Agmates

I am starting to get really jacked off with people making claims about over allocation of river water without first factoring in the effects of past clearing (increasing flows) and recent regrowth (decreasing flows).

The MDBC has the science to properly account for these major fluxes for the best part of two decades but refused to apply it. So we use crap numbers that assume the current runoff conditions are the original or ‘natural’ ones.

The entire salinity scare campaign was based on the notion that vegetation clearing in a catchment will increase runoff and groundwater flows. But despite the amount of historical clearing that has taken place, especially in the higher rainfall parts of the basin, they continue to pretend that there was no clearing runoff ‘dividend’ that could be allocated to downstream users.

The MDBC has been equally negligent in determining the impact on water yield of the government’s failed clearing controls which have actively discouraged regrowth clearing, and in many cases denied that regrowth even exists.

The problem is not one of over allocation of irrigation water but, rather, that the governments have set in place land management policies, particularly in national parks, that do nothing about the regrowth pandemic and therefore substantially reduce catchment water yields.

By every objective criteria this has amounted to unlawful development (by way of material change to water yield) on the part of the government that has not undergone a proper assessment process, has not allowed those who are adversely impacted to object, and have not applied reasonable measures to prevent both environmental and economic harm.

Instead, these departmental ‘robber barons’ have deliberately diverted attention and blame to the actual victims of this malgovernance, the existing water users.

Thank you Ian,

It appears that the excess of government regulation and legislation of the fee simple properties that individual owners are trying to manage is finally coming home to roost.

The right of the owner to manage his/her primary production properties sustainably and viably has been effectively eroded over recent years with vegetation controls; and now with prohibition of reasonable water access on many properties.

Predominantly the removal of the land owners right to effective management of his property, without compensation, is now effectively reducing the water availability to the city populations.

This is what happens when government wants its cake and needs to eat it as well. If a property becomes non-viable the farmer discontinues maintenance, the woody weeds and regrowth commences and the water runoff declines for the next 20 years or so.

It really begs the question, if the government buy properties without maintaining the current vegetation levels, whether they are wasting our money if the water gets absorbed by the returning juvenile vegetation.

I’m really starting to get sick and tired of all these COAG agreements which effectively attempt to make property management so difficult while neither State or Federal government take responsibility for what is going on here.

Well, I am not overly surprised at the resentment being voiced, but it is a shame I think.

Blaming vegetation/regrowth for reduced runoff etc etc? I thought this kind of thinking was long outdated.

Surely, the examples of properties that went ‘against the norm’ 30 years or more ago, and now have more vegetation, more water, and more production for less cost off less land, speak for themselves?!
o, one could view the regulations as suffocating, or as a way to hurry the stragglers along the road to improved resource management. If you keep viewing it as a negative thing, you’ll have trouble finding novel ways
One can go to the nth degree calculating whether more or less vegetation means more water lost through transpiration, more rainfall through reduced surface reflected radiation, or less lost through evaporation, or increased aquifer replenishment through increased soil porosity etc etc - although into science, I much prefer the working examples out there to speak for themselves. If you haven’t come across such examples, then get out and do some homework!

And yes, the governments have a role in their allocations etc, but ultimately, it is the landholder that uses the water, so ‘we’ are also responsible if ‘we’ have been overusing it, regardless of whether or not we were given the ‘right’ to do so in the first place.

No gain by finger-pointing: from the farmer to the federal govt, each has a part in overtaxing our resources, sometimes for production of goods that aren’t exactly most suitable for the landscape/markets anyway.

And govt placing restrictive rules? The way I see it, ‘restrictions’ are the bottom line, the bare minimum.

I think the examples of good farm practices out there are well ahead of such minimums by their own accord, and if more farming practices took up improved management in a similar way, the need for restrictions/regulations would not be there.

So, one could view the regulations as suffocating, or as a way to hurry the stragglers along the road to improved resource management.

If you keep viewing it as a negative thing, you’ll have trouble finding novel ways around the problems!

I don’t know which planet you have been on lately, Shane, but the causal link between Leaf Area Index (LIA) and water use through transpiration and subsequent impact on catchment water yield is state of the art science and very much in the “here and now”.

No amount of cheap throw away lines and vague cliches on your part will alter that fundamental relevance.

Your references to a few examples of high tree retention, water interception etc are the standard green cop-outs. The highly visible benefits that appear on these few overly flogged examples are entirely reliant on the fact that only a few people are doing it.

They are, in fact, capturing a surplus produced by the rest of the landowners. If everyone else did exactly the same then the much lauded benefits would disappear.

In the real world, total clearing in the NSW part of the MDB (Murray Darling Basin) exceeded 27 million hectares. When this data is overlaid by the yield change data for each rainfall zone, as developed by the CRC for Catchment Hydrology, we find that approximately half the current average inflow in the MDB is yield increase from past clearing.

This means that essentially all of the water that has been allocated to irrigators is a product of upstream clearing.

The mud cores from the mouth of the Murray estuary also confirm that total run-off increased significantly from pre-clearing levels and then underwent a gradual decline as irrigation allocations increased up to the 1995 cap.

Meanwhile, both the greens and the NSW government have gone out of their way to avoid considering the impact of the (minimum) 14 million hectares of woodland thickening that is fully documented but completely ignored in the basin water budget.

For you to equate this scale of substantial increase over natural vegetation cover with the self indulgent landscape gardening activities of a few unrepresentative landowners merely betrays your failure to master the brief.

For the record, Shane, my family started with a bare paddock in 1942 after the previous owner was compelled to clear as a condition of the grant of title. It is now 75% forested.

In the 1950s all our creeks were permanent flowing but these days 3 months of zero flow are the norm. The only things maintaining the health of riparian species are the in-stream dams, and this, my friend, is in 1900mm rainfall country. Pity help the poor bastards who would do the same in dryer country.

You can try that crap out on the urban punters but it will not wash in a forum like this.

Hi John, Ian, et al;

Appreciate the comments - though I didn’t intend to incite heated response, possibly I could have worded things better!

True, I’m not privy to all facts and figures (I’m open to learning more all the time) - but I’m familiar enough with the issues to hear your points and for the most part agree with them.

I don’t live in an area affected by severe water restrictions etc (though they want to build a dam aka swamp nearby, to supply the city folk whilst ignoring better options), but I am more familiar with vegetation clearing laws that some see as ‘restrictions’ while others see it as part of addressing certain problems.

Granted, when such broad scale ’solutions’ are painted across varied landscapes, they don’t always give the best outcomes either. I wasn’t suggesting the current governments approaches were the right way either - but when we’re looking at problems accumulated over decades of land-use change, finding answers to suit the most people won’t be easy.

Ian, sounds like you and your farm is one of the better examples I might have been alluding to anyway
yes, times (and rainfall) change, but the point I was trying to make was that if your place (or others like it) were still relatively barren, could have been even more of a struggle to hold the landscape/farming together, or recover it once (if?) ‘good’ years returned.

And John, good to get an update from the SA end of the catchment, still much as I expected though.
Maybe I should have pitched my original note to encourage uptake of water management for our cities, like London and their recycling? Or Germany and industrial use there? Or general arid-zone water use in the middle east?

All these leave us for dead as far as maximizing water resources. (but some may ask, where’s the easy revenue in those options? exactly why we don’t already have such infrastructure in place I think!)

Our problem as much as the bureaucracy, is so many years of trying to farm Australia like our European ancestors, only realising lots of things didn’t work when the damage was done.

It’s the current generations that have to tackle the recovery work. I just don’t think it’s good to get too bogged in the ‘depressing’ details, nor to propagate a ‘them and us’ attitude between ‘us’ on the land, and ‘them’ in the places of decision-making.

Sure, I know what it’s like to want to hurl abuse, blunt objects, dead trees/cows/etc at ‘them’, but end of the day, it won’t get anyone anywhere.

It’s a big problem, and a long road - my ‘two cents’ was more about focusing on the end of that road than the potholes.

Excuse my wishful thinking for that moment, I’ll get back to trying to manage my little bit of land, and I’m sure you will too
Regards,
Shane.

Shane, you might like to take a look at “Snow Job on the Snowy River” to get a good picture of the way vegetation changes have a bearing on issues of fair water allocation.

Also check out the discussion at Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

Apologies for being a late commenter.

I have been very busy building the house that was illegal to build !More on that later.

Re the water situation, I have spent 39 years as a member of advisory committee of state Rivers and water supply [Vic] and later a name change to water services committee on Goulburn Murray Water.

Then I found the situation untenable so I finally resigned in 2006. The problems causing the controversy on water is not the shortage of water nor the global warming etc, etc. It all relates back to Government corruption I am aware of a number of cases where water licenses were allocated when systems were closed and only some [with enough money] ‘read influence, could obtain what they needed.

We all know that the making of water is not the governments responsibility But that of God.
The suggestion of removal of “Just” water rights is a travesty of justice, and degrades the land owners ability to make his right full living on his land.

We all ,Farmers and urban domestic and business users all have a right to demand the protected rightfull share of the available resource.

Keeping in mind the variable amount available due to climatic conditions .

Also Government has a responsibility to provide for sufficient reserves for “tight” seasons simply to provide for our Australian food and domestic needs.

But “not” to make the elite exporters rich. Farmers and businesses who are geared to provide our local needs are in my opinion ,No1 priority!, after domestic needs.

Questions that need answers.

[1] Where is the Government when the people need it? I suggest that we spend more time in front of the mirror to find the answer.

[2] Where are the people who are awake to the “global warming–climate change “ nonsense that has all the selectively “educated” uni graduates heads spinning.

Prof Ross “Guarno”, the head programmed spin doctor, is just the plausible crazy limit.[correction Guarno is actually bird or bat Doo.]

[3] Why did we let the Fed Gov take control of our water resources when it should be obvious that all they want is the lucrative resource for they’re eloquent elite mates,“read corporate lobbiers”.

[4]The incorporation of water /Electricity/ Rail and air utilities into the so called privatised authorities allowed the governments to set they’re requirement of a financial return without any accountability. Note it was obviously not done for the prime benefit of the original real owners .us, as I have yet to receive a dividend from the sale of my share.

A short observation of nature! My story dates back to a beginning in 1948 on then our family property. There was a captive catchment above part of our property ,with a gully that would run a creek of small proportions but only during the winter months when there was sufficient rain.In the dry summer months the creek dried up and the swamp fed by it would also dry up.

In 1965/66 the catchment was clear felled of the unusefull native tree cover and from the completion of felling, the creek began to run a very unusual high flow,that flow continued for the whole seasonal cycles with some seasonal fluctuation, nevertheless it was sufficient to influence us to build a small dam [which had no trouble to remain full] to redirect the flow away from our cultivation and to provide an irrigation back up.

This all ended gradually after the area was planted in pine in 67-68 until around 1985 the creek was back its normal uncleared flow only in winter. The dam was then always dry when rain was scarce.The catchment was harvested and replanted in 99-2001 and the creek returned to a high all year flow.

Now the replanted area is showing it’s gradual reduction in flow. This all tells me clearly that the “Bovine excrement” being expressed by the green movement and spin doctor Guarno has not one shred of credibility.

I also have in my possession a study carried out by MMBW in a water catchment which confirms and even quantifies the variations of water yield. So let’s all talk sense and not this bovine excrement please.

My suggestion is that by all means harvest the mature forests on a resource sustainable cycle and let’s get the benefit of the building and fencing and firewood and at the same time lets share the more bountiful availability of water, with a little realistic help from the government of course and at the same time put the unproductive ,useless and burnt out native forests to a usefull existence.

No doubt the catch cry response to this will be “what about our native habitat degradation?”

I say what about the priority of the human species. Or who is offering to be the first human victim to forgo survival?

Yours sincerely Kevin J Smith

By the time the silent majority wakes up to the FACT that the government could never have ‘politically’ acquired total control of all the natural freehold resources across this vast land [insignificant in the comparative ratio of Crown/Freehold] via the ballot box or in a referendum -

we will have learned “too late she cried” that the corporate and globalist traitors have almost achieved exactly what it is that they set out to do [in 1992] by going down another road — and most didn’t see it happening because we are being blinded by imprecise, conflicting and inconsistent unproven science.

The Governments under our noses, behind out backs, and under the guise of providing billions to help stabilize the environment and stop land degradation, have deviously NATIONALISED freehold land by the culpable administrative Act of applying a perceived REGULATORY use over the existing agricultural development.

We’ve brought down laws to REGULATE and you will REGULATE or go to gaol or pay millions in fines.

The elected public servants [politicians] have arrogantly spread the propaganda and convinced the majority of unsuspecting voters - “The farmers are raping and pillaging the environment”.

They can no longer be trusted to self-determine and manage their own significant investments. We public servants will selectively interpret the legislation and take control of the “management”.

Trust us ! Read our lips!

The Statutes were cleverly written and have been selectively interpreted so that “any staff member of any government agency” can be “authorised” to administer whatever the Act.

So the inexperienced and unprofessional minders took over the keys to the Castle and redecorated the Freehold Kingdom in a way we never imagined.

I’m just waiting until the Urban Nationalisation of land is complete. It will go something like this.

“The State is broke: there is a housing/rental/homeless/infracture/servicing accommodation shortage. On any given night there are 2 million vacant beds not being used and as many in need of emergency accommodation. The State won’t allow further development which puts pressure on the planet, until all this accommodation if fully occupied by these deprived third-party interest needs”.

Yes it is socialism they are pushing relentlessly - we don’t have capitalism - it does seem to be the globalist plan.

They are doing it in the EU although people are starting to protest against it now and in the US propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ( stupid names )- I think Greenspan is a globalist and he kept interest rates very low and flooded the US with monopoly money.

No doubt that is why they want to get rid of us farmers because we are fiercely independent and definitely not in favour of socialism.

Some postscript from my earlier notes - Ian, checked out your links. Think I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m more for mediation than violence, even though it can sometimes be a trying process! Violence appeals more to our animal nature than logic/reasoning, I reckon.

Interesting idea for river flows, pumping it around, but if the issue is more on flushing and continuity than actual water flowing it might not be the ultimate answer.

Also, was thinking about some study I’d read about, near Broken Hill?? over 30-40 yrs, actually reported slightly higher rainfall over vegetated land compared to over-grazed adjacent land?? large-scale, long-term study, in semi-arid environment - that was sort of thing I had in mind when thinking vegetation had benefits for water supply etc, but can’t recall the original reference unfortunately.

I still think the key error is, as mentioned above, not the change in landuse or how people use the water, but the allocation process and overallocating. I’ve seen some of the big irrigators out there, legally buying neighbouring properties and water rights, catching all the upstream water, but never paid for the water rights for everyone downstream that were then denied water.

Sure, in wet times, everyone was happy, but those few big places catch enough to get them through the more prevalent dry times, everyone else suffers. we need to re-gear outback oz landuse to operate on more ‘quiet times’ through droughts etc, instead of trying to catch it all and hold it all to a select few.

Federal regulation? Well, seems the states get too much ego to agree well on how to manage something across their borders so how else to get through such impasse? Rivers don’t worry about state borders, so why should states call the shots?

I know this is a topical thing to pose, especially here! but I’m not sure we could have been left to ourselves to get something changed. Granted though, the decisions may well be to benefit the larger companies with friends in high places… leave others more informed to comment on that one though