Minority Report
The Australian Greens & Senator Nick Xenophon
Introduction – a 'wicked' problem
1.1
Australia currently faces one of its most complex and difficult social,
economic and environmental crises ever. The Murray Darling Basin is regarded as
the food-bowl of the nation, and there are many basin communities which have
come to depend upon water extraction for their industries and their town
supplies. The basin's ecosystems are also highly threatened (including 17
Ramsar wetlands of international significance[1])
and 80% of its wetlands have already been lost as a consequence of
over-allocation.
1.2
At the same time we also face a major threat in the short-term to the
survival of one of our national icons – the Coorong and Lower Lakes. We face
the very real possibility that acidification could lead to irreversible damage
to these precious ecosystems, with serious knock-on impacts for the communities
and industries of the lower Murray.
1.3
In both cases the causes of the problems are the same – a combination of
the way we have mismanaged limited resources within the basin, the consequences
of a severe and extended drought, and the impacts of a warming and drying
climate.
1.4
This is truly a 'wicked' problem[2] – it
involves a series of complex and inter-related systems which are only partially
understood, where difficult decisions need to be made based on incomplete and
conflicting data. It also crosses a number of jurisdictional boundaries and
governance grey areas, and brings together a range of different stakeholders
with intersecting and competing interests.
1.5
Our leading scientists are warning that we need to significantly reduce
water use within the Murray Darling Basin to ensure that our use is sustainable
during future drought cycles in the face of a significant reduction in likely
levels of run-off as a result of climate change. Dr Tom Hatton, Director of
CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, indicated in evidence that the
relationship between rainfall and runoff has changed dramatically and that
combined with a shift in seasonality we could expect to see significantly less
runoff in the future – probably in the order of 50%.[3]
Professor Mike Young suggested that the decline in runoff was at least 30%
and possibly 40-50%.[4] As a
result the Wentworth Group is advocating a 42-53% cut in consumptive use will
be necessary in order for the basin to remain viable, that more of the money
set aside in the National Water Plan needs to be allocated to water buy-back
and a separate structural readjustment fund needs to be put in place.[5]
1.6
Given the devastating and irreversible threat faced by the Coorong and Lower
Lakes, the scale of the social, environmental and economic challenge in the Murray
Darling Basin as presented in the evidence to this Inquiry, and the amount of
Commonwealth investment tied up in Water for the Future ($12.9 billion) the
majority report is particularly disappointing. The Australian Greens and Senator
Nick Xenophon disagree with the majority report on the following points:
- We do not agree that there is not enough water available to
address the environmental needs of the Coorong and Lower Lakes systems.
- We also believe the timeframe of the IGA is unduly indulgent
(given the urgency of the crisis) and needs to be significantly shortened.
- We note with concern that many wetlands within the Basin are in
extremely poor health, including the Macquarie Marshes, the Narran Lakes, the Lower
Gwydir and the Fivebough – Tuckerbil Swamps.
- We do not believe the flooding of the Lower Lakes with salt water
is an option. We also note with concern approval for such a plan was given by
the Federal Environment Minister without appropriate risk assessment having
been conducted.
- We believe, given current rains, between 30-60 gigalitres of
fresh water will be needed to keep Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert functioning
until September next year.
- We also argue the Victorian Government’s proposed North-South
Pipeline, which will extract 75 gigalitres from the Goulburn for domestic use
in Melbourne, should not proceed.
1.7
We note that the majority report dodges the difficult question of how we
make tough decisions about prioritising water use during times of scarcity by
simply concluding that water isn't available. This does not fit with the
evidence presented to the Committee or that discussed within the majority
report, which indicates that there is water available within the system. These
volumes of water are under high demand for competing uses in a situation where
there is not enough to go around and where industries, communities and the
environment are hurting.
1.8
From our point of view a more honest appraisal of the dire situation
facing water users within the basin (including threatened environments) would
have given greater consideration to weighing up the relative risks to different
communities, environments and industries of limited access to water and looked
to how small changes spread across users might ameliorate the risk of the
irreversible loss of different industries, communities or environments.
1.9
In this context, the scope and timeframe of the IGA also needs to be
revised and the role of the Commonwealth redefined. These issues will be
addressed in the second part of this Inquiry which deals with the longer-term
whole-of-basin issues.
A tricky balancing act
1.10
We face and must balance both serious short term threats of irreversible
change to ecosystems of international significance whose loss would have
serious knock-on effects – against the uncertain long-term system-wide threats
to the communities and environments of the entire basin in a drying and highly
variable climate.
1.11
It is clear that we need an emergency response to head off irreversible
changes to the Coorong and Lower Lakes. However, this response must be in the
context of a bigger picture solution to underwrite the sustainability and
security of the communities and the environments of the whole of the Murray Darling
Basin. We need to balance our management of this short-term emergency with the
requirements of sustainable whole-of-basin management in the longer term. We do
not want either one to be at the expense of the other.
1.12
We appreciate that this is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do –
particularly when we are in a situation where we do not have all of the information,
where the future of our climate and the availability of water is both uncertain
and likely to be highly variable, and where there are so many people dependent
on the basin.
1.13
The need for an emergency response to tackle a very pressing threat to
the Coorong and Lower Lakes has been advocated for a number of months. This has
been done in circumstances where the South Australian Government, the Murray
Darling Basin Ministerial Council and the Commonwealth had been alerted to the
deteriorating circumstances within the lower Murray for a long time, and have
more recently received reports of an impending crisis on which they had failed
to act in an appropriate and timely manner. It took the leaking of this
information to the public and a concerted community campaign to put this issue
onto the national agenda and mobilise support for a Senate Inquiry.
1.14
Well before the emergence of this particular crisis The Australian
Greens have been drawing attention to the wider sustainability problems of our
use of water,[6]
of the future of agriculture in a changing climate,[7]
and of the threats to the limited resources of the Murray Darling Basin system
in particular.[8]
Healthy communities rely on a healthy river
1.15
We have been long-term advocates for the need for a whole-of-basin
approach to managing and sharing the resources of the basin. On this basis we
wholeheartedly support the views of basin communities that we need to develop
and maintain healthy communities on the basis of a healthy river. As the Murray
Darling Basin Association said:
The Murray Darling Association influence stretches across the
entire Murray-Darling Basin landscape and beyond, into coastal cities. It has
seen through its history of 64 years the benefits that the carefully managed
resources of water, land and air can do to assist in the growth and development
of this great continent. We all know that water is the essence of life, not
just for human inhabitants but for the entire ecological fabric of our
landscape and the whole biodiversity. We must protect that biodiversity with
every means available to us, and that will no doubt mean that, for continued
sustainability, we must act on change urgently; more urgently than we have done
in the past.[9]
1.16
The South Australian Farmers Federation expressed a similar sentiment:
We believe that there has to be accelerated purchase of water to
support the environment because environmental water seems to be a misunderstood
thing. If we do not have a healthy river, we do not have good water to irrigate
with. All these things go hand in hand. They are absolutely essential.[10]
1.17
The Mannum Progress Association put it succinctly:
...in future there must be an allocation of water for the
environment. Without an allocation of water for the environment, we do not have
a healthy river and we will not ever have healthy communities.
...We cannot go on. We know how this system has deteriorated. We
know why. In the future we really have to get it right, and we have to get it
right fairly soon.[11]
1.18
In light of this level of community concern and engagement with the
issues surrounding the long-term sustainability of their communities and the
river system on which they depend, it is crucial that there be a much greater
level of community consultation. In a situation where communities are struggling
to get by in the face of severe ongoing reductions in available water there is
a pressing need for a much greater level of facilitated community engagement in
sharing coping strategies and planning for the future. Basin governments need
to be providing much greater levels of information and resources to basin
communities and giving them more opportunities to have input.
1.19
An excellent example of community collaboration, innovation and planning
in the face of adversity is given by the Torrumbarry Reconfiguration &
Asset Modernisation Strategy (TRAMS) in the Goulburn Valley. This is a
community-driven strategy to redesign their local irrigation area to get by
with substantially less water in the face of climate change. It involves local
landholders signing on to a joint agreement to modernise 50% of their delivery
system and decommission 30% to maintain productivity and deliver better
environmental outcomes.[12]
This particular community-driven project shows what is possible when
communities are given the information, tools and support to work together on
local challenges and envisage a shared future.
1.20
A discussion of the kinds of processes and outcomes that we would like
to see for basin communities and the principles and values on which we believe
decision-making should be based are discussed in more detail in the last
section of this Report below. This issue will of course be taken up in more
detail in the second phase of the Committee Inquiry.
The threat to the Coorong and Lower Lakes
1.21
The Coorong is a large, Ramsar-listed estuarine system at the mouth of
the Murray River, which is host to a range of important and threatened species.
The Lower Lakes - lakes Albert and Alexandrina are adjacent freshwater
ecosystems.
1.22
The Coorong and the Lower Lakes have not experienced natural flow cycles
for over 70 years – since barrages were built to protect freshwater access for
local communities. The evidence presented to the Committee suggests that prior
to the creation of the barrages the flow regime through the Murray mouth meant
that Lakes Alexandrina and Albert were predominantly freshwater systems which
experienced varying seasonal pulses of salt water. Regular seasonal flushing
events meant that there was little opportunity for any significant salinity
concentrations to build up.
1.23
Until recent events, the flow regime in the modified systems of the
lakes was such that as predominantly freshwater systems they were able to
preserve much of their natural values and continued to support many
internationally significant species. The change in the flow regimes in recent
years (as a consequence of the combination of record low flows and continuing
unsustainable extraction) has led to increasing threat of exposure of the lake
beds and the emergence of an acid-sulphate soils problem.
1.24
As the report in April from the SA Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource
Management Board notes:
Prior to European settlement, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert
offered a mosaic of mostly fresh, but occasionally brackish open water habitats
with freshwater, saline and hypersaline fringing wetland systems that were
interconnected.
Sediment studies provide evidence that there was very little
tidal or marine influence on the Lakes due to the significant river flows
except under extreme drought conditions.
There is also evidence that under most circumstances the water
level in the Lakes was usually between approximately +0.3m and +0.6m AHD and
never fell below sea level (approximately 0.0m AHD). The dominant freshwater
character of the Lakes prior to regulation of the Murray system is further
reinforced by the fact that river flows were sufficient to keep the river mouth
open. It has only closed once (in 1981) in the past several thousand years.[13]
1.25
This analysis was confirmed in evidence to the Committee by Coorong and Lower
Lakes expert Dr Kerri Muller[14]
and by Ramsar expert (and former Deputy Secretary General of the Ramsar
Convention) Dr. Bill Phillips.[15]
1.26
The report from the SA Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management
Board also states:
The condition of the Coorong and Lower Lakes has deteriorated
considerably since its designation as a Ramsar site in 1985. This decline is
primarily due to the impacts of ongoing low inflows at the site. In 2002 it was
estimated that median freshwater flows at the Murray Mouth had been reduced to
27% of natural flows and flows have diminished further since that time. Since
2000, the situation has been exacerbated by the drought with 12 periods of up
to 600 days of barrage closure.
Accordingly, the Murray Mouth has been continuously dredged
since 2002 to ensure it remains open. The last few years have had record low
River Murray inflows to South Australia and this has had serious consequences
in the Lower Lakes and Coorong.[16]
1.27
In evidence to the Committee, Dr Phillips reported on assessments of the
ecological character of the Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar site undertaken in
2006 and 2008, stating:
Of the 54 vital signs that we looked at, green indicated that
things were okay within expected boundaries, but if they were red then things
were very concerning and required urgent intervention. You can see that in 2006
nearly half of the vital signs of this system were red and nearly one-third
were amber—heading in that direction. They cover everything: the abundance of
species; the area covered by certain habitat types; the orange-bellied parrot
and species like that; and salinity and a whole suite of water quality
parameters. It is a full gamut of things which tell you about the health of
that ecosystem.
... we have recently found—it will not surprise any of you—that 13
of those parameters have gone off the scale and the others are travelling very
quickly and sliding in that direction. This is a system that is very rapidly
deteriorating—a deterioration that, to be honest, has been happening for 30 to
40 years but that has been accelerated over the last three to four years and
particularly over the last 12 months.[17]
1.28
The threat in Lake Albert is particularly acute, and there has been an
ongoing program of pumping from Lake Alexandrina to ensure that falling water
levels do not expose acid sulphate soils in the lake-beds. Once these soils are
exposed and oxidised we will see an irreversible process – the outcome of which
is the production of sulphuric acid and the destruction of a wetland of
international significance on which a number of highly threatened species of
migratory birds are dependent.
1.29
As of 31st August 2008 Lake Alexandrina was at -0.27 AHD and Lake Albert
at -0.13 AHD. The current management trigger level for Lake Albert is -1.0 AHD
– which is the point beyond which current science suggests it is approaching
the tipping point for runaway acidification.[18]
Lake Albert was at -0.5 AHD (which is 1.2m below their normal pool levels)
when the threat of acidification was brought to the attention of the Murray
Darling Basin Ministerial Council in April 2008 by the South Australian
Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board.[19]
1.30
Urgent intervention is clearly needed to prevent the exposure of
acid-sulphate soils in the lake-beds.
1.31
It is important to appreciate that what we are discussing here is a
short-term emergency intervention to simply keep the Coorong and Lower Lakes
alive during a period of the lowest flows on record. These do not reflect the
environmental requirements to restore and maintain the health of these systems
beyond the immediate water crisis.
1.32
The Living Murray Icon site Environmental Management Plan for the Lower
Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth identifies three key ecological objectives for
the site, which were agreed by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council in
2004: (i) an open Murray mouth; (ii) enhanced migratory water bird habitat in
the Lower Lakes and Coorong; and (iii) more frequent estuarine fish spawning
and recruitment.[20]
1.33
The MDBC submission notes that much greater volumes of water flowing
through to the end of the system would be required to meet these objectives.
The volume to keep the Murray Mouth open is in the vicinity of 2000ML/day or
approximately 730GL/annum. Without periodic flows over the barrages to allow
fishways to function effectively those estuarine and marine species that rely
on the Coorong for part of their life cycle are severely threatened. MDBC
estimates that an additional 550GL annually is required for optimum operation
of the barrages, and 270GL would be required if fishways were only operated
from September to February. These flow requirements are on top of those
required to return the level of the lakes up to their operating height (at
least 0.3m AHD) – which requires the additional 730GL mentioned previously
(i.e. a total of 1000GL).[21]
1.34
During a period of extended drought it is obviously difficult if not
impossible to maintain this healthy flow regime, and the community will wish to
prioritise the use of limited resources to ensure the survival of other
environmental and community assets. In choosing to do so it is important to
appreciate that this strategy is only viable in the short-term, and the current
reduced flow regimes in the Coorong and Lower Lakes and other Ramsar wetlands
and Living Murray Icon Sites comes at the expense of ecosystem function,
resilience and ongoing viability.
1.35
We face a real risk if extreme water rationing continues indefinitely
because we are locking into place 'crisis' water sharing regimes that are not
sustainable for either the communities of the basin or its ecosystems.
1.36
We note that in evidence to the Committee, Ramsar expert Dr Bill Phillips
indicated that many of the Ramsar wetlands within the Basin are in poor to very
poor health, including Macquarie Marshes, Narran Lakes, the Lower Gwydir, the
Fivebough-Tuckerbil Swamps system. He also indicated that similar concerns were
held for several of the Living Murray Icon Sites, including the Barmah- Millewa
Forest, the Gunbower Forrest, the Hattah-Kulkyne Lakes and the Chowilla
Floodplain.[22]
We believe that urgent assessment of the state of these systems is required and
management plans for their recovery and protection need to be implemented as a
matter of urgency.
1.37
The danger faced by the Coorong and Lower Lakes and the other
internationally recognised and iconic wetlands and ecosystems throughout the
Murray Darling Basin is that if we keep on going the way we are we will
ultimately pass tipping points beyond which the resilience of these systems are
fatally compromised. The wetlands of the basin play a crucial role in
maintaining the quality of the water within the system (in addition to their
important natural heritage role as habitats for threatened species). When we
consider that 80% of the wetlands of the basin have already been lost and those
remaining are degraded and highly threatened, continuing on with a water
sharing regime that puts the needs of the environment last could mean the
collapse of these systems. This would result in severe degradation of the quality
of the water throughout the system to the point where it was unsuitable for the
communities and industries that depend upon it.
1.38
It is important to note that the Coorong and Lower Lakes are separate
(but inter-related) ecosystems which will require separate management
responses. These management options are discussed as separate sections below.
Ruling out the salt water option for the Lower Lakes
1.39
The healthy functioning of the Lower Lakes historically depended on
regular freshwater flows and occasional large flushing events to maintain their
function as predominantly freshwater systems.
1.40
The initial presentation from the Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts presented flooding the Lower Lakes with seawater as the
most likely option at that time for addressing the threat of acidification.[23]
1.41
We do not accept that flooding the Lower Lakes with salt water should be
countenanced as a management option for a number of compelling reasons:
(a)
The evidence presented to the Senate Inquiry[24]
shows that the introduction of any significant volume of salt water into the
Lakes is likely to lead to irreversible changes and the loss of ecosystem
values and should be ruled out. As stated in evidence by Dr Muller,
I believe that that would be
extremely detrimental to the ecology of the system, as well as the
socioeconomic assets of the area. The lakes have been freshwater for 7,000
years before European settlement of this country. I believe that they should
stay as freshwater systems and I believe that letting in sea water will not
prevent acidification of the lakes and is likely to exacerbate the situation.
(b)
The introduction of salt water to acid sulphate soils presents a serious
risk of creating a greater acidification problem. Significant concentrations of
sulphate ions in seawater increase the likelihood of sulphuric acid production.
The introduction of salt water also increases the risk of heavy metals being
mobilised, and of stratification taking place within the lake body (with the
heavier layer of salt water at the bottom) thus increasing the risk of anoxia
(i.e. detoxification of the saltwater layer).[25]
(c)
If low flow conditions continue and there is an absence of any
significant flushing events the introduction of salt water into the lake system
will ultimately result in increasing salinity problems in the lakes as
evaporation leads to increasing concentrations of salt. This would create
environmental problems similar to those being experienced in the Southern
Lagoon – with the added complication of acid-sulphate soils increasingly
reacting with these salt ions. The ecological consequences of hyper-salinity in
the lakes would be more extreme as these are now freshwater environments.
(d)
Another uncertain risk factor is the possible impacts of the
introduction of salt water on groundwater systems that are contiguous with the
lakes. Not enough is known about how these systems interact, and there is a
possibility that the introduction of salt and the mobilisation of heavy metals
could contaminate these groundwater systems, having serious knock-on impacts on
the communities that depend on this groundwater and high value ecosystems that
are connected to them.
1.42
As stated in evidence by Dr Phillips,
It will change ultimately the fundamental chemistry of the
system perhaps forever. The biota and macro invertebrate systems will be so
significantly altered that the recovery process will be made that much more
difficult. We do not know, for example, what will happen if you add sea water
into that part of the system. It is highly likely it will end up in the
groundwater systems, which could then flow up into the critically endangered Fleurieu
Peninsula swamps. You might essentially kill off a critically endangered
ecological community and the emu wrens that live there. So there are all sorts
of collateral impacts that could happen from opening the barrages which force
us to say that it has to be the absolute last resort.[26]
1.43
Given the high level of scientific knowledge of the natural values of
these ecosystems, the decade or more of warnings given by the scientific
community about their deteriorating values, and the serious threats posed by
acidification, heavy metal mobilisation and hyper-salinity – we were surprised
to learn that a risk assessment had not been carried out on the option of
flooding the lakes with salt water. Given the constitutional responsibility of
the Minister for the Environment under the Ramsar treaty and his
responsibilities under the EPBC Act,[27]
it is disturbing to hear evidence that the Commonwealth was advocating this
option while at the same time arguing that the responsibility for such a risk
assessment lay wholly with the SA state government.[28]
1.44
We submit that bioremediation to convert Lake Albert to an ephemeral
wetland through replanting would be a better option to letting salt water into
this already degraded and fragile system. This view is supported by the
evidence of Dr Muller, who stated that
...bioremediation is a far preferable situation to letting in the
sea, because the sea will be irreversible, whereas planting around the lakes
and using mulch is a way of dealing with the acid that does not require water.[29]
We note however that bioremediation of this kind and on this
scale has never been undertaken and presents some significant challenges that
require further research.
1.45
The time that bioremediation at this scale would require may rule it out
as an immediate option for the lake as a whole, however in the short-term it
may prove an effective strategy to target particular high-risk areas around the
lake fringe. We recommend that further bioremediation trials should continue
and a feasibility study into various bioremediation options should be produced.
Prognosis and prospects for the Lower Lakes
1.46
Recent rain in the Mount Lofty catchment and the lower Murray has
brought with it a valuable window of opportunity – both extending the timeframe
within which water can be sourced to maintain lake levels above the critical
threshold and reducing the quantum of fresh water needed to ensure acid
sulphate soils remain covered.
1.47
This was highlighted by Dr Wendy Craik in evidence, where she stated
that:
Under the worst case scenario a relatively small amount of water
could be required to avoid acidification before next winter. Given the rainfall
and the reduced evaporation, we believe that we only need a relatively small
amount of water to get through to next winter. Under anything less than the
worst case scenario the lakes are at a low risk of acidification before the
next winter in flow period.
1.48
From a situation where we had a level of -0.5 AHD in April 2008, with
the likelihood that the level in Lake Albert would drop below the critical
threshold if we were unable to source 450 – 500GL of water by the end of this
year, these recent rains have lifted the level to -0.27 in Lake Alexandrina and
-0.13 in Lake Albert.[30]
This means that the best estimates are that we now have a window of opportunity
through to next September and that we probably only need to source 30-60GL of
fresh water to get us there. We believe that this is an achievable objective.
1.49
This position is supported by the evidence of Dr Arlene Buchan who
commented in evidence that:
I think there is every opportunity of being able to find another
60 by the end of September next year if we look at all the different options
right across the Darling basin, the Murray basin, what we can get from
permanent entitlements and what we might perhaps buy through temporary
entitlements – there are a whole range of different measures there. I think
that 60 gigs is perfectly doable. I say that because, in my conversations with
some of the CSIRO scientists and so on who work on this and with staff within
the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, they think that 60 gigs is
achievable...Sixty by the end of next September should not be an enormous task.[31]
1.50
It is crucial that these recent modest rains do not encourage us to lose
momentum on the need to address the ongoing threat to the ecosystems of the
Coorong and Lower Lakes.
1.51
We must also appreciate that these are the best estimates based on our
current state of knowledge of the likely evaporation rates and the dynamics of
the acid sulphate soils involved. What is required is an ongoing monitoring and
evaluation process of water levels, evaporation rates and soil acidification to
enable the adaptive management of the problem. The most effective solution is
an adaptive management approach, in which we monitor water and acid levels and
deliver water as it is needed to top it up so we maintain levels no lower than
-0.4AHD. Such an approach keeps the amount of water required at a minimum by
minimising evaporation losses.
A very near miss?
1.52
At the time the crisis in the Lower Lakes was brought to the attention
of the Ministerial Council the predicted crisis point was October and there was
no reason to expect that a rainfall event of the extent recently experienced in
the Coorong and Mount Lofty Ranges region was at all likely. Despite this
critical deadline, the next meeting of the Council was not scheduled until
November and no action was taken to source fresh water within the system to
avoid this looming catastrophe. Were it not for the recent fortuitous rain, Lake
Albert would now be rapidly approaching the tipping point.
1.53
This demonstrates an extremely poor approach to ecosystem management
which must be addressed as an urgent priority so that it does not occur again
in this and other threatened high-value ecosystems.
1.54
The delay between the warning of this approaching crucial threshold,
public knowledge of the emergency, and our ability to respond to it could yet
prove to be critical for the survival of the Coorong and Lower Lakes. On the
basis of the evidence presented to the Committee it is clear that the best
opportunity to source and supply fresh water would have been through the winter
– when channels were wet, temperatures were low, and there were some stream
flows to support conveyancing.
1.55
In the period during which the issue has been being debated many of the
sources of water initially identified as being worthy of consideration[32]
have since been committed or become impractical. This particularly applies to
potential sources in the northern basin, as the drying out of the channel means
that transmission losses would now be so high as to be unacceptable (80-90%).
1.56
However, the evidence presented by the Bureau of Meteorology suggested
that there is a reasonable possibility of a significant summer rainfall event
in the sub-tropical northern part of the basin over this Christmas. As Dr Jones
indicated in evidence:
In the northern part of the basin, the rainfall outlook is
somewhat positive. There are shifts towards wetter than average conditions, and
we are also moving now into the higher rainfall time of year, so there is some
prospect for reasonable rainfall in the north of the basin.[33]
1.57
Under these circumstances we believe that it is crucial that the
Commonwealth and the Ministerial Council look into the legislative and
regulative impediments that might prevent some of this water getting through to
the Coorong and Lower Lakes (and other severely stressed basin ecosystems) were
such an event to occur. This includes the 4% cap on the transfer of water out
of a district, and those licence conditions in the northern basin under which
extraction is permitted once flows pass a certain level.
1.58
Were it not for the intervention of significant rain in the southern
regions the failure to act of the Ministerial Council, particularly the South
Australian Government and the Commonwealth Ministers (who have direct
responsibility for oversight of Ramsar wetlands and the Water Act 2007), means
we would now be looking at irreversible ecological destruction in Lakes Albert
and Alexandrina at a scale unprecedented in our nation's history.
1.59
We need to learn the lessons of this crisis to ensure that, if we manage
to dodge a bullet this time, this sort of catastrophe cannot threaten without
an appropriate response being taken in the future.
Where is there water in the system?
1.60
The Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) presented to the Committee an
up-to-date summary of the best information they had available on current water
resources within the basin. This information is limited to the extent that it
does not cover water in private storages and is dependent on figures supplied
by state authorities.
1.61
The MDBC evidence suggested that as 31st August there was approximately
5840 GL of water in active storage across the Basin (24% of capacity) and
approximately 1850GL had been allocated to users (16% of average annual use). Dr
Wendy Craik said in evidence that there is between 1400 and 1600GL that has
been allocated. The MDBC confirmed to the Committee on notice that as of 21st
August 1499GL of water, including carryover water from 2007-08 had been set
aside for allocations in the southern interconnected basin (excluding South
Australia) and that 250GL of this water including carryover was allocated
within Victoria.
1.62
While this amount represents a very small allocation for irrigation
needs, it does suggest that the accessing 60GL in the southern connected system
remains a possibility.
1.63
The NSW Government indicated in its evidence that it intended to supply
the agreed river flows and conveyancing losses to South Australia from Menindee
Lakes. This means that 696 GL has been allocated from storage at Menindee Lakes
to provide 350GL of dilution flows at the South Australian border.[34]
While this suggests on the one hand that any water sourced from or below
Menindee lakes can be delivered to the lower lakes without transmission losses,
it also raises some questions about why NSW is sourcing this water from
Menindee rather than the Hume Dam. It is uncertain at this stage what waters
may become available in Hume as the season progresses, and how the state may be
planning to allocate these waters if and when they become available. Returning
to the usual practice of accounting for conveyancing losses in the River Murray
from Hume Dam might be one way to free up sufficient water for the Coorong and Lower
Lakes.
1.64
Evidence from Murrumbidgee Irrigation Ltd[35]
and Dr Arlene Buchan of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)[36]
highlighted the fact that there is an outstanding loan of 113GL of
environmental water from the Murrumbidgee which has not yet been returned. We
understand that the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority has indicated
that, should this water become available, they probably only need 5GL for a
southern bell frog habitat and a bit more to wet local wetlands in the lower Bidgee
and then would be happy to provide water to assist the crisis in the lower
lakes.
1.65
Given the evidence presented to the Committee on transmission losses,
and the provision of conveyancing water by NSW, the suggestion is that
emergency water for the lower lakes might be more efficiently sourced below Menindee
Lakes and in the lower Murray connected system.
1.66
Dr Arlene Buchan suggested in the ACF submission that '...it is likely
that the cumulative effect of acquiring small volumes of water from a mix of
different options will provide the most cost-effective, short-term approach...'.[37]
This might include: a mix of purchasing both permanent and temporary water from
the southern connected system, repayment of some of the 113GL borrowed from the
environment in the Murrumbidgee valley, short-term changes to the operating
rules for Menindee Lakes, or releases from Menindee if more water becomes
available upstream as a result of monsoonal activity; accounting for River
Murray conveyance losses from the Hume Dam rather than Menindee; loans or
leases from allocations; and more strategic purchases of properties with large
water entitlements.
1.67
The evidence presented to the Committee shows that there is water
available within the system to assist the Lower Lakes.
The Sugarloaf Pipeline
1.68
The Inquiry received evidence from a number of witnesses who were
concerned about the increase in demand on the river system of other consumptive
uses, including particular concern about the definition and growth of priority
water for 'critical human needs' and of non-Basin populations increasing their
reliance on the system. Of particular concern is the current reliance of Adelaide
on water extraction from the Murray, and the recent decision by the Victorian
Government (with the support of the Federal Environment Minister) to start
extracting significant quantities of water from the Goulburn for Melbourne.
1.69
The proposal to extract an additional 75GL/yr from the Goulburn via the
Sugarloaf Pipeline for consumptive use in Melbourne also represents a
substantial increase (21%) in the amount of River Murray water prioritised for
critical human needs (on top of the current 350GL allocated to urban and
domestic consumption).
1.70
The Inquiry received a submission and heard evidence from the Plug the
Pipe group in Victoria and their concern that the North-South Pipeline project
would, with its 75 gigalitres extracted from the Basin for Melbourne’s water
use, pose a serious environmental and sustainability risk.
1.71
In its evidence to the Committee, Plug the Pipe questioned the validity
and adequacy of the assessment process used to approve the project. Their main
contention was that
...there is no evidence that any independent, scientific,
environmental impact assessment was conducted to inform the Minister of the
likely impacts on wetlands and migratory species of the diversion of a further
75 billion litres of water.[38]
1.72
Plug the Pipe was critical of the lack of sensible precautions such as a
basic environmental audit,[39]
and also questioned the projected water savings claimed by the Victorian
Government.[40]
Rather, they asserted that the project was ‘robbing’ environmental water
allocations.[41]
The Victorian Auditor General's report on the project was highly critical of
the figures and the methodology used by the Victorian Government to derive
their projected water savings for the food bowl project noting that:
The announcement of the food bowl project in June 2007 was not
informed by a rigorous cost analysis and full validation of the water savings
estimates.[42]
1.73
Given the severe stresses on the ecosystems in the Basin there are
serious concerns raised over the impact of the North-South Pipeline. Further,
the approval process and the role and authority of both the MDBC and the MDBA
to effectively deal with the concerns raised requires an urgent review. Dr Wendy
Craik, the CEO of Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), stated that the MDBC
did not have a view on the pipe to Melbourne because the MDBC has not seen the
modeling for the pipe and had not been consulted or included by the Victorian
Government in its planning processes.[43]
1.74
There is a strong argument that urban communities located in catchments
outside of the Murray Darling Basin should not be relying on extraction from
the basin for their domestic and industrial supplies – particularly where those
urban centres are located in wetter catchments and are making very inefficient
use of their own incident rainfall. This issue is particularly problematic when
we take into account the relative impacts of the recent drought onto coastal
versus inland catchments, with a greater decrease in rainfall and run-off
occurring in inland catchments – an issue which is exacerbated when we consider
the modelled impacts of climate change.
1.75
While there have been improvements in water conservation measures over
the last few years, Australian cities still rank as having some of the highest
per capita rates of water consumption, despite our living in a highly variable
and relatively arid climate. There are great opportunities within both Melbourne
and Adelaide to improve water use efficiency, to increase the capture and
re-use of storm water run-off, and to maximise the benefits achieved from
fit-for-purpose water recycling for industry. Urban water authorities should be
exploring and investing in these options to improve the sustainability of their
water use before they pursue the politically easy option of taking water from
inland catchments facing greater climactic risk.
1.76
Given the huge problem that already exists with over-allocation within
the Basin all of the water being saved through efficiency measures should be
returned to the river. While we strongly dispute the claimed level of savings
from the Victorian 'Foodbowl' project it is clear that any savings need to go
to the system, not to Melbourne.
Opportunities in stormwater harvesting
1.77
The Inquiry heard evidence on the potential benefit of a number of
projects being undertaken that would lead to increased water being available
for the system. These include engineering works to reduce the evaporation in
the Menindee Lakes and also the enormous potential benefits of stormwater
harvesting both for Adelaide and Melbourne, which was flagged as one of the
lower cost and environmentally and socially attractive options. Dr Tom Hatton
indicated that there is 'huge potential for stormwater capture, storage,
treatment and reuse on the plains in Adelaide.'[44]
He suggested that Adelaide could move a huge distance toward being off the
river in a 10-12 year period if investment were made in options such as
stormwater harvesting.[45]
The Conservation Council of South Australia also highlighted that weaning Adelaide
off dependence on the Murray River is a worthwhile goal.[46]
1.78
Evidence was also presented about stormwater being the most
underutilised resource, with approximately 1.8 times Adelaide's annual take on
the Murray in the average year going out to the gulf as stormwater outflow each
year.[47]
Mr James Danenberg pointed out that even in a dry year that still equates to
about one-third of Adelaide's annual consumption of Murray-River water. He
considered it an 'absolute tragedy and travesty that this resource is not being
adequately harvested.'[48]
The Salisbury Council in South Australia, who have recently had delegates from
a number of South East Asian countries attend their wetlands to take lessons
from the stormwater harvesting and management programs that are occurring
there, was highlighted as a world-leading innovator in this area. Mr Danenberg
stated that this program has not been adequately funded or resourced and that
the potential of stormwater harvesting needs to be investigated further.[49]
1.79
The Commonwealth and relevant States should fast track measures such as
stormwater harvesting that will wean Adelaide off its reliance on the Murray
and prevent Melbourne developing a similar reliance.
Hyper-salinity in the southern Coorong
1.80
The combination of high levels of evaporation and the sustained lack of
flushing events in the Coorong (with no flows of freshwater over the barrages
in the last 6 years) have lead to hyper-salinity in the southern lagoon, with
salinity levels of 180-200 TDS. These concentrations of salts, which are
equivalent to 5-6 times the salinity of sea-water, exceed the maximum levels
that key fauna such as midge larvae and hardyhead fish can tolerate. This is
having a knock-on effect onto dependent populations of waders and fish-eaters.
The changing flow regime also prevents the procreation of Ruppia tuberosa - a
key aquatic plant and critical food source for waterfowl.[50]
1.81
It is clear that unless these levels of hyper-salinity are reduced the
ongoing viability of the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong as a habitat is
severely threatened, and urgent remedial action is required.
1.82
We recommend that as an interim management measure the pumping of
approximately 50GL of hyper-saline water from the southern lagoon (and its
consequent replacement with a similar volume of fresh seawater) is undertaken.
1.83
Evidence was also presented by a number of witnesses about the viability
of the upper south east drainage scheme being diverted into the southern
reaches of the Coorong to reduce hypersalinity.[51]
This possibility should be urgently assessed.
1.84
We further recommend that a longer term management plan for the Coorong,
which takes into account projections of likely
temperature and flow regimes be prepared and resourced as part of a
wider consideration of the management of the Lower Lakes and of the health and
amenity of the Murray Darling system. This plan will also need to take into
account management options for projected sea level rises as a result of climate
change.
The Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008
1.85
During evidence, reference was made to the Emergency Water
(Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008, which was referred to the Committee on
28 August 2008. Professor Mike Young highlighted a number of points
with respect to the bill, including the importance of arming the Commonwealth
Water Minister with the requisite tools needed to take action at a time of
‘governance crisis’. He stated:
The intent of the...bill... is to enable the minister to act and to
put aside one of the biggest stumbling blocks, which is the legislative hurdle.
At the moment Minister Wong does not have the authority to take over and solve
this problem. We have talked about solving it for a long time. What the
minister actually needs is a full tool kit. When you have a crisis you need a
full tool kit. At the moment her hands are tied behind her back. The bill
identifies a need for a new sharing system, the removal of barriers to trade so
that we can expedite adjustment. It stresses the need to give the environment a
share, something which this nation promised to do back in 2004 under the
National Water Initiative and which no-one has done yet. It recognises the need
to provide a minimum amount of water to maintain the system at a minimum level.[52]
1.86
The Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008 provides the
legislative framework and mechanism to give the Minister the power to urgently
address the problems in the Basin, which is lacking in the IGA of the 3rd July 2008.
1.87
Evidence to the Committee raised a number of interesting points which we
believe are worthy of further consideration. We believe these issues should be
further taken up in the second phase of this Inquiry.
Constitutional Powers
1.88
In addition to the powers proposed in the Emergency Water
(Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008, evidence presented by Professor John Williams
suggested that there are two alternatives approaches to the question of whether
or not Commonwealth control of the river system could be achieved.
1.89
The first option would involve a negotiated incremental takeover through
the referral of powers by states. Whilst Professor Williams saw this as the
preferred option, some doubt was raised as to the likelihood of it being
adopted.[53]
He stated that whilst this was the preferred option, it was probably also the
unlikely option.[54]
1.90
The second option discussed by Professor Williams would involve the
Commonwealth wresting control over the rivers from the states by using existing
powers. He outlined a number of powers that could be used by the Commonwealth
to achieve this including, trade and commerce powers, corporations powers,
external affairs powers and powers relating to the acquisition of property on
just terms. After taking into account all of the possible arguments against
these options, Professor Williams indicated that the Commonwealth would be on
strong constitutional ground if it were to enact legislation allowing them to
deal with significant aspects of the management of the Basin.
1.91
We believe that this discussion raises important points that should be
further considered during the second phase of the Committee's Inquiry.
A Time for Action
1.92
In effectively tackling the crisis in the Coorong and Lower Lakes we
need to be putting forward two things: Firstly, we need an emergency response
plan to manage the threat of acidification over the coming summer to prevent
irreversible damage and ensure the survival of the system. Secondly, we need an
ongoing plan for the medium and long-term to manage the health and ecosystem
values of these systems in the face of a drying and uncertain future.
1.93
On this basis, and keeping in mind that we will be producing a second
report on the longer-term whole-of-basin management issues, we make the
following recommendations.
Recommendations
1.94
That the Commonwealth source 30 - 60GL of fresh water between now and
September 2009 to maintain the level of the Lower Lakes above the critical
acidification threshold.
1.95
That flooding the Lower Lakes with salt water should not be countenanced
as a management option and must be ruled out.
1.96
That an adaptive management approach be taken, based on monitoring water
and acidity levels to maintain the health of the lakes while minimising
evaporative losses.
1.97
That the Minister for the Environment immediately notify the Ramsar
Convention of the change in ecological character of the Coorong and Lower Lakes
for listing on the Montreaux Record as threatened and degraded.
1.98
That the Minister for the Environment urgently investigate the changed
ecological character of other Ramsar sites within the Murray Darling Basin to
determine how many others also need to be listed on the Montreaux Record.
1.99
That legislative and regulative impediments to the conveyance of water
from the northern basin in the event of a significant summer event be
addressed.
1.100
That the Commonwealth investigate the non-return of 113GL of
environmental water loaned from the Murrumbidgee and expedite its return.
1.101
That 50GL of hyper-saline water be pumped from the Southern Lagoon and
replaced with an equivalent amount of seawater.
1.102
That a Taskforce be established to oversee the short term management of
the Coorong and Lower Lakes and to look at management and remediation options
for in the medium and longer terms.
1.103
We support the approach of giving the Commonwealth greater powers as
suggested in the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008 which
we recommend be further considered in the second part of the inquiry.
1.104
That consistent with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists’
submission and evidence, there be a significant reduction in water use across
the entire system to ensure the economic and environmental sustainability of
the Basin, and further ensuring that enough fresh water is maintained to keep
ecosystems including the Coorong and the Lower Lakes alive and sustainable.
1.105
That the potential impact of the north south pipeline on the Basin be
urgently reviewed by the Commonwealth,
1.106
That the adequacy of the powers of the MDBA to deal with this type of
additional new extraction from the system be reviewed.
1.107
That the Sugarloaf Pipeline which will extract 75GL from the Goulburn
for domestic consumption in Melbourne should not go ahead.
1.108
That the Commonwealth and relevant States should fast track measures
that will wean Adelaide off its reliance on the Murray and prevent Melbourne
developing a similar reliance – including demand management, stormwater
harvesting, fit-for-purpose recycling and domestic rainwater tanks.
Senator Rachel Siewert
Senator Nick Xenophon
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page