population, to act independently and freely! With all of the concerns about costs, particularly fuel costs, now might be the right time for the Opposition to really differentiate itself and take such a position. You might have a problem with Greg Hunt!

Irrigation Fundamentals

27.10.09

Irrigation Fundamentals

§ Buying irrigation licenses by the Federal Government will do nothing for our rivers, it will only limit agricultural production when water is plentiful.
§ Irrigation licenses grant the right to extract water only when allocations are made.
§ When water is short there are no, or very limited allocations.
§ Our rainfall (and run-off) is highly variable.
§ The answer to water shortages is to store more in times of plenty.
§ Storages need to be deep to minimise evaporation losses.
§ Valleys, in hilly country, make the most efficient storages.
§ Diversion of surplus flows from coastal flowing rivers through damming and tunnelling, would not only mitigate floods, but also provide additional water for food production.
§ Dams need to be engineered so as to allow smaller flows to pass.
§ They need to be “adaptively” managed in a flexible way, in line with our highly variable rainfall

David Boyd

Infrastructure

"What a funny world!

1) The central unique physical characteristic of Australia is massive rainfall variability.

2) Consequently, 'available water' is largely a consequence of efficient storage.

3) Huge rainfall is occurring in Northern NSW and South-east Queensland.

4) We are in the midst of the biggest infrastructure spend in Australia's history.

5) The planning does not include a single new dam!"

Irrigation Facts

Thursday 28 May, 2009 - 21:27 by David Boyd

• Irrigated agriculture contributes approximately 25 per cent of the gross value of Australian agricultural production, 3% of GDP, 22% of exports, but only uses 0.4 per cent of Australia’s farming area (Source: CSIRO, 2006)
  
• Australia utilises about 8% of its available water for industry, agriculture and support of the population, with agriculture using about 65% of this, or less than 6% of Australia’s water (Source: National Land and Water Audit 1997 – 2002)
  
• In their ‘natural’ state, the rivers located in the southern half of Australia experience more variable flows than virtually any other rivers in the world (Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2005)
  
• Between 1885 and 1960, the Darling River stopped flowing at Menindee on 48 occasions – well before irrigation existed on the river or its tributaries (Australian Farm Institute).
  
• Data shows that, due to water losses in the river system and the Menindee Lakes storages, for every megalitre of water that flows past Bourke only 0.3ML can be expected to appear as regulated flow in the Lower Darling or to contribute to flow in the Murray.
  
  

Irrigation-Letter In SMH

Letter in SMH 30.05.09
Saturday 30 May, 2009 - 07:25 by David Boyd in Irrigation

Solution flows from fewer licences and more dams
May 30, 2009

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the cause of our record low river flows, particularly in the Murray-Darling, and buying back water licences won't fix it ("River rescue deal leaves NSW spluttering", May 29).

Take a look at the graph on the Murray Darling Basin Authority website that shows record low run-off into the Murray in recent years. The problem is clearly not extractions, which in any event are limited by low, or no, allocations. The problem is lack of run-off and too few efficient water storages.

There has been no discernible benefit from the water licence purchases and lower allocations that have taken place. Why? Because there has been no widespread heavy rain in the catchment. Thus, throwing another $300 million at buying back water licences is fiddling with the problem and will only restrict production when the rain does come.

The central feature of Australia's inland rivers is their massive variability. Storages can even this out and make production not only possible, but economically and environmentally sustainable.

Under natural conditions the Murray would have stopped flowing about two years ago and salt water would have entered Lakes Alexandrina and Albert (the Lower Lakes), as it always did when river flows were low before the building of barrages. Yet in this drought, with some water available from Eildon, Hume and Dartmouth dams, and from the Snowy system, a flow in the Murray has been maintained.

Conclusion: what we need are more dams and more efficient dams, not fewer licences. The Federal Government needs to recognise this and apply its collective mind to the profligate waste of fresh water in the form of evaporation from the man-engineered Lower Lakes and Menindee Lakes, and to identifying new sites for efficient storages. When it does so I will believe that it has
moved on from shallow, South Australia-centric political games and is addressing the problem.

With increasing world food shortages, Australia has a moral duty to maximise production, providing this can be done, as it can, without damage to our long-term productive capacity.
David Boyd St Ives