Fugitive Malcolm Naden

Just outside Gloucester NSW where the NSW Police team searching for Malcolm Naden have set up its  headquarters, a helpful local has made a contribution.

Toorale Money Waste and Community Economic Damage

Just in case the telling point is lost in too many words-see below. The Darling River flow past Louth for the 2010/11 year was 7,910,553 megalitres. The Government claim of "water returned to the river" in 2010/11 as a consequence of the Toorale close down, was 7,672 megalitres-0.01% of the flow.

Toorale Ramifications

The Sydney Morning Herald (David Wroe) has written a well balanced article on the waste of money in buying Toorale (pronounced Too-rally) Station at Bourke.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/station-buyout-a-waste-of-money-20111223-1p8ln.html.
 I attempted to leverage this with a letter to the Editor which failed to make the final cut-

"Congratulations to the SMH (Station buyout a waste of money- 23rd December) for "outing" the Commonwealth and former NSW State Government for the total waste of $23.75m in purchasing Toorale Station. Not only was this a waste of taxpayer's funds for negligible environmental benefit, it also took out of production the hard hit Bourke community's most productive enterprise. How downstream grazier Justin Mc Clure can argue that a 0.01% increase in flow can generate downstream environmental benefits is a real mystery.

The episode has wider ramifications in terms of the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the approach of the Murray Darling Basin Authority is deeply flawed and the Toorale outcomes represent a good example of the likely consequences-negligible environmental benefit, but significant negative economic consequences. When flows are low, license conditions prevent extractions and diversions, when flows are significant the impacts of extractions and diversions are minimal. Dorothea Mackellar was absolutely right in describing inland Australia as a land of "droughts and flooding rains", she could have added and "not much in the middle".

In using absolute numbers as the MDBA has done, to prescribe acceptable extractions/diversions limits without gearing these to actual flows (availability) is really nonsense. To argue that these numbers are "averages" doesn't help, given the enormous spreads around the averages. Our current water bureaucrats could do worse than studying how the existing control system operates. It works rather well.
J.D.O.(David) Boyd

7A Eastern Arterial Road,

St Ives NSW 2075
Tel:   02 9449 7501
Mob: 0429 999 444
(Former Chairman and CEO of Clyde Agriculture, the previous owner of Toorale Station)"

Global non-Warming

Hitting the Nail on the Head!

Durban failed to explain why models were not achieved (Letter published in The Australian, 16 December 2011)

Your editorial (15/12) discussing Canada’s withdrawal from the binding  Kyoto agreement also states your continued acceptance of “the strong evidence of anthropogenic climate change and support (for) limits on greenhouse gas emissions as a precautionary and remedial measure”.

But surely questions must be raised by the failure at Durban to hold any serious discussion of the now obvious failures of the supposed consensual climate science.

Most  astonishing is the failure to explain at Durban why predictions based on scientific (sic) models are not being achieved.

Why do we need even to take precautionary action when there has been no real warming for almost two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years and no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves?

And, going back further, how do the modellers explain why over the past century temperatures did not rise for about 40 per cent of the time even when CO2 concentrations were increasing?

As the barman said to excessive imbibers, time’s up mate. Your precautionary action is to recognise you can’t get away with believing models.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Entitlements and Allocations

The following letter was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9th. December, 2011:
"The focus on the 2750 gigalitre (GLS) figure of claimed water "returned to the rivers" is highly misleading. This number refers to extraction entitlements.  Irrigation entitlements grant the right to extract water only when when seasonal allocations are made and this depends on water availability. When water is short there are no, or very limited, allocations. Water entitlements without allocations amount to phantom water. During the Millennium Drought extraction entitlements were cut by over 4,000 GLS by the allocation system-it works rather well." (Buying irrigation entitlements will do nothing for our rivers and will only limit agricultural production when water is plentiful.)
(  ) Omitted by Letters Editor

Matt Ridley on Climate Change

My favourite author of the moment ("The Rational Optimist") Matt Ridley has given a highly acclaimed speech on Climate Change. I commend it to you_
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf

Murray Darling Basin Authority Draft Plan-November,2011

After a quick "skim" of the new Report I have prepared the following Questions for the Authority-

Guidelines For Questioners At MDBA Plan Meetings –November, 2011

·         What is the specific evidence on which you state the Basin is “unhealthy”, particularly after the recent wet years?

(The MDBA website states -“Our use of the water in the Basin has changed how the rivers flow.  These changes in volume and timing have led to increases in salinity, blue-green algal blooms and water quality degradation, while wetlands, red gum forests, native fish and water bird populations are decreasing (my emphasis).  All of these features are symptoms of overuse and they are what have led to the latest impetus for water reform.

What is the scientific basis for these claimed symptoms? They are inconsistent with the practical observations of many on-the-ground, knowledgeable, riparian dwellers.

·         Are you sure that you are not confusing the natural results of a typical (but extreme) Australian dry period with chronic “ill-health”?

·         Does the Authority accept that the ACF claim that the Murray Darling Basin is on the point of “eco-collapse” is nonsense?

·         Given that the Water Sharing Plan guided allocations saw a cut of over 4,000 GL  in extractions during the recent drought and given that critical human needs and assessed environmental needs have first priority; what is the point of the Government buying entitlements? Won’t this only prevent production when water is plentiful?

·         Does the Authority acknowledge the point made by Harvard Professor John Briscoe that Australia achieved a rare accomplishment in keeping the Murray River flowing when run-off was at all time (since European settlement) record lows? Does the Authority acknowledge that this was achieved by the existence of upstream storages, the Snowy River diversions and strict limits on irrigation extractions? Does this not call for additional storages to better spread the extreme variability of our river flows?

·         When, during the Millennium Drought, there was no water available for irrigation extractions or to maintain the Lower Lakes in there unnatural fresh water state, what was the logic for not allowing sea water to enter the Lower Lakes as it always did under such dry conditions before the Barrages were built?

·         Why does the report not examine the management of Snowy Scheme diversions, particularly the use of Eucumbene Dam, the largest storage feeding the Basin? Evidence suggests that Snowy Hydro are not required to give sufficient weight to water conservation and supply considerations, consistent with their hydro electricity generation objectives.