Murray Darling River system is a living organism

This private Submission was sent by my friend Brigid,  a long-term campaigner for the Murray River, and friend of the River peoples - the Aboriginal people of the Murray Darling Basin.

• "Firstly, I wish to complain about the way the MDBA authority has handled both the first and second iterations of the debate on the plan for the Murray Darling Basin.  On both occasions, irrigation interests in NSW have done their level best to hijack the debate in an attempt to make their voice the dominant voice, if it can’t drown out others altogether.
• "It is clear to me that no time during either process did the MDBA attempt to make the debate a national issue for a national icon requiring a truly national voice.  It actually took an Aboriginal man to draw attention to the need for a national voice.
• "It took an elderly Aboriginal man, Uncle William Riley – a Maljangapa Elder – to put it succinctly in his poem: Let’s do it as a nation.

As I sit here tonight thinking,
How our country’s drying out,
I fully know the reason being,
This ten year man made drought.

They’ve dammed our upper tributaries,
To make it right for cotton,
While smaller farmers further down,
are totally forgotten.

Inland rivers have stopped flowing,
With our livestock being bogged,
We curse the upstate irrigators,
Where our water’s being hogged.

But just look at what it’s doing,
To our fauna and our flora,
We’re heading down the poor road,
And getting even poorer.

They’ve killed our lakes and wetlands,
that used to feed the Murray.
So if we’re going to fix this problem,
SAY let’s do it in a hurry.

But to get things really moving,
And stop further degradation,
We must all rise get off our butts,
And do it as a Nation.

YES LET’S DO IT AS A NATION
MEANING BLACK AND WHITE COMMUNITIES

• "This was published in A yarn on the river: getting Aboriginal voices into the Basin Plan.  Again, though, not good enough MDBA.  This came very late in the already high-jacked debate.  I wonder how many Australians understand the concept of ‘cultural flows’ which Aboriginal voices have put forward in this debate?
• "Urban voices were vilified by agricultural lobby groups as not knowing where their food came from; not living within the Basin, etc.  I do not live within the Basin ... at this time in my life.  I have lived within the Basin in two states for periods which constitute a good bit of my life – and in places which are major agricultural centres.  I now live in regional Victoria, not too far from the Murray and its southern catchment and, in addition, I regularly visit the area.
• "Agricultural lobby groups harped on about the economies of the towns within the basin as if they were walled around and no urban visitors ever came into the Basin catchments.  People on the urbanised fringes of this continent contribute significantly to the economies of MDB communities – most particularly through regional tourism.  In the main, when people from the continental fringe visit the MDB and adjacent areas it is to enjoy the natural features of the areas some of which are national parks, forest reserves or some other form of gazetted area.  I have recently returned from just such a visit to the Murray region between Barmah and Moama-Echuca with 25 friends.  We contributed significantly in a number of ways to the communities in the area.  When people visit the MDB to enjoy its natural features, do they hope to see an environment which is not respected, not appropriately maintained, and which is thirsty for appropriate quantities of water?  Of course they don’t.
• "Gone are the days when major towns within and adjacent to the MDB were reliant only on agricultural production and services in relation to that industry.  Large centres seek to have a mixed economies which are not dependent on one product, one interest, or one service.  Regional tourism is part of a mixed economy in regional Australia and is supported to a very great degree from people not connected with agriculture and who share environmental appreciation and understand the need for water to maintain the physical heritage of Australia. 
• "The MDB has failed to seek a national voice, a national constituency for the Murray Darling Basin and, by this sin of omission, a national feature of great importance to this heritage may be placed in danger as vested and aggressive interests seek to dominate the limited conversation.
• "I am not going into detail about water requirements since voices from science and the environmental lobby will speak more convincingly than I.  I just wish to state that I support significant quantities of water – much more than the agricultural lobby groups wish to support – aside for maintaining the heritage of ALL Australians.  I don’t want to see the Murray Darling Basin deprived of water.  I don’t want to see the Murray Darling Basin further degraded by neglect of natural features and physical uniqueness.
• "I am pleased to see the unique arguments of Aboriginal Australians in relation to ‘cultural flows’.  However, I must point out my sadness that the First Nations had to resort to such a distinctive.  Their culture and spirituality recognises land and water as inseparable ... but the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) put paid to this idea two decades ago to enable the commodification of water and the establishment of a virtual stock exchange for one of life’s essential requirements.  Any gain for the land and catchments of our nation through water trading is illusory.  In no way can benefit be of universal long term value.  Short-sighted long term greed will wreck the system.
• "Which brings me to the whole point of the exercise.  The MDBA was established to bring some sense into the mess that is the water take from the MDB through illegal and undeclared diversions, over-allocation, and general environmental neglect and degradation to which agriculture has been a major contributor.  Because there has been no attempt at true consensus and instead a cacophony of fractured voices, I am pessimistic that anything will be achieved after the events of the last few years.
• "If a decision is made that does not satisfy agricultural lobby groups – they will go to the High Court.
• If a decision is made that does not satisfy South Australia – it will go to the High Court.
• If a decision is made that does not satisfy science and environmental organisations – perhaps they will find a pathway to the High Court too.
• "As for voices like mine and like the First Nations of Australia, I doubt they will be heard beyond this currently closing date for submissions on the Plan.
• "I think the voices of environmental neglect and degradation; the voices of greed, corruption and every corporation for itself; the voices of self-interest and short-term thinking will dominate.  I don’t think right or common sense will win out any more than we will settle this in the best possible way as a cohesive nation.
• "It has been an effort to write this because I am so pessimistic, so sad for the land, the water and my nation.  You see, I believe that my view – which is shared by many others – will be blowing in the wind, unseen, unheard, unheeded.  However, I have made the effort if only for the sake of this view being placed on record somewhere, somehow."

•  Brigid  

****************

 My own personal Submission is also attached:

"I wish to lodge a very simple Submission.
It might be regarded as "simplistic" but that would be your mistake, not mine.

"In essence I support the views of the Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups. Their point and mine, is that the Murray-Darling River system in its entirety ought be regarded as a River, not a canal system.

"It is a living entity, composed of innumerable living organisms - insects, fish, plants, algae, birds.

"The approach advocated by the irrigators, especially the group known as "Murrumbidgee Irrigation", and the Victorian Dairy Industry people, notably "Murray Dairy", have lost perspective on the River systems which feed them, and upon which they rely.

"Yes, they rely on the River, but they are not the only ones.
People, plants, fish, trees, all count.
Except that only some of these organisms vote.

"Also, when considering the economic importance of these organisations, it is worth asking the extent to which they have been captured by foreign investors (especially in the Victorian case).

"My personal opinion is that the entire "consultation" process (phase one and phase two) has been completely botched.

"The Draft MDB Plan, as it currently stands is a "compromise based upon a compromise".

• The authority reported that the number being as high as 7,600 gigalitres per year would bring long-term sustainability and would be the best scenario for the ecosystems of the basin but "would not be socially or economically viable"
• Source: Wikipedia   

"As far as I can tell the best science in this entire process was in the first evaluation of the environmental needs of the Basin.
That figure was, as I understand it, approximately 4000 GL.
But that was scrubbed, prior to the original "consultation" by the MDBA

"Then that organisation's Chairman resigned, in a hasty reaction to political insurrection caused by the Irrigators of the Murray-Goulburn system (at Shepparton, and the NSW Irrigators, at Griffith.

"As far as I am concerned, since the new Chairman of the MDBA was appointed, by his former political "mate", Minister Burke, things have gone from bad to worse.

• The Draft Plan simply does not meet the requirements of the Water Act.

"Craig Knowles ought stand down as Chairman, for having failed his charter."

Denis Wilson 

I am now adding an additional comment from one of my water campaigning colleagues, someone closely associated with the Murray River.


ADDITIONAL COMMENT

I have forgotten to make comment about my disappointment in Mr Craig Knowles, who as we all read about in the news, continually disparaging the previous MDBA and its chair, and the Guide (the guide probably could have been called a rough draft, maybe that would have been clearer to people). It is obvious to me that Mr Knowles' appointment was a political appointment and there is a lack of independence, which is clearly evident in the immediate shrinking of the cap from 4,000GL to 2,750GL with a massive increase of 2,600GL in groundwater extraction limits. There were no other figures vigorously contemplated, either lower and especially not higher. This figure was arrived at before community consultation and without application of ESD or the Precautionary Principle or the principle of inter-generational equity.

Mr Knowles constantly calls the plan 'his' plan whereas I thought that this was 'our' plan, because we are to have input. It is so much better practice ( and definitely democratic) to encourage participation in decision-making because the resulting decision is always more accepted by those it actually impacts upon.

During the consultation in Mildura, our questions, which we felt were important, were lumped together in groups of 4-5 questions, instead of being answered fully and individually, allowing us further input if we felt they were not answered and they failed to ask of our questions were answered, as if didn't matter anyway. Rather than the microphone coming to us, as it did at the first MDBA's consultations, we had to line up in front of one or two mikes standing there waiting our turn, feeling very uncomfortable and exposed.  Our questions were flubbed and not fully answered. The meeting was run by a consulting firm, who though was nice, put us at arms length from the MDBA and we were constantly cut off and told to finish up because we had used up enough time. This was totally unlike the previous Authority, who allowed us the time to speak and actually gave us the impression that they actually cared about our concerns and they would take note of them in their deliberations. They never got the chance. Mr Burke hopped up and flicked answers at us, but without any scientific evidence or real effort to inform us. I did not understand why he sat up front if the MDBA is independent. Though he needs to hear what we have to say, we were directing our questions at the Authority who gets to write the Draft Plan.

The whole process has been flawed. We were not given the in depth information prior to the consultation sessions, that the Authority relied on to make their decisions on the SDLs or even the increase in groundwater take, as an example. We had about 2 hours, there was no power point showing the difference between what this Authority was saying, to what was set out in the Guide. It sounded like Mr Knowles and the Authority had thrown the Guide on the heap, because it offended people, instead of discussing it with an open mind and pointing put the difference to us and how it had been changed and why, with what impacts.

The consultation sessions were held during harvest time, when people were busy getting ready to pick their fruit, which meant that a lot of people simply were unable to attend. This was totally inconsiderate of an Authority that knew that we needed to know what they proposed, and the Authority needed  to hear what our concerns were. Very badly planned, very. Almost as if it allowed them to escape criticism with less people in attendance. This does not reflect that we do not care, it is about timing, venue, the belief that what we say can make a difference and that you will inform and you will be quiet and listen. This is democracy. I included a copy of the Aarhus Convention in my attachments and perhaps it is time that Australia became a signatory so that we, the people who live in a supposedly democratic country are encouraged and allowed to take part in decision- making and have access to information, all the information that decision-makers have before them and finally access to environmental justice. Until politicians, whether ex or present implement this Convention we do not have a true democracy. We are excluded from decision-making and access to information and environmental justice because it will be considered here on Australia as "red tape"!!!

I have absolutely no confidence in this Authority actually taking into account any new evidence or reading our submissions with a view to taking into account what we say. I have a feeling that this Basin plan will be weak and ineffectual, that it will penalize states who are endeavoring to do the right thing and reward others who have developers and mining companies and others who will bring in money for all levels of government to the detriment of all of us who live in the MDB and rely on its health.

Piping water kilometers away from rivers and floodplains and Groundwater sources means that that water will no longer filter back into the MDB system. Instead it will go into another basin and create other impacts there. Has the MDBA thought this one through. Like taking the water from the Goulburn River, a tributary to the Murray to Melbourne, which is totally out of the catchment. At least Adelaide is at the end of the system!

Mr Knowles has stamped his foot on this draft plan, and as an ex politician I am very concerned that he is not independent of government. He kept telling us all the wonderful things he did in government. This Plan will not save the Murray-Darling Basin.

Perhaps we can have another Chair who follows the Water Act's objectives without a hidden agenda, and works with the MDBA coming up with a Plan that, when implemented, achieves what the Water Act and the NWI wants, to bring back the MDB to a sustainable healthy extraction level, whilst considering social and economic interests as well.

Submission ends.

These 3 separate comments show just some of the impressions of just how bad the Murray Darling Basin Authority's Draft Plan really is.
 
But (probably) Craig Knowles will be out there from tomorrow claiming it as a crowning achievement.


Denis Wilson

A damp but pleasant Christmas

The clouds clung close to the hills of Robertson on Christmas Day and continued to do so today ("Boxing Day").
I have re-lit the heaters (yes, even the little gas heater, in the lounge room, as well as the electric oil-filled column heater in the bedroom). So much for Copenhagen. I mostly use the heaters to help keep the house dry, especially as Zoe is coming up tomorrow. Damp-induced mold is a perennial problem in houses in Robertson. So much for the Summer Solstice.

What has driven this weather is the tail end of Cyclone Laurence, which lashed the north-west coast of Australia - crossing the coastline in "The Kimberley". It has tracked across Western Australia, dumping great volumes of rain in the Pilbara, crossing into northern South Australia and the Northern Territory, and entering western NSW, where it has produced heavy, but very useful rain in the western zone, and the north-west districts, and even down as far as Mudgee, and Young.

This pattern of rain is not unusual, just uncommon.
In fact it is rain like this which is the lifeblood of the so-called Foodbowl of Australia (the Murray-Darling Basin), especially, in this case the Northern Basin of the Murray-Darling river system.

This one has started further south and west than many, and has continued to track somewhat further south than normal.Rain Depression which started as Cyclone Laurence.
It is the intense low south of Tasmania which has brought
the cold weather to Robertson.
The moist weather from the ex-cyclone Laurence
ended up just further west.Christmas Day, 5:00 am EDT
Dumping rain in central western NSW.
The remains of the "weather system" will track north from now on.

Lets hope we get a couple more of these cyclonic "washes" over this coming season. Another dump coming down from the Gulf of Carpentaria would match this rainfall nicely, to help central Queensland and the north-western tributaries of the Darling River, especially the Culgoa and Paroo Rivers.

Of course, we know that such cyclones are capable of causing immense damage and loss of life, but this cyclone, although rated at a Category 5 (as severe as Cyclone Tracy) managed to drift across largely unpopulated areas, and caused no loss of life.

By contrast, the most famous of Australia's cyclones, Cyclone Tracy "killed 71 people, caused $837 million in damage (1974 AUD) and destroyed more than 70 percent of Darwin's buildings, including 80 percent of houses. Tracy left homeless more than 20,000 out of the 49,000 inhabitants of the city prior to landfall and required the evacuation of over 30,000 people." Source: Wikipedia > Cyclone Tracy.

Nobody wants another one like that!

ABC Discussion deader than the Murray Darling

I didn't think it possible, but tonight we found something closer to death than the Murray- Darling River system. And that is the intellectual prowess and broadcasting technique of the ABC's "Australia Talks" host Paul Barclay.

The Program started with Rob Freeman, Chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Paul kept referring to this body as a new and first-ever single Authority for the Murray-Darling. Had Paul never heard of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission? It was designed to do the same job as the mob Rob Freeman is heading, except that the previous group was headed by former National Farmer's Federation leader Dr. Wendy Craik. See, its all about politics, isn't it?
But how could Paul Barclay be so poorly briefed?

Paul, a personable chappie, had a nice chat with Professor Mike Young, a member of the now-discredited "Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists". Mike is a South Australian. Mike is an economist. And as such, his main argument to save the Murray-Darling Basin is to let the Free Market apply true value to the resource***. Bit of a problem, that, seeing as the very thing which keeps the River alive, the wetlands and riparian zones along the river, are getting drained of water, by the people with the Money to determine its "true value" - city people (and State Governments on their behalf) and multi-national Agribusinesses. How can the swamps and River Red Gums of the Murray-Darling Basin set the "true value" of the resource, Mike? He kept saying "we have to get the balance right" - referring to the task confronting Rob Freeman and his people at the MDBA. Look into Freeman's history, Mike, and wake up!

Immediately prior to Paul introducing Mike Young, Bernard Eddy rang in and outlined the nature of the problem along the Queensland Border, where the water from the Upper Basin fails to flow across the NSW Border, because foreign-owned Agribusinesses are refusing to release it until such time as Adelaide is about "one week short of running out of water". Paul threw the question to Mike Young, who said that in view of the drought, the basin is really dry, and most of "all that water which fell in Queensland" and which is flowing over the weir at St George will dry up in the parched soils of southern Queensland and northern NSW. Hardly any of it will even make it to the Menindee Weir". Paul kept cutting in and saying how dry those soils were. (Paul is not qualified to comment, and as Moderator, ought behave more professionally and not seek to answer the question himself, when clearly he knows little about the subject. His job as Moderator is surely to ask his guest to answer the question put to him, is it not?)

So it was that Mike Young tap danced his way through the Program, ably assisted by Paul Barclay's timely intervention whenever a question seemed likely to be in any way "difficult" for his guests.

For example, when one woman specifically asked about foreign investors holding large amounts of water in the Upper Basin, Paul cut her off with a facile comment about "not wanting to get bogged down in details". Pathetic. The Devil is in that detail, Paul - and you cut the caller off.

Let me lay this on the line to Paul Barclay - the problem in the Murray Darling Basin is not caused by drought - it is caused by over-allocation of the precious resources we have there. Sure, there is a drought. Yes, one of the recent years did have "the lowest inflow in the system on record". But who is reporting the Usage? It is the imbalance between inflows and usage which is the real problem.

Basically water usage rates (allocation) far exceed inflows. Usage simply has not been moderated to match the inflows. That is why the Eildon Weir on the Goulburn River, for example is sitting at 12% of capacity. And yet the Victorian Government is proposing to drain from it to supplement Melbourne's water.

When Mike was asked about that, his answer was that he had done the modelling, and if Melbourne did not take the water from the Goulburn River, the net result would be the transfer of jobs from Melbourne to South Australia (Adelaide and the Iron Triangle).

Quite an extraordinary answer, which reveals Mike Young's true "angle" on the whole Murray-Darling problem. Apparently the problem is not about water, but about jobs and about politics.

God help the Murray-Darling Basin if it is influenced by the dry-as-dust-economist's brain of Mike Young.

And what about the dead hand of the Moderator of this talk-back program? His interjections were ill-informed (its all about the drought, according to him). And he did not do his job as Moderator of the discussion:

• Bernard Eddy pointed out at the very beginning of the program that the answers we (Australians) need about the water reserves in the MDB had been prepared by the Land and Water Australia, but that body was being abolished (tomorrow, as it happens), and the results of their study are being suppressed by the Government. And that is happening, most likely on the basis of advice from Rob Freeman and Mike Young.
• What did Paul Barclay do to ensure that issue was followed up? Nothing!

For the record, Rob Freeman came to his present job, from South Australia. But he got his start in Queensland. Need one say any more? It is Queensland where the MDB problems start with over-allocation of water. The Queenslanders have written the book on favouritism, croneyism and sheer incompetence in administration of water. So, it is ironic that the one of the people Mike Young look to as potential saviours of the MDB is a former senior bureaucrat - out of Queensland.

• Before this appointment, Rob (Freeman) was Chief Executive of the South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation from September 2002. This role involved participation in many national and inter-jurisdictional committees.
• Formerly South Australian Commissioner and Deputy President of the Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Rob also chaired the national Natural Resources Policy and Programs Committee.
• From 1998 to 2002 Rob was Deputy Director General of the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
• Source: MDBA - Governance - Chief Executive
  

*** I refer you to Mike Young and Jim McColl's Water Droplet article #10

Pricing your water: Is there a smart way to do it?

• "Economic efficiency when water is scarce

  "When it unexpectedly gets or stays dry, water supplies have to be rationed. There are two ways to ration water use. One way is to introduce water restrictions which impose indirect costs on many people. The other way is to increase the price."
  
• Source: "Water Droplet" - No. 10
  

The Australian Water Network has been launched

Today 48 Water Warriors (count them, folks) turned up in Sydney, to found the Australian Water Network.

People came from:

• Queensland (Mary River);
  
• the ACT;
  
• NSW(Rivers SOS members, Blue Mountains, Mudgee, Upper Hunter, Wyong Valley and Caroona) and the Inland Rivers Network, and the Manly Environment Centre;
  
• Victoria (there were some Murray Darling people ("Poor Darlings" we like call them - in the nicest possible way!), some "Plug the Pipe"-rs, some Desal opponents, and some Green Faith Australia environmental campaigners. Special thanks must go to Mary Crook, Liz McAloon and Dr Wayne Chamley from the Victorian Women's Trust for their expert advice and guidance;
  
• and several South Australians.
  
• We also had a number of heavy hitting Academics, notably Pat Troy from the ANU and Professor Emerita Diane Bell.
  

As organisers of today's event, Bernard Eddy and I would like to thank the Nature Conservation Council of NSW for their support for this event, and to make specific mention of Kim and Peter Martin, without whose enthusiasm, trust and logistical support, today's event could not have happened and also Dorothy Baker to whom we are greatly indebted (for patience, support and understanding). Also the help of volunteers, on the day, is much appreciated.

People came to hear Maude Barlow speak about water governance in Australia, and the abuse of policy, and Governments' (plural) obsession with expensive and inefficient high-tech solutions which will in the long term not solve the nation's water problems.

Maude at the Lal Lal Falls, on the Moorabool River, Victoria, near Ballarat.

Then we took a little break and got to know eachother better. People enthusiastically swapped their own horror stories of Government neglect and abuse of water issues.

We decided we need to do something about it, and this is the start of it.

PRESS RELEASE : 2 April 2009-04-02

The Australian Water Network was launched today.

The Australian Water Network will link activists, academics and community groups from all over Australia who are working in their local communities and states on the water crisis facing this country.

The Network will expose and challenge Government water policies which are failing to serve the common good; and promote ideas and strategies more likely to secure a sustainable water future.

"This is an historic day for Australia" said Maude Barlow, Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the UN General Assembly. "Consecutive governments, both Federal and State, have yet to recognise and respond to the Australian water crisis with a cohesive plan. They rely on the false gods of private markets and energy guzzling technologies as the crisis deepens into a national emergency."

The Australian Water Network will fight for the public control of water.

We will do all in our power to ensure water-flows for threatened ecosystems. This new voice in Australia will turn the tide on the water crisis.

Climate Change and Agriculture in arid-zone Australia

Today's Age reports:
"PROMOTING a biofuel industry makes little economic or environmental sense unless agriculture expands in the tropical north, a farming think-tank says."
"The latest issue of the Australian Farm Institute's Farm Policy Journal says governments should invest in technology that can make biofuel from cellulose in the leaves and stalks of crops, otherwise crops will have to be planted for fuel or food. Not enough is produced for both.

Institute executive director Mick Keogh said that "global biofuel experiences show that crop-based biofuels are generally only viable with high levels of government support, and have at best a limited capacity to meet future energy needs".
If all of Australia's wheat and sugar output was diverted to produce ethanol, it would supply only about 20 per cent of the fuel needed for transport. The belief that biofuel helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions was also questionable, Mr Keogh said.

However, Sydney University's Inakwu Odeh and Daniel Tan, from the faculty of agriculture, say Australia could boost its biofuel capacity by using 20 million to 30 million hectares of marginal land to grow exotic crops.
Source: The Age 4 June 2007

*****

These are just a few "hares" which John Howard's lack of understanding of the environment has set "running". No sensible Government would contemplate feeding people like these, if it had a clear understanding of the impact on the true natural environment of Australia. But Howard has a close friend in Bill Heffernan, and it is his inspiration which is at work here. Turnbull is off saving the Humpback Whales (NOT), and saving his own political skin, as we speak. The last thing he wants to do is hose down these crazies, who are working to bring alive Farmer Bill's dream.

*****

Regular readers may have seen links to Miss Eagle's blog. She has written about Senator Heffernan's pipe dreams of "opening up the North". I suggest you have a look, as Miss Eagle knows of what she speaks (the North, that is). Check out the hot link above.

For myself, I note only that the alarm bells in my ears ring when I see academics talking about using "marginal land". I am of the old school which thinks that marginal land is just that - marginal, and that it is not suited to permanent farming. My comments here relate to arid and semi-arid zones, not the tropical north, but while the problems might be different, the lessons not yet learnt are the same, I believe.

In fact, if pressed I would argue that the arid zones ought be closed to all hard-hoofed animal husbandry - sheep and cattle. Goats, Donkeys and Camels have shown that they can survive un-managed "out there", but have become pests of a huge proportion. So, we know we have been grazing the wrong animals, but it seems we don't now what to do about it.

We did at least realise that we had stuffed up, with the Water Buffalo. Hopefully, in time to save the "top end" wetlands. But then again, there is always the "cane toad" - which we brought in for another "exotic crop" - sugar. It will do as much to destroy Kakadu as the Buffalo ever did, I predict.
Different animal, similar result.

Same problem - ignorance, greed and short-sightedness.

*****

Remember Goyder's Line? He proposed a ban on agriculture in the arid zones of South Australia. We need a modern day Goyder.

If pressed further, I would say, we ought graze our native animals - Kangaroos. At least they are adapted to the climate, and the lack of water, and have learnt to control their fertility to the climate, etc. All we need to do is learn to eat them, without thinking of Skippy!

Wool? Well, from what I hear, wool is a luxury which this country cannot afford any more. It is hardly being used in clothing any more. Let the New Zealanders grow coarse wooled sheep, for carpets. Forget it out beyond the middle of NSW.

Many the animals we think of as growing wool, end up on slaughter-boats going to the Middle East anyway, in a trade which is totally reprehensible, by "humane" standards. At least, remove the sheep from the arid and semi-arid zones. When you are down to one sheep per 30 acres, or less, it is a nonsense.

We are frightened about what the politicians and bureaucrats would call "rural reconstruction". That is code for sending thousands of farmers off their land, and in so doing, risking closing down hundreds of small rural towns.

But the thought of "opening up" entire new industries, based upon a dream of farming "marginal land" with "exotic crops" is madness. Are Miss Eagle and myself the only people out there who have heard of the Ord River Scheme, and Humptydoo, before that?

*****

Untested crops, with little or no knowledge of their weed potential, their susceptibility to insect predation, let alone analysing their impact on water resources is just idiocy of the worst case.

It is as if people had never hear of the problems of farming cotton in arid Australia, and the devastation that is causing. Cotton is not viable, or even sustainable, in most of the areas where it is grown. It is only worthwhile growing when we place little or no value on the land, and allow huge farming enterprises to open new lands every 10 years, and to abandon the lands they have ruined (usually with salinity). And these enterprises are often subsidised by huge tax losses, and indirect grants from Government.

Rice is another case in point. Both are unsuitable. Both should be closed down, at least in the arid and semi-arid areas. The Murray-Darling basin is the centre of both these industries. Turnbull's "Murray-Darling" $10 billion pipe dream is not about saving the Murray-Darling, but about privatising its water supply. He is the last of the free market idealogues, who has the freedom to speculate, because he has no responsibility for its outcome. If and when it goes wrong it will be someone else's fault. Probably Macquarie Bank, or KKR, or some other group of nameless, faceless international financiers. Australia - the people and the environment will pay the cost.

Wake up Australia. Stop the madness - and it is starting from the very top.