A common theory in politics is that if no one’s happy about a particular piece of reform, you’ve got it right. That might play well for the politics, but that can’t be said for the policy when it comes to the latest iteration of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
As we’ve said before, of all the first-tier issues on the national agenda, very few are as critical or imminent as dealing with the problems confronting the Murray-Darling basin in a decisive and fair way. The recent rains may have taken the heat out of the issue, but no one can afford to have short memories on this.
The current draft plan has so far not ignited the same level of fury (or spontaneous bonfires made of brochures) from farmers — but as has been widely reported, no one’s applauding the changes.
In an effort to untangle the information from the various vested interests and subsequent compromises that have informed the government’s approaches to this massive river system over the past two decades, our series Murray Murmurings is back.
During last year’s public consultations of the guide to the draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, Crikey’s environment blog Rooted published a series of articles from different interested parties – farmers, lobby groups and environmentalists. Today we kick off stage two of the series with Brian Ramsay, founder of the Basin Pulse initiative.
And consider this a shout out: if you have a view on the mighty Murray or the national outlook on this issue, please pitch us your angle to ajamieson@crikey.com.au with “Murray Murmurings” in the subject line. It’s going to be a long 20-week consultation process, and we want to showcase as many voices as possible.
Was the burning of the first draft plan really spontaneous? It looked staged for a tv camera.
I was born and raised in the Riverland, SA, and spent the first 19 years of my life there. My father was a fruitgrower for around 30 years, retired and sold his property in the late 1960’s. During that time I never heard the term “water rights” used AT ALL. In those days, the Irrigation Office was run by the state government, and my understanding is that each grower had a quota of water that he could buy, if needed, through said office. I think there was a cap on the amount of water the grower could purchase in any one year.
When my father sold his property, there was no mention of a payment for his “water rights”. The value of the property was evaluated solely on the size, plantings and extras (plant and equipment) on that orchard. What I want to know is…where did the concept come from that land owners/farmers actually “owned” water rights, and now have a God-given right to a certain amount of water, no matter what? And when did this water right suddenly become very valuable? Seems to me, the growers managed fine for years on their quotas, which were set according to the condition of the river in any one year.
The upstream states, in the meantime, have grossly over committed the Murray river water, and now want everyone down stream to “pay the price” – including, and most importantly, the river. It has been dying slowly for the last 40 years, and bears no resemblance to the river I remember in the 1940-50’s. I guess there are a lot of people out there who couldn’t care less, so long as they can keep making money from it in their lifetime. Absolutely no thought for future generations. Very, very, selfish attitude.
As the Sumerians discovered, irrigation of arid areas is a very short term boon – one of the earliest cunieform tablets, almost entirely bean-counter lists, notes “the white plague” of salt reducing yields.
Anyone who has flown sydney to Adelaide in the last 20yrs cannot have failed to notice, unless on parliamentary or corporate paid flights and thus thoroughly boozed, the vast areas dedicated to salt sinks in the west of NSW.
They’ve lived for 40 yrs on the artificial rain/flood irrigation courtesy of the strangled Snowy – time to do something more useful, like picking oakum.
In strictly financial terms, they, & the nation – certainly the MDB, would be better off if they just went on the dole or pension.
The average age of Oz farmers is 58+,the average age of irrigators is… no figures, how strange. Yet another example of the ABS or ABARE or whatever its most recent alphabet soup name, failing to publish what they have in their database.
We can feed the nation, and still have some export income, just using the areas EAST of the GDR.
There are agricultural uses west of the GDR but not as currently abused. FFS, we could grow trees, possibly even an exotic species like… eucalyptus.. on most of the Western Division and still be better off , financially, environmentally and aesthetically. Or should I mention ethically/morally, for those unable to distinguish the concepts?