Preamble
In August,2010 Gail and I made an abortive attempt to see Lake Eyre by air from Adelaide. The story of that visit is recorded on my Blog. At the suggestion of my stockbroker friend John Reynolds,who has a keen interest in the Burke and Wills saga, we decided to make another attempt this year.
My former Dalgety colleague David Miller of Dubbo has made a name for himself in Australian aviation with his Air Link charter and commuter airline business now owned by Regional Express, but still run by David. David knows inland Australia like the back of his hand and is a very experienced pilot. At Clyde he acted as our unofficial aviation adviser which included servicing our aircraft and recruiting our pilots. I conferred with him and we put together a plan to fly out of Dubbo in an Air Link Piper Chieftain charter, with David at the controls with six passengers-John and Susan Reynolds, John's friends GP Ed. Ryan and his wife Susie, and Gail and me.
Thursday,3rd May
We took off from Dubbo after 9:00AM after some clown (me) had to return to the Motel to pick-up his suit bag which he'd left in a cupboard! Why a suit-see my next post.
We flew to Bourke for a refuelling stop, over-flying former Clyde property Oxley in the Macquarie Marshes. I regailed my fellow travellers over the aircraft P.A. system on the ecological glory of the Marshes and the complete absence of conflict between good environmental management and good commercial (cattle) outcomes. Oxley, from 5,000 feet, looked a picture.
From Bourke we headed WNW for Thurloo Downs as I was keen to show everyone the Bulloo Overflow country-see my Blog post-25th April,2010. I regretted not contacting my friend Peter Hughes and arranging to land and introduce my companions to the largest private landholder in NSW. We got a good view of the overflow water, but much less than in 2010 and then flew over the NSW/Queensland border and many lakes carrying abundant water, before striking the Cooper Channels as that watercourse swings to the west towards South Australia.
We landed at the Dig Tree and , of course were reminded of that great Australian exploration saga of mismanagement and appallingly bad luck. Whilst most Australians know of the late arrival back at Cooper's Creek of the smaller party which had been to the Gulf and back, to discover that the base camp had been abandoned about nine hours earlier, it was John Reynolds who pointed out that that was only the beginning of the bad luck/bad management. Subsequent visits to the camp site by Brahe and Wright (returning from the base camp party) and Will's himself and the failure of all of them to leave a clear indication that they had been there, contributed to the deaths of Burke and Wills. Cooper's Creek was running strongly, from the March rains.
As we flew out of the Dig Tree I was surprised at how different the country appeared from our visit of two years previously when we didn't land and were mostly over 10,000 feet!. What appeared to be well grassed, undulating grazing land dominated until the lakes of the Congie area appeared. Lots of water.
There was plenty of water to be seen in the Diamantina as we approached Birdsville. We strolled around the town and arranged to have a drink with David and Nell Brook at the pub. They are a fascinating, switched on couple, with real life commercial and environmental experience of the Channel Country. David is the third generation of his family who have been in Birdsville and has lived all his life in the district and says that the last three years is the best run of seasons he has seen. He has now rebuilt cattle numbers to their pre-drought levels. ABC TV were in town and that day had done some filming of Brook family cattle in some Adria Downs cattle yards. We subsequently saw this great footage on the ABC News. Wonderfully conditioned Hereford cattle. I was interested to learn that former Clyde cattle agent/bull buyer, Charlie Weyman-Jones, is now doing a similar job for the Brooks.
Friday, 4th May
We took off from Birdsville as David and Nell Brook took-off for Longreach to a Stockman's Hall of Fame event. Nell at the controls whilst David was writing his speech-he is the Chairman. David rang to say that the fresh in the Diamantina had reached "Cowarrie"-downstream of Goyder's Lagoon. We followed the river South and I was blown away by the vastness of the Goyder Lagoon wetland. It makes the Macquarie Marshes look like a pocket handkerchief. Not sure who the lucky grazier/s is, but it would be a great asset.
As the water comes back together below the Lagoon the river changes its name to the Warburton and swings around towards the west. A breakout stream heads into Lake Eyre and
a little later after joining another river from the north/west (the Macumba) the mainstream becomes the Warburton Groove and flows into the Lake.
We were surprised at how little water there appeared to be in Lake Eyre North-really only a good body in the southern end which at the very south takes on a red ochre appearance. Otherwise appears just a huge expanse of white salt with some damp patches. Lake Eyre south had more visible water, which I noted mainly comes from the Flinders Ranges.
Some interesting topography formations as you fly south.
We landed at Leigh Creek for refuelling and I noted from the air a well established town servicing the mines which supply the coal to Whyalla.
Then on to Wilpena Pound, landing at Rawnsley Park. We did a Sunset Tour from the WP Resort which was simply some eats and drinks from a nearby hill watching the sun set over the hills surrounding the Pound. Hard spinifex country.
Saturday 5th May
Great views of the Pound as we took off against a rising sun. As we flew to Broken Hill for refuelling and an airport breakfast I was very conscious of how little I know of the S.A. Pastoral country.
From Broken Hill we got a good, long distance view of the Menindee Lakes before striking the Paroo floodwaters. To my surprise it appeared that the Paroo was still flowing in to the Darling in two spots. The passage of the Darling floodwaters was still very clear. We flew over Toorale and I requested everybody to join me in a cry! I was challenged to explain McCaughey's Warrego water spreading system in the time available.
Les Walsh (Landmark, Bourke) had kindly left a vehicle for us at the Bourke airport to drive to the Showground via the wharf and the main street. At the Show it was clear that people were all shocked by Wayne O'Mally's death the previous Sunday in an aircraft accident. In opening the Show the Bourke Mayor (Andrew Lewis) bracketed Wayne's death, the drought and the loss of Toorale, as the major disasters which had hit the district in the last decade. I thought the Show was smaller than usual, but still a great show and a tribute to the resilience of the community.
Gail and I stayed on in Bourke to attend Wayne's funeral on the following Monday whilst the rest of the party went on to Dubbo and connecting flights to Sydney. This was a great trip in really good company.
Full photo gallery.
25 May, 2012
17 May, 2012
Toorale
I sent the following two letters to The Australian on 16th May. The second one was published as the lead letter on 17th May,2012
|
|||
Your front page article and editorial (The
Australian, May 16) highlights the whole fiasco of the Commonwealth and NSW
Government’s purchase of Toorale Station.
In opening the Bourke Show on 5th May, the current Mayor referred to the disasters
that had hit Bourke in recent times-the death of former Mayor Wayne O’Mally in
an aircraft accident the previous Sunday, the Millenium Drought and the loss of
Toorale. Bracketing Toorale with these events demonstrates the depth of feeling
in the community in the totally unnecessary economic blow that the conversion
of the district’s most productive property to a National Park represents.
Toorale was an iconic Darling River sheep station
of 247,000 acres. It included about 7,000 acres in the form of a state of the
art irrigation (cotton) farm. The purchase was driven by a political desire on
the part of South Australian Senator Penny Wong to be seen “to do something” to
reduce water extractions from the Darling and Warrego Rivers. Yet the reality
is that it has minimal impact. 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 low flow periods no extractions or diversions are
allowed. In other words, great social cost, for no environmental benefit.
The irrigation water storage (Ross' Billabong) on
Toorale is estimated to hold approximately 10,000 megalitres and this is the
only irrigation storage on the Station and apart from any
water that may have gone direct on to irrigation fields, this is the maximum
amount that can be claimed as being "returned to the Darling". Water
for this storage can be pumped from the Darling or diverted from the
Warrego.
The Warrego River, which is mostly not flowing and is only a shallow gutter, runs through the property from north to south. It has five dams on it, all of which have two four foot diameter pipes (and gates) in the bed of the river. These allow smaller flows to pass through to the Darling. They were closed towards the end of a flow so as to retain water for livestock and domestic purposes, both for Toorale and neighbours, not for irrigation.
When there is too much Warrego water for the pipes to carry, the river spills out to the west and runs down a natural flood plain, flooding over 20,000 acres before entering the Darling downstream of the main Warrego/Darling junction.
The original dams on the Warrego were built in the late 1890's by the legendary Sir Samuel McCaughey and apart from providing livestock and domestic water storages, one was designed to push smaller flows out on to the western flood plain where the water stimulates the most prolific growth of natural pasture, ideal for livestock fattening.
The very reasonable requirement of the NSW Government, in the second half of last century, to place the pipes in the bed of the river and allow smaller flows to pass through to the Darling, effectively means that natural conditions have been replicated. If there is too much water for the open pipes to carry, the river would have spilled to the west anyway.
Thus, the Government cannot claim any additional "savings" as a consequence of the purchase of the irrigation licenses other than the water which could be stored for irrigation purposes in Ross' Billabong-10,000 megalitres. The removal of the dams and banks would NOT provide any more water to the Darling.
The conversion of the whole property to a National Park has taken Bourke's most productive station out of production with all of the harmful impact this has on the Bourke economy. Toorale used to pay 5% of Bourke's total Shire rates, now it pays nothing. It has been estimated that it contributed 10% of the district’s GDP.
An investment of $23.75m. for less than 0.5% of the flow doesn't sound like good economics to me.
The Warrego River, which is mostly not flowing and is only a shallow gutter, runs through the property from north to south. It has five dams on it, all of which have two four foot diameter pipes (and gates) in the bed of the river. These allow smaller flows to pass through to the Darling. They were closed towards the end of a flow so as to retain water for livestock and domestic purposes, both for Toorale and neighbours, not for irrigation.
When there is too much Warrego water for the pipes to carry, the river spills out to the west and runs down a natural flood plain, flooding over 20,000 acres before entering the Darling downstream of the main Warrego/Darling junction.
The original dams on the Warrego were built in the late 1890's by the legendary Sir Samuel McCaughey and apart from providing livestock and domestic water storages, one was designed to push smaller flows out on to the western flood plain where the water stimulates the most prolific growth of natural pasture, ideal for livestock fattening.
The very reasonable requirement of the NSW Government, in the second half of last century, to place the pipes in the bed of the river and allow smaller flows to pass through to the Darling, effectively means that natural conditions have been replicated. If there is too much water for the open pipes to carry, the river would have spilled to the west anyway.
Thus, the Government cannot claim any additional "savings" as a consequence of the purchase of the irrigation licenses other than the water which could be stored for irrigation purposes in Ross' Billabong-10,000 megalitres. The removal of the dams and banks would NOT provide any more water to the Darling.
The conversion of the whole property to a National Park has taken Bourke's most productive station out of production with all of the harmful impact this has on the Bourke economy. Toorale used to pay 5% of Bourke's total Shire rates, now it pays nothing. It has been estimated that it contributed 10% of the district’s GDP.
An investment of $23.75m. for less than 0.5% of the flow doesn't sound like good economics to me.
(David Boyd is the retired Chairman and CEO of
Clyde Agriculture Limited, the former owner of Toorale Station)
On the assumption that my earlier letter may be too long for publication
here is a shorter one!
Dear Editor,
The article and editorial on Toorale (The Australian-16th May)
highlights the absurdity of this Government purchase ($23.75M) in the first
place. Had Toorale's cotton farm (less than 3% of its total area) operated in
2010/11 it would have extracted/diverted 0.01% of the Darling River's flow past
Louth-just downstream. In dry years no extractions/diversions are
allowed.
Thus, Bourke has been deprived of Toorale's significant contribution to
the local economy for negligible environmental benefit. The Warrego River which
runs through the station to its junction with the Darling has a number of dams
which are for stock and domestic purposes (not irrigation) for Toorale and some
of its neighbours. These dams all have huge pipes low in the river bed and if
these pipes are kept open the water will run freely to the Darling and
effectively replicates natural conditions. No additional water to the Darling would
be obtained by the removal of the dams and banks. When there is too much water
for the pipes/river to carry the river overflows to the west, waters a
magnificent flood plain of over 20,000 acres with the overflow joining the
Darling downstream of the main Warrego junction.
(David Boyd is the retired Chairman and CEO of Clyde Agriculture
Limited the former owner of Toorale)
25 April, 2012
Here is a commentary from a man who lives on the shores of Lake Alexandrina
Here is a commentary from a man who lives on the shores of Lake Alexandrina-it is worth reading.
Science and pseudo science – the sleeping giant
Our opinions can diverge after we agree on the facts, because facts are facts are facts.
I am comfortable with an artificially fresh Lower Lake in front of my house at an artificially raised level - for the convenience of it (a preference/value judgment based upon my own selfish agenda) and I would not spend time and mental energy trying to defend this personal preference to anyone. But the barrages are there and with strong river flows that we have right now, they can maintain a fairly fresh artificial system against the tidal pressures which would otherwise push estuarine salinities a long way into the lakes - just as they did for the thousands of years before the barrages were built and before there were any upstream diversions.
And I accept that others who may not live on the shores, or have irrigation licenses, or front lawns to water may prefer the notion of a full time natural estuary with the barrages removed or permanently open - and again I would not spend time and mental energy trying to persuade them instead to agree with my preference - value judgements are just that.
But when anyone, whatever preference they are promoting, makes statements that are false to encourage others to agree with them - my sense of 'fair play' is greatly offended - as a science educator for over 50 years I know the strength of the scientific process to guide our thinking towards outcomes that are meaningful and valid. Science I believe is 'a fair go for thinking'. Observable facts (evidence) and rational thought (logic) give rise to conclusions which make sense.
So! - there is some serious nonsense being promoted out there at present by people who should know better but who may just themselves be misinformed - and the nonsense suits their purpose so they resist exposure to the evidence which refutes their assertions.
The environmental fundamentalists and their followers (who include South Australian politicians of all persuasions, not least the incumbent Premier and his government, who quote all the environmentalist clichés as they threaten to demolish the very aim of the Water Act and its Basin Plan - to revert back to legal challenges to uphold the old order of the Constitution's State Rights. For what purpose?-- to go back to where we started which does not make sense - because they are also saying that the old order has put the river and the environment in crisis.
What do they really want?
And what are they saying that does not make sense?
Apart from the drought which needed management considerations unrelated to upstream extraction issues - but which was managed into catastrophic ‘dry down’ - the river is not in the salinity crisis that is claimed and over extraction cannot be blamed for the effects of the drought.
-and
But to settle the argument once and for all - supporting the little known research of South Australian oceanographer Professor Rainer Radock who observed and measured reversal (through the Murray Mouth) of the strong river flows of 1974 by tidal pressures when meteorological conditions increased tide heights - we now have telemetry monitoring of salinity and water levels accessible to home computers which have demonstrated multiple incursions of saline water from the ocean to a considerable distance into Lake Alexandrina - well north of Point Sturt, despite strong river flows in the order of 30 to 40 GL per day, whenever a high tide 'catches' the barrages with open gates and therefore has connectivity with the Lakes.
There can now be no doubt at all - the numbers tell the story - that without the barrages even in times of strong river flows, the estuarine mix would have extended well into the Lakes - and in times of average or lower river flows , would have extended to where in 1830 Sturt detected a distinct line between freshwater and saltwater (brackish) at Pomanda Point, where the river enters the Lakes.
As recently as July 2002 the Murray Darling Basin Commission's 'Living Murray' major 'discussion paper' booklet stated matter of factly (on Page 18) "The barrages have also changed the ecology of the Lower lakes, reducing the estuarine area of the Murray to 11% of its natural size" (my emphasis), using Jensen A. et al 2000, p19 as its reference. – meaning that 89% of the original estuary was upstream of the barrages.
So clearly, this rewriting of the 'popular' scientific wisdom has occurred within the past 10 years - presumably under the pressures of political influences - science has been 'bent' to fit political/ideological preferences and is therefore no longer science. And yet the scientific 'establishment ' seems to be dancing to the tune of the ideologue and has not engaged - indeed seems most reluctant to engage with the relevant facts - the evidence which so clearly there.
I believe that this scientific data - the 'salinity improvement in the river' data which refutes the 'salinity crisis' claims - and the 'tidal intrusion against strong river flows’, data which refutes the 'always fresh' claims are the sleeping giant which will, when woken - devour the political, scientific and environmental reputations of many high profile activist/advocates - and the giant is stirring.
Let's spread the word and give SCIENCE the boost it needs to overcome the bent pseudo-science which is currently holding sway.
Trevor Harden
Clayton Bay, Lower Lakes, SA
1st April 2012
Science and pseudo science – the sleeping giant
Our opinions can diverge after we agree on the facts, because facts are facts are facts.
I am comfortable with an artificially fresh Lower Lake in front of my house at an artificially raised level - for the convenience of it (a preference/value judgment based upon my own selfish agenda) and I would not spend time and mental energy trying to defend this personal preference to anyone. But the barrages are there and with strong river flows that we have right now, they can maintain a fairly fresh artificial system against the tidal pressures which would otherwise push estuarine salinities a long way into the lakes - just as they did for the thousands of years before the barrages were built and before there were any upstream diversions.
And I accept that others who may not live on the shores, or have irrigation licenses, or front lawns to water may prefer the notion of a full time natural estuary with the barrages removed or permanently open - and again I would not spend time and mental energy trying to persuade them instead to agree with my preference - value judgements are just that.
But when anyone, whatever preference they are promoting, makes statements that are false to encourage others to agree with them - my sense of 'fair play' is greatly offended - as a science educator for over 50 years I know the strength of the scientific process to guide our thinking towards outcomes that are meaningful and valid. Science I believe is 'a fair go for thinking'. Observable facts (evidence) and rational thought (logic) give rise to conclusions which make sense.
So! - there is some serious nonsense being promoted out there at present by people who should know better but who may just themselves be misinformed - and the nonsense suits their purpose so they resist exposure to the evidence which refutes their assertions.
The environmental fundamentalists and their followers (who include South Australian politicians of all persuasions, not least the incumbent Premier and his government, who quote all the environmentalist clichés as they threaten to demolish the very aim of the Water Act and its Basin Plan - to revert back to legal challenges to uphold the old order of the Constitution's State Rights. For what purpose?-- to go back to where we started which does not make sense - because they are also saying that the old order has put the river and the environment in crisis.
What do they really want?
And what are they saying that does not make sense?
- They are saying that the river is in crisis, that salinity is a major issue in this crisis, ("2 million tonnes of salt etc etc "), "rivers die from the mouth up", and that over extraction is the cause of this crisis.
Apart from the drought which needed management considerations unrelated to upstream extraction issues - but which was managed into catastrophic ‘dry down’ - the river is not in the salinity crisis that is claimed and over extraction cannot be blamed for the effects of the drought.
-and
- They are saying that the Lower Lakes have always been fresh (and by implication should be kept that way).
But to settle the argument once and for all - supporting the little known research of South Australian oceanographer Professor Rainer Radock who observed and measured reversal (through the Murray Mouth) of the strong river flows of 1974 by tidal pressures when meteorological conditions increased tide heights - we now have telemetry monitoring of salinity and water levels accessible to home computers which have demonstrated multiple incursions of saline water from the ocean to a considerable distance into Lake Alexandrina - well north of Point Sturt, despite strong river flows in the order of 30 to 40 GL per day, whenever a high tide 'catches' the barrages with open gates and therefore has connectivity with the Lakes.
There can now be no doubt at all - the numbers tell the story - that without the barrages even in times of strong river flows, the estuarine mix would have extended well into the Lakes - and in times of average or lower river flows , would have extended to where in 1830 Sturt detected a distinct line between freshwater and saltwater (brackish) at Pomanda Point, where the river enters the Lakes.
As recently as July 2002 the Murray Darling Basin Commission's 'Living Murray' major 'discussion paper' booklet stated matter of factly (on Page 18) "The barrages have also changed the ecology of the Lower lakes, reducing the estuarine area of the Murray to 11% of its natural size" (my emphasis), using Jensen A. et al 2000, p19 as its reference. – meaning that 89% of the original estuary was upstream of the barrages.
So clearly, this rewriting of the 'popular' scientific wisdom has occurred within the past 10 years - presumably under the pressures of political influences - science has been 'bent' to fit political/ideological preferences and is therefore no longer science. And yet the scientific 'establishment ' seems to be dancing to the tune of the ideologue and has not engaged - indeed seems most reluctant to engage with the relevant facts - the evidence which so clearly there.
I believe that this scientific data - the 'salinity improvement in the river' data which refutes the 'salinity crisis' claims - and the 'tidal intrusion against strong river flows’, data which refutes the 'always fresh' claims are the sleeping giant which will, when woken - devour the political, scientific and environmental reputations of many high profile activist/advocates - and the giant is stirring.
Let's spread the word and give SCIENCE the boost it needs to overcome the bent pseudo-science which is currently holding sway.
Trevor Harden
Clayton Bay, Lower Lakes, SA
1st April 2012
22 April, 2012
The Ord
I visited Kununurra and 'The Ord' two years ago. Barnaby Joyce visited three weeks ago. He 'wrote it up' much better than I! I quote:-
"Why water means wealth
Last week I made my first trip to Kununurra to see the astounding Ord River scheme. Lake Argyle holds the equivalent of over 20 times the size of Sydney Harbour all year around.
The Ord has had its problems and controversies over the years; however we now have a government in Western Australia that finally has the courage and vision to build the Ord to a scale that might at least give it a chance. At the moment only 15,000 hectares of land around the Ord is irrigated. This is vastly too small to be efficient.
Just around my home town of St George there are 76,000 hectares of irrigation. That is supported by a 101,000 ML dam, the Beardmore dam, although there are much larger private storages as well. Last year those storages helped produce over $600 million of cotton, $200 million of grain and then there are melons, onions, grapes, beef and kangaroo meat as well.
All produced by just around 5,000 people. If the rest of the nation were this productive, we would be the richest nation on earth.
Lake Argyle is 100 times the size of Beardmore dam yet it only supports an irrigation area roughly the same size as the government irrigation scheme in my area and vastly smaller than privately developed farms around St George.
Whatever you think of the past economic success of the Ord, there is no doubt about the environmental benefits that can be achieved when you dam something.
Before the Ord was dammed it was a seasonal river, retreating to a series of disconnected pools in the dry season. Now it flows at 45 cubic metres per second, all day every day. Lake Argyle is now one of Australia's 64 internationally recognised Ramsar wetlands.
Some bureaucrats from the Federal Department of Environment, more familiar with the variable rivers in Australia's south east, asked how often water is released from the Ord. The response came back "every bloody day". It took the Ord Corporation 8 weeks to convince the bureaucrats that this was actually the case.
This is only a minor example of the bureaucratic interference that has occurred in the attempt to expand the Ord River scheme.
Because Lake Argyle is a Ramsar listed wetland, any plan to use its waters must be approved by the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This meant that environmental bureaucrats from Canberra had the final say on whether the project could go ahead. The environmental legislation over an environment created by a man made structure which would not have been created if today’s environmental legislation was in place.
Reportedly this process was drawn out and frustrating. Department officials asked the Ord proponents to provide evidence that a road they were intending to build would not limit the migration of finches. The reply came back, finches can fly! So we intend them to fly over the road, like every other (invective) bird!
In the end, to get the project approved, the Ord had to agree to pay $1.5 million to fund shark research in the Indian Ocean as an “environmental offset”. The shark research had nothing to do with the Ord scheme; it was effectively just a tax on this project. A shark tax on the outback. Green legislation is an emotion followed by a paradox with the goal being lead weight." End quote.
"Why water means wealth
Last week I made my first trip to Kununurra to see the astounding Ord River scheme. Lake Argyle holds the equivalent of over 20 times the size of Sydney Harbour all year around.
The Ord has had its problems and controversies over the years; however we now have a government in Western Australia that finally has the courage and vision to build the Ord to a scale that might at least give it a chance. At the moment only 15,000 hectares of land around the Ord is irrigated. This is vastly too small to be efficient.
Just around my home town of St George there are 76,000 hectares of irrigation. That is supported by a 101,000 ML dam, the Beardmore dam, although there are much larger private storages as well. Last year those storages helped produce over $600 million of cotton, $200 million of grain and then there are melons, onions, grapes, beef and kangaroo meat as well.
All produced by just around 5,000 people. If the rest of the nation were this productive, we would be the richest nation on earth.
Lake Argyle is 100 times the size of Beardmore dam yet it only supports an irrigation area roughly the same size as the government irrigation scheme in my area and vastly smaller than privately developed farms around St George.
Whatever you think of the past economic success of the Ord, there is no doubt about the environmental benefits that can be achieved when you dam something.
Before the Ord was dammed it was a seasonal river, retreating to a series of disconnected pools in the dry season. Now it flows at 45 cubic metres per second, all day every day. Lake Argyle is now one of Australia's 64 internationally recognised Ramsar wetlands.
Some bureaucrats from the Federal Department of Environment, more familiar with the variable rivers in Australia's south east, asked how often water is released from the Ord. The response came back "every bloody day". It took the Ord Corporation 8 weeks to convince the bureaucrats that this was actually the case.
This is only a minor example of the bureaucratic interference that has occurred in the attempt to expand the Ord River scheme.
Because Lake Argyle is a Ramsar listed wetland, any plan to use its waters must be approved by the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This meant that environmental bureaucrats from Canberra had the final say on whether the project could go ahead. The environmental legislation over an environment created by a man made structure which would not have been created if today’s environmental legislation was in place.
Reportedly this process was drawn out and frustrating. Department officials asked the Ord proponents to provide evidence that a road they were intending to build would not limit the migration of finches. The reply came back, finches can fly! So we intend them to fly over the road, like every other (invective) bird!
In the end, to get the project approved, the Ord had to agree to pay $1.5 million to fund shark research in the Indian Ocean as an “environmental offset”. The shark research had nothing to do with the Ord scheme; it was effectively just a tax on this project. A shark tax on the outback. Green legislation is an emotion followed by a paradox with the goal being lead weight." End quote.
Note how massive is the size of the water storage and how relatively small the developed irrigation area. Comments such as those we hear from Senator Bill Heffernan about moving our irrigation to the North are, in my view, nonsense. I am all for developing the North and for further growth in the South with additional storages.
I do not underestimate the challenges of developing large scale tropical irrigated agriculture, but Australia has not baulked at similar challenges in the past. However, we are very good at temperate irrigated agriculture and northern development should be an addition not an alternative.
19 April, 2012
No Wedding,but Four Funerals
The last month has been a
sad, contemplative four weeks with no less than four funerals. To me funerals
are always sad, yet are very much part of the cycle of life. They provide an
opportunity to acknowledge the deceased’s contribution and to honour them, to
offer some comfort to those closest to the deceased, to recognise our own
mortality and importantly, to interact with mutual friends and family.
These days most Christian
denominations take the line that funerals should be a “celebration”. I
sometimes think this is overdone, particularly when the person has died
tragically and/or prematurely. However, it was appropriate for each of these
four. The youngest was 81 and the oldest nearly 96.
David Boyd
The first and youngest was
that of my namesake, David (Hopetoun) Boyd. David was my first cousin-the son
of Dad’s eldest brother-Hope. After my father died when I was eight, we had
very little to do with his brothers and the first time, that I am aware of,
that I met David was at the Warren Races in the mid 1990’s through his second
wife’s long friendship with Robin Englert, one of the Clyde Station Manager’s
wives. Whilst I really didn’t get to know him very well before dementia sadly
set in, he struck me as a very gentlemanly, warm, humble man who had suffered
more than his share of life’s disappointments. His wife, Loretta, is a delight
in every respect and she adored David. She was wonderful to him in the
difficult years since his dementia caught hold.
George Lackay
The second was that of an
old mate at Bourke, George Lackay. I put together an obituary which I hope ‘The
Land’ newspaper will run. I extract-
Bourke
has lost one of its great characters in the death of George Lackay, on the 9th
March in Darling River floodwaters. He was noted for his tremendous work ethic
and it was typical of the man that at age 83 he died on his way to work.
I
first met him in 1960, when as a raw youth Dalgety sent me to Bourke Branch and
one of my responsibilities was to keep the Drover’s Book and pay the drovers on
behalf of clients. George was one of the drovers and he struck me as a most
personable character who I immediately warmed to. He had a most engaging
personality and a keen sense of humour.
George
was born at Neckarbo Station,Ivanhoe. His father is believed to have been a
Scottish immigrant and his mother part Aboriginal and part Maori.
He
came to Bourke in 1946 where he fell in love with Eva Wilson. This was a highly
successful union. George adored her and they produced eight children-Jean,
Geoffrey, Cheryl, Lynne (deceased), Carol, Toni, Dennis and Ivan. He had 24
grandchildren. George instilled in all his children the need to work and
support their families. He was proud of the fact that he was still working at
83 and that he had never claimed a welfare benefit in his life.
When in 1988 I renewed my association with
Bourke as C.E.O. of Clyde Agriculture, I was delighted to find George was an
employee. He continued as such until his death. He often gave me unsolicited
advice on the Company and its performance. He was fond of telling people that
“I knew that Davy Boyd when he was just a shit-kicker”! Too
true.
Bob Young
The third was that of my great friend and mentor Bob
Young of Walcha, at age 86. The funeral was held in the magnificent garden at “Glen
Collin” and he was buried alongside his wife Bev on a hilltop about 200 metres
away, in what I think was the most aesthetically beautiful funeral I have ever
attended. I was asked to deliver a eulogy and again I extract-
Bev
and Bob were true family friends-our closest. Our three kids-all of whom are
here today- loved them and they were important figures in their lives. Bob is
Susie’s Godfather. Bob was a unique individual. A deep thinker, yet a practical
man who could turn his hand to so many things.
He
was quite the best farmer I have ever known. He had a huge influence on my
thinking.
50
years ago this country you see around you was wet, heavily timbered, flukey
country where you were lucky to fatten a bullock by the time he was four years
of age. Now what you see is beautiful, sustainable, balanced pastures. Some are
over 40 years old and as good as the day they germinated.
Bob
always had his priorities right, particularly in commercial terms. Pasture
fencing and waters came first-every acre of Glen Collin was ploughed and sown. Then accommodation was
built so he could hire a permanent man, and then, and only then, did they build
this house-the house of their dreams.
Bob
was an achiever with a vision, coupled with enormous energy. Everything was
done for the long term.
He
didn’t accept things at face value-he questioned and reached his own
conclusions.
Their
most important legacy is their children-Barb, Rick, Kate and Jim and their
grandchildren. All different, and all achievers. All people of substance.
Second
this land and the example set. In his early Walcha days, they had only been
here for three years when we arrived in 1970, there was scepticism. I
distinctly recall a member of the local establishment saying “there’ll be a big
crash out there this year, you can’t run those numbers of stock in this
country”. Over the intervening 40 odd years I have watched scepticism move to
respect and admiration. Bob became the “guru” and people came to him for
advice. He directly helped people and his indirect impact by way of example was
enormous.
Bob
and Bev were staying with us when our daughter Kate was hit by a car coming
home from school and were wonderfully supportive.
After
Bob’s accident I observed the rapport between Bob and Kate, the two victims,
grow stronger and stronger.
If
you want an example of Kipling’s man who “filled the unforgiving minute, with
sixty seconds worth of distance run”-you have one in Bob Young.
“Jack” Tyrrel
The fourth (and last for a while-I
hope) was that of a man who, on reflection, was probably the closest thing to a
father that I had after the death of Dad. He was the Reverend John Tyrrel of
Canberra Grammar School, who died at the grand old age of 95.
“Jack”, as we boys
irreverently called him behind his back, was my
English teacher, Chaplain, Hockey and Cricket coach. He taught me a broad
theology, an appreciation of the English language, and appointed me School
Hockey Captain when I was only in Fourth Year. When he heard I was planning to
leave school and go jackerooing after the Hockey season and not stay on to matriculation he quite
rightly, but unsuccessfully, tried to talk me out of it.
“Jack” was the real “Mr
Chips” and influenced the lives of so many boys. Born in Kent (UK), a farmer’s
son, University educated (M.A. and Th.L) at Cambridge, a Naval Chaplain during
WW2, he spoke with a very upmarket “pommy” accent. He once told Mum, who was
the House Mother of the junior boy’s boarding house, that in contrast to UK
schoolboys, he really appreciated the way Australian country boys would tell
you what they really thought. (In the 1950’s Canberra was a country town and
most of the students were boys from Southern Tablelands and South/West slopes
farms).
Amongst the many pearls of wisdom he passed on to us was that if you were considering marrying a young lady, have a good look at her mother. Because her daughter will probably be very like her in thirty years time!
Amongst the many pearls of wisdom he passed on to us was that if you were considering marrying a young lady, have a good look at her mother. Because her daughter will probably be very like her in thirty years time!
In a very pleasant
coincidence we re-connected in the 1980’s. When Dalgety purchased Winchcombe
Carson my counterpart in Winchcombes was the late Lance Earl and we became very
good friends. Lance was “Jack’s” brother-in-law, they having married sisters,
Joan and Pauline, farmer’s daughters from Forbes. He spoke very warmly of his memories of Mum when the School kindly dedicated a memorial rose to her, a few years ago. At 91, he conducted Lance's funeral service with his usual aplomb. I complimented him afterwards saying "Jack, you have lost none of your style". He responded "Oh Jimmy I'm getting old". "But Jack you were always old" I spontaneously retorted. Such is the perception of schoolboys.
18 April, 2012
Re-examining Climate Change Data
Government should re-examine the climate data
TWO recent, widely publicised reports by the government's scientific advisory agencies on climate change have sought to raise alarm yet again about global warming.
With the world having warmed slightly during the late 20th century, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Commission all advocate that this warming was caused mainly by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, and that the continuation of emissions unchecked will cause dangerous warming of 3C-4C by 2100.
However, these and other climate agencies are now encountering a public that is increasingly aware of the lack of factual evidence for dangerous warming, and of the speculative nature of the arguments advanced in its favour.
For example, many people now understand that there is no direct evidence that 20th-century warming was caused mostly by carbon dioxide increase; that the late 20th-century warming has been followed by a 15-year temperature standstill in the face of continuing increases in carbon dioxide; and that the models that project alarming future warming are inadequate.
The dangerous warming hypothesis is embodied in the complex climate models that CSIRO and others use to predict the future climate.
But when the model predictions are tested against the latest high-quality data from our best instruments, they are seen to have comprehensively failed.
For example, the models predicted increasing global air temperatures (the measured rises have been much less than predicted), increasing ocean temperatures (there has been no change since 2003, when we started measuring it properly with Argo ocean-diving buoys) and the presence of a hot spot caused by humidity and cloud feedback at heights of 8km-12km in the tropical atmosphere (entirely absent).
The last item is especially important because it shows that the crucial amplification assumed by the modellers and which is responsible for two-thirds of the predicted warming (yes, only one-third is directly due to carbon dioxide) simply does not exist.
Finding that the estimated historic increase in carbon dioxide was not enough to cause dangerous warming on its own, the modellers guessed that atmospheric water vapour would amplify, by a factor of three, any initial carbon dioxide-forced warming.
That this assumed amplification is present in the models but not in reality explains why the models consistently overestimate recent warming.
What then should our government be making of all this?
Well, the government appears to take advice on global warming and climate change from a wide range of sources, which include the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Australian government agencies (CSIRO, BOM), state-based greenhouse or climate-change bodies, rent- seekers from many university climate-related research groups, business lobby groups and consultants and, finally, large environmental lobby organisations (Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF). Phew.
The reality is, though, that all of these groups and organisations take their lead from, and support the views of, the IPCC (a political body that is unaccountable to Australian citizens).
Their starting assumption is therefore that human-caused global warming exists, that it is dangerous and that the way to avert the danger is to "decarbonise" the planet. The many agencies and groups giving advice are, in fact, just providing multiple conduits for the same repetitive, alarmist message, which derives ultimately from the same IPCC source.
Since the government's carbon tax legislative package passed the Senate last October, Australian press coverage of the global warming issue has been muted, doubtless partly signifying that there have been few government media releases that address the topic since the Senate decision.
That situation changed with a jolt during the week starting on March 12, when a wide variety of news media carried stories about CSIRO's Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in Tasmania, followed later in the week by publicity for new reports on global warming by CSIRO/BOM and the Climate Commission.
In effect, the week revealed a co-ordinated and highly successful public relations campaign by three of the organisations involved in giving advice on climate change in Australia, with support and advance knowledge among some media editors and reporters. The aim was to rekindle the fast-fading fear of global warming alarm among the general public.
Very little scientific balance or analysis was provided during this week-long barrage of tired, speculative and highly controversial assertions about supposedly dangerous global warming.
Rather than being a new state of affairs, this assault in favour of warming alarmism by Australian climate agencies follows many similar propaganda blitzes during the past 10 years.
As experienced scientists, we have just completed a detailed assessment of the recent reports, which has been added to the list of earlier independent audits of IPCC and Australian reports at Quadrant Online (Google "global warming: an essential reference").
Our analysis of the "new" reports finds that they provide no evidence that dangerous global warming is occurring; nor that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause such warming in future; nor that recent Australian climate-related events lie outside normal climate variability; nor that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernible impact on future climate.
Therefore, Australian public policies regarding dangerous climate change, sea-level rise and other climatic hazards are based on inadequate scientific advice, which is shackled to the shortcomings of inadequate computer model projections.
The climate models are incompatible with the measured data. In recent decades the model predictions have significantly exceeded the measured temperature rise.
In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, scientists go with the data and revise their hypothesis.
But in politics the opposite is true, for authority figures and political correctness reign supreme. In which context government climate scientists, Western governments and numerous influential lobby groups all strongly support the idea of dangerous global warming, despite the strong contrary evidence.
We conclude that an obvious and urgent need exists for the government to reassess its climate hazard policies. A good starting point would be to implement an unbiased review of the evidence.
Bob Carter is a geologist specialising in paleontology and marine geology. David Evans is a computer modeller and was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 1999-2005. Stewart Franks is an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle. William Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, 1986-98.
21 March, 2012
Australian Environment Foundation
I strongly support the following statement:-
Holmes & Media Watch versus Dr Marohasy & AEF
Jonathan Holmes in his Media Watch segment of March 19th attacking Dr.Jennifer Marohasy’s research into the Murray’s lower lakes, raised questions about the very name of the Australian Environment Foundation: his piece was titled ‘What's in a name?’
Holmes purported to focus his reporting on the question of journalists’ research into those who take public positions. But Holmes’ main implication was that AEF is pretending to be something it isn’t. Yes, indeed - it isn’t your typical deep green, issue-driven, highly political advocacy group with an anti-business anti-employment, anti-farming focus. You don’t have to be a youthful, long-haired, latte-sipping, inner-city dweller to care about the environment. We aren’t, and we do.
We care particularly when governments base public policy on politics and vote pandering, not on solid research and real evidence. You have only to look at climate policy in this country to see a glaring example of how this distorted motivation is likely to cost our communities billions of dollars and extinguish thousands of jobs, for absolutely no benefit at all to climate or environment.
Holmes dwelt at length on the origins of AEF, all of which are matters of public record, as they should be. And what does it matter anyway? This is a free country where freedom of speech prevails. AEF like any other group has the right to take any position it chooses. But the question arises: how often has Holmes similarly researched the origins and background of deep-green groups?
The real motivation behind Holmes’ take on AEF’s positions is that he doesn’t like them. He doesn’t like any views that question his belief (for that is what it is) in the supposed need to buy back and divert more MDB water into ‘environmental flows’, just as he dislikes any countervailing views on the still unproven hypothesis that man-made CO2-driven global warming will lead to a climate catastrophe.
As a publicly-paid broadcaster, he has a responsibility to be more even-handed on these issues and to air his prejudices less.
Holmes & Media Watch versus Dr Marohasy & AEF
Jonathan Holmes in his Media Watch segment of March 19th attacking Dr.Jennifer Marohasy’s research into the Murray’s lower lakes, raised questions about the very name of the Australian Environment Foundation: his piece was titled ‘What's in a name?’
Holmes purported to focus his reporting on the question of journalists’ research into those who take public positions. But Holmes’ main implication was that AEF is pretending to be something it isn’t. Yes, indeed - it isn’t your typical deep green, issue-driven, highly political advocacy group with an anti-business anti-employment, anti-farming focus. You don’t have to be a youthful, long-haired, latte-sipping, inner-city dweller to care about the environment. We aren’t, and we do.
We care particularly when governments base public policy on politics and vote pandering, not on solid research and real evidence. You have only to look at climate policy in this country to see a glaring example of how this distorted motivation is likely to cost our communities billions of dollars and extinguish thousands of jobs, for absolutely no benefit at all to climate or environment.
Holmes dwelt at length on the origins of AEF, all of which are matters of public record, as they should be. And what does it matter anyway? This is a free country where freedom of speech prevails. AEF like any other group has the right to take any position it chooses. But the question arises: how often has Holmes similarly researched the origins and background of deep-green groups?
The real motivation behind Holmes’ take on AEF’s positions is that he doesn’t like them. He doesn’t like any views that question his belief (for that is what it is) in the supposed need to buy back and divert more MDB water into ‘environmental flows’, just as he dislikes any countervailing views on the still unproven hypothesis that man-made CO2-driven global warming will lead to a climate catastrophe.
As a publicly-paid broadcaster, he has a responsibility to be more even-handed on these issues and to air his prejudices less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)