The following article was initially published by The Wilderness Society (NSW) on its website 20110729. Reproduced with permission from The Wilderness Society (NSW):

A dying river near Broken Hill, NSW  (not so long ago)

is visited by Chris Daley, the Wilderness Society rivers campaigner.

Photo by Dean Sewell

.

Despite common perceptions, the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin are not confined to rural communities, and their social implications are extensive.

Adelaide, for example, relies on the Murray-Darling to provide around 55% of its drinking water. In fact, more than four million people depend on the Basin for water. But the future of the Murray-Darling and its communities are under threat from over-extraction of water, salinity and climate change.  The Basin supports diverse communities that have grown up on the river, and who consider it to be central to their way of life. Locals see the river as extremely important from a social point of view, as Barney Stephens from the Darling River Action Group pointed out.

“The lakes and the Darling River and the Anabranch are basically Broken Hill’s recreation. People think of recreation as something that’s maybe not essential, but when you look at an isolated town like Broken Hill, if you take the lakes away and the rivers away it’s like taking the beaches away from Sydney.”

Dr. James Pittock, Programme Leader of Australian and United States Climate, Energy and Water at the US Studies Centre, Australian National University, agrees that returning water to the Basin is socially and economically important.

.

Multiple Benefits

.

“The water in the Murray-Darling Basin provides lots of different benefits for people, and many of those benefits are gained from leaving water in the river, in terms of providing habitat for fish right through to the Lower Lakes and Coorong near the sea where [there are] massive fishing industries, both commercial and recreational”, said Pittock.

Both men also point to the cultural significance of the river to aboriginal people that have lived by the river for thousands of years. “Most of them [in the Broken Hill area] were Paakantji, which means ‘river people’, and the river is just essential to them,” said Stephens.

While irrigators have argued that the Basin Plan has the potential to damage rural communities, Dr. James Pittock says the social consequences of not returning health to the river will be far worse.

“If this Basin Plan isn’t implemented well, that is if the reform isn’t substantial in quickly reallocating a lot of water from agriculture to the environment, we risk another crisis in a few years time.”

.

Best chance in a generation

.

“We will be back to this public dispute over water allocation…and eventually industry will be forced to cut back to sustainable levels. Now the question for the industry is, do you want to do that now, and do it with some certainty so that rural communities can get on with planning a more sustainable future? Or alternatively, if this opportunity for reform is fudged in some political compromise, do you really want to live with the uncertainty of repeating the exercise every five to ten years when the next drought hits?”

Right now, the Government and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) have a responsibility to rectify these problems once and for all in the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. To do so, they must commit to buying back 7,600 gigalitres of water to be returned to the system. This was the scenario identified in the MDBA’s Guide to the proposed Basin Plan as carrying the least risk of irreversible damage to the river system.

The Wilderness Society is urging the Australian Government to spend the $10 billion of taxpayers’ money allocated to save the Basin wisely, or give the Australian public their money back. Responsible and scientifically based action to ensure the sustainability of the Basin will help to build stronger, more diverse rural communities.

Menindee Lakes —inlet to Lake Cawndilla during drought in 2003

(MDBC Annual Report 2003-04,  Photo: L. Palmer)

.

---

.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1] Jamie Pittock BSc. Hons (Monash), PhD (ANU) is ‘Director of International Programs for the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, Program Leader, Australia and United States – Climate, Energy and Water, US Studies Centre and ANU Water Initiative.  Jamie Pittock is Director of International Programs for the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance. His current work includes developing research programs that link Australian and southern African expertise to improve management of river basins, green water and agriculture. He is also Program Leader for the Australia and United States – Climate, Energy and Water project of the US Studies Centre and ANU Water Initiative.    [Read More].

[2] Darling River Action Group, ^http://www.d-r-a-g.org.au/

[3] Paakantji,  ^http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/languages/languages/aboriginal/campfire/stories/paakantji/paakantji_stories.htm

[4]   The Wilderness Society (NSW), River Protection Campaigns, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/river-protection

[5] ‘Living Murray, Dying Darling – the year our fish died and Broken Hill cried,’ speech by Joe Flynn, Managing Director, Australian Inland at the Murray Darling Association Annual Conference in Renmark, South Australia 20040902.  [Read More]

[6]   ‘Great Darling Anabranch to receive much-needed environmental flows‘, Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), 20100909, ^http://www.mdba.gov.au/media_centre/media_releases/great-darling-anabranch-to-receive-much-needed-environmental-flows, [Read More]

.

– end of article –

Farmers slam Murray-Darling draft

<<The Murray-Darling Basin draft plan is riddled with holes and should not be used as a guide to save the ailing river system, the nation’s peak farming lobby says.

The National Farmers Federation released its submission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority‘s draft proposals today.

The submission coincides with a meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in Albury.

The NFF argues that the draft plan is “fundamentally flawed” and needs to be dumped in place of more detailed research and infrastructure spending.

It wants a more collaborative approach between environmentalists, communities, and the agriculture industry to develop better environmental targets.

“We want to get the balance with the environment right, it is critically important to the communities that that happens,” NFF president Jock Laurie told ABC Radio today.

“I don’t believe you can deliver … without the communities working as part of the process [alongside] agriculture and environmentalists.

“They all need to work together to deliver .. and get that balance right.”>>

.

[Source:  ‘Farmers slam Murray-Darling draft’,  20101217, by AAP, Sydney Morning Herald, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/farmers-slam-murraydarling-draft-20101217-1903u.html]

.

‘Stand firm on Murray-Darling Basin plan’

<<The federal and state governments must stand firm on developing a robust Murray-Darling Basin plan to fix over-allocation and salinity, and ensure water security, South Australia’s River Murray Minister Paul Caica says.

The minister is attending a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in Albury today, where he will seek to ensure the basin plan remains on track to deliver a functioning healthy river system.

Mr Caica said in a statement the plan must restore environmental values and provide for viable and productive industries and communities into the future.

“The development of a robust basin plan provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to address over-allocation, manage salinity issues and achieve improved environmental and water security across the basin and we cannot let this opportunity go,” he said.

“There is no doubt the launch of the guide could have been handled better, but equally, some of the reactions to the guide have also been overblown and we must be careful not to let this distract us, or weaken our resolve to deliver this important reform.”

Mr Caica said the the Murray-Darling Basin was a complex system undergoing a challenging reform that had not been done anywhere in the world at this scale.

“We can only succeed in this very challenging task by working together,” he said.>>

.

[Source:  ”Stand firm on Murray-Darling Basin plan’, 20101217, by AAP, Sydney Morning Herald, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/stand-firm-on-murraydarling-basin-plan-20101217-1904a.html]

.

Basin water plan could be $5bn short: report

<<AN EXTRA $5 billion could be needed to achieve the controversial reforms to the Murray-Darling River system, according to one of the nation’s top water market firms.

Broking firm Waterfind has also warned that a conflict of interest exists so long as the federal government is the biggest buyer in a water market which it ultimately controls.

Waterfind analysed progress on the Murray-Darling reforms in its annual report and found the government’s existing $8.9 billion spend would not secure enough water to reach the minimums sought in October’s Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The guide said that a minimum of 3000 billion litres needed to be returned to the river, but Waterfind estimated the government’s $8.9 billion would only yield about 2500 billion litres.

If government buybacks of farmers’ water continued at the prices paid to date, Waterfind estimated an extra $1.6 billion would be needed to reach the 3000 billion litres minimum.

Returning 4000 billion litres to the river, as many environmental groups have requested, would cost an extra $5 billion according to Waterfind’s estimates, which the report said were ”conservative in the extreme”.

The Gillard government has previously acknowledged their spending may not be enough to satisfy the basin plan, and the government has promised to spend whatever is necessary to meet the requirements of the plan.

Waterfind also reported that government buybacks had so far deflated the price of water in the Murray-Darling.

The report said Australia boasted the world’s most advanced water market, yet it was still undermined by arrangements which made the federal Water Minister both a buyer and regulator of market.>>

.

[Source:  ‘Basin water plan could be $5bn short: report’, byPeter Ker, journalist, Sydney Morning Herald, 20101213, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/basin-water-plan-could-be-5bn-short-report-20101212-18u0u.html]

.