Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for January 2007

A National Plan for Water Security (Part 2): The Issue of Over-Allocation

By

The Australian government’s new $10 billion, 10 point plan entitled ‘A National Plan for Water Security’ states that there is a need to address “once and for all water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin”. This is point 4 of the plan.

So what does it mean to be “over-allocated”?

According to The Plan “over-allocation is where more entitlements have been issued in a system than can be sustained.”

What does this mean?

According to a recent report ‘Water Use and Regulation’ by the ANZ bank:

“The National Water Commission estimates that as of 205, 1 percent of Australia’s 340 surface management areas and 5 percent of 367 groundwater management areas were over-allocated (that is over 100 percent of sustainable water levels were permanently allocated for extraction and consumption), while another 13 percent of surface water and 23 percent of groundwater areas were ‘highly developed’ (that is 70-100 percent of sustainable water was allocated) putting them at greater risk of temporary over-allocation during dry periods.”

I find the concept that over-allocation means over 100 percent of the water in a system has been allocated unusual and extreme and I have contacted the Nation Water Commission asking for more information and the specific reference. (deleted following comments below from Ian Mott and Wally, see below)

In the relevant document from the National Water Initiative there is no specific definition of ‘over allocation’ and comment is made that each state and territory has used different criteria.***

In the development of ‘Water Allocation and Management Plans’ in Queensland under the Water Act 2000 the arbitrary figure of 30 percent was used; that is if more than 30 percent of a river’s flow is diverted it could be considered over-allocated.*

How much of the Murray Darling Basin’s water is diverted?

Under natural conditions it is estimated that 46 percent of the 24,000 gigalitres that flow into the Murray-Darling Basin is consumed by wetlands and floodplains with the remaining 54 percent flowing out to sea. Now, with all the regulation it is estimated that 11,580 gigalitres, or about 50 percent of the water within the Murray Darling Basin, is diverted for irrigation.**

Based on the estimates in ‘River Losses and End of System Flows’ (MDBC, November 2003, and ignoring the 1,200 gigalitres from Inter-Basin Transfers), it would require that the government buy back about 4,425 gigalitres of water entitlement for the system to be at a 30 percent level of extraction.

If government paid a probably conservative $1,000 per megalitres for permanent entitlements then I estimate they would need about $4.425 billion.

This is an awful lot of money and the government currently only has $3 billion in the budget for buying water entitlements.

Is it worth it? What would be the net benefit of returning the 4,425 gigalitres to the Murray Darling Basin?

The Murray-Darling Basin covers about 14 percent of the land mass of Australia but mean runoff is only about 24,000 gigalitres or 6 percent of the Australia’s total mean annual runoff (Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000, pg 25).

While relatively little water falls within the Basin (6 percent), most of Australia’s water infrastructure has been developed here including the Snowy Mountain scheme build in the 1950s to drought proof the region.

The Murray River has essentially been turned into an irrigation channel with its headwaters part of the Snowy hydroelectricity scheme, four large dams and 13 locks along the way and the system ends in a series of barrages at the so-called Murray mouth.

The Murray River is kept artificially high most of the time as water is moved from the dams which are mostly at the top of the Catchment to irrigation areas downstream and also to meet Adelaide’s water needs.

The Darling is a very different system and less regulated.

In summary, ‘A National Plan for Water Security’ assumes over-allocation in the Murray Darling Basin but does not explain how this was determined and what an acceptable level of extraction might be. Assuming that 30 percent of pre-development flow levels is a reasonable level of extractions, the government would have to buy back about 4,425 gigalitres of water and is likely to cost more than $3 billion.

Buying back this water is likely to significantly impact on agricultural production in the Basin and the rural communities in irrigation areas.

There are already significant environmental flow allocations for the Murray River. Given the Murray River is already a highly regulated and somewhat artificial river system I doubt that the environmental benefit from the return of additional water would be significant. What would the environmental benefits be for the Darling River system?

——————-
This is the second in a series of posts on ‘A National Plan for Water Security’, Part 1 is here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001859.html

* I can’t find a good reference or link for this, Luke can you help?

** Based on ‘River Losses and End of System Flows’, published by the Murray Darling Basin Commission, November 2003. Can someone find the document on the internet for me?

***Changes made to this post at 12noon on Friday 2nd February.

Coral Reefs May Benefit From Global Warming

By

ON Friday in Paris the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will launch a new report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, with an up-to-date assessment of likely temperature rises because of global warming. Three related reports will be released later in the year, including a report on the likely effects of the rise in temperature. The report on impacts is likely to include a chapter on Australia and a warning that corals on the Great Barrier Reef could die as a consequence of global warming.

The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth. The expected rise in sea level associated with global warming may benefit coral reefs and the Great Barrier Reef is likely to extend its range further south. Global threats to the coral reefs of the world include damaging fish practices and pollution, and the UN should work harder to address these issues.

Read the complete article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-7583,00.html

More Fuel Reduction Burning, More Fires: A Note from Bob McDonald

By

Bushfires have burnt more than 1.2 million hectares (4,600 square miles) of Australia this summer.

Some blame the ferocity of this year’s fires on global warming, others on inadequate control burning claiming that fuel loads in many forests are too high.

Bob McDonald has a very different perspective suggesting that both the frequency of bushfires and fuel reduction burning has increased over the last two decades in parts of eastern Australia and that in some situations the best strategy is to not undertake any controlled burning as potential fuel, including leaf litter and wood, will be quickly broken down by termites, bacteria and fungi:

“The frequency of both fuel reduction burning and fires have increased over the last twenty years in many locations. There may be no relationship between the two, but I suspect that in some situations more frequent burning is contributing to more fires.

My grandmother was saved by her father cutting and bleeding her hand when she was bitten by a snake. He didn’t actually do the right thing but she believed he did – was calm and survived.

If anyone had argued with the my great grandfather on the day he cut his daughters hand I likely would not be here to write this – so I respect all those views contrary to mine on an issue for which many have strong and personal or professional views and I am prepared to be wrong – but first we need to have an objective look at what has happened with fuel reduction burns in the last twenty years on a site by site basis.

I have fought fires in several places and I am interested in questions relating to what does not burn, when vegetation burns, how hot does it burn and which fires can ignite what kinds of dead wood.

Wire grass, for example, explodes but you can run through it without getting burnt.

In the 1983 Ash Wednesday Fires at Mount Macedon (on a south westerly wind) frequently burnt as well as bush with that went up in a crown fire and also burnt. A fire from the north just 10 days before the Ash Wednesday Fires, a wet gully of ferns and old trees on the south side of the Mount Macedon ridgeline held up a grass fire for two hours enabling water bombinmg and eventually being put out.

In 2003 roughly 500,000 hectares of forest from East Gippsland to Canberra was burnt. When fires two weeks ago reached this area, burnt less than three years ago, they not only burnt but ‘took off’. This would suggest that in some situations re-growth is more flammable than un-burnt areas and that in some cases a significant amount of fuel reduction burning could actually increase the frequency of bushfires.

In East Gippsland, while developing a Community Fire Protocol to manage fuel reduction burning, locals pointed out that rainforest gullies slowed fires and it was a good idea not to burn them in fuel reduction burns.

In coastal rainforests strips in northern NSW there is no fuel the litter life is so intense that even leaves remain in a light single layer and fallen timber rapidly becomes soil.

Termites play a big role here, along with fungi and bacteria. If it was burnt this forests’s capacity to rot timber would be significantly reduced.

It will take time for people to feel comfortable with letting the bush grow out in places where no-fire is, in my opinion, the best hazard reduction strategy. All vegetation burns, dead and alive, but some burns better than others. Fuel reductions fires in sandy country in the south that generate braken invariably increase braken denisty, height and the fire hazard – and often kill thin barked eucalypts like Manna Gums, for instance

Bob McDonald,
South Gippsland.”

Did Newmont Do It? (Continued …)

By

I met Richard Ness, the head of a gold mining company Newmont Minahasa Raya, through this blog.

I posted a piece here in November 2005 asking the question: Did Newmont Do It?

I was referring to Buyat Bay in northern Sulawesi, Indonesia, and allegations that the beautiful bay had been polluted by mine tailings.

About a year after I posted the piece Richard emailed me, including comment that: “What has come out from court ordered resampling of the bay is that the Waters of Buyat are cleaner than on average, the Atlantic, Pacific and English Channel.”

Last week Richard Ness was in court again pleading his innocence. He opened his 13 hour testimony in Manado, Indonesia, with comment that:

“I beg the court’s indulgence if at some points throughout this document that my writing depicts some anger, frustration, pity, and in some cases even contempt for some of the issues raised. I hope that the Honorable Panel of Judges can understand that these expressions of emotion are not directed at this court or the Honorable Panel of Judges, but rather at the subject matter or the individuals under discussion.

This Panel of Judges has been searching for the truth and I express my respect
to the Honorable Panel for your patience and the work they have undertaken
towards separating reality from pretense and facts from illusions. I have to
state that I have been treated very fairly before this court in an effort to find the
real truth and while the trial can be deemed fair, the investigation, examination,
indictment and the charges against me are certainly not fair or justified!

The allegation that Buyat Bay is polluted is a sham, and only supported by
falsehood and error.

There were several opportunities to correct this travesty before the indictment was issued, but each time the opportunity was lost. If the law had been followed from the beginning, there would never have been an indictment; if the Prosecution had examined the evidence, there would have never been charges or a sentencing request and I would not have needed to write this pledoi [testimonial].

Although one can reflect back on what could have been but the reality is I am seated before this court, defending myself of a crime that never occurred.”

[Read the complete transcript by clicking here]

Richard Ness claims there is no evidence to suggest Buyat Bay was ever polluted by mine tailing from Newmont Minhasa Raya and that the case against him is a fabrication orchestrated by environmental NGOs supported by naïve western journalists including New York Times journalist Jane Perlez.

The same day the New York Times published its feature by Ms Perlez, the World Health Organisation published a detailed technical report which concluded that Buyat Bay was not contaminated by mercury or cyanide and that levels of mercury among villagers were not high enough to cause poisoning and that the health effect of mercury and cyanide poisoning were not observed among Buyat Bay villagers.

This was the first of several reports, including a detailed report by Australia’s CSIRO and another by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment, which directly contradicted an initial Indonesian police report and found the bay to be unpolluted.

Richard’s testimony brings to a close what has been a long and acrimonious trial. A judgment is expected within the month.

Here are some links to recent media reports:

PT Newmont Boss Begins Defence in Indonesia
Resource Investor – Herndon,VA,USA
St. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) — Newmont executive Richard Ness, on trial in Indonesia for allegedly polluting Buyat Bay, read his ‘pledoi’ to the court … http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=28339

INDONESIA: Indonesia Newmont boss says no complaints on mining
CorpWatch.org – Oakland,CA,USA
PT Newmont Minahasa Raya, which operated a gold mine in North Sulawesi province, and its president director Richard Ness face charges over allegations the …
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14317

Newmont Indonesia boss rejects pollution charges
Reuters AlertNet – London,England,UK
PT Newmont Minahasa Raya (NMR), which once operated in Indonesia’s North Sulawesi province, and its president director Richard Ness face charges over … http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/JAK52760.htm

Indonesian blogger, Ong Hock Chuan, invites Walhi, one of the NGOs that launched the initial attack against Richard Ness, to explain how “activist NGOs on the whole make Indonesia a better or worse place to live and do business”: http://theunspunblog.com/2007/01/25/open-invitation-to-businesses-and-indonesian-ngos-to-respond/#comment-6058

Richard’s son Eric has commented at his blog that: The actions of some of the NGOs portrayed in this documentary (Mine Your Own Business) parallels my Dad’s experience in this Buyat Bay case. People like Rignolda and Raja Siregar have utilized well-planned misinformation campaigns and lies in the name of environmentalism. Dr. Jane Pangemanan did not hesitate to misrepresent the illnesses in the Buyat Bay community as mercury poisoning. Such allegations were decisively disproved by the WHO, CSIRO and other governmental reports. These individuals have been discredited now in the court. But the salient question is: will these NGOs resort to these methods again? I plan to continue this debate further in the weeks to come. The time has come for NGOs to become more thoughtful, and more truthful in their campaigns. Read more:
http://richardness.org/blog/buyatbayandngoaccountability.php

And for more information on Richard Ness: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001697.html .

A National Plan for Water Security (Part 1)

By

Last week the Australian Prime Minister John Howard launched ‘A Nation Plan for Water Security’. It is a 10 point plan with a $10 billion budget to run for 10 years and it has generally been well received perhaps because many Australians feel there is a need for ‘water’ as an issue to be given a higher priority, for environmental flow issues and issues of over allocation to be sorted, and the provision of new water infrastructure fast tracked.

Most Australian live in a capital city and in almost every Australian capital city people have been inconvenienced by water restrictions. In Perth, Sydney and Brisbane city councils have even started reducing ‘water pressure in an attempt to ‘save’ more water as dam levels continue to drop.

I live in Brisbane and because of a failure by successive state governments to invest in infrastructure, a rapidly growing population and the drought, Level 4 water restrictions mean I can only water my garden with a bucket on particular days of the week between particular hours.

A planned plebiscite on the issue of drinking ‘recycling sewerage’ was cancelled yesterday with Premier Peter Beattie explaining that dams are so low we have no choice but to drink it.

A couple of thousand kilometers to the south in the Murray Valley irrigators who saved water late season by not growing a crop had half of this carry-over water taken from them by the New South Wales government just before Christmas after record low inflows in the upper catchment. Right now about 1,000 farms in this region are desperate for rain and running out of water for livestock for the first time since the beginning of irrigation in the region in the late 1930s.

Further south farmers are mopping up after a one in 50 year downpour flooded parts of South Australia and there was also good rain in central Australia and western Queensland earlier this month.

In the far north, where most of Australia’s rain has always fallen, there were good falls again last year and it could be argued that overall there has been a net increase in the amount of rain falling on the Australian landmass over the last 30 years.

But how useful is more rain in northern Australia, if water infrastructure and population are concentrated much further south?

The Prime Minister has suggested that there is a need for “a radical and permanent change in our water management practices” and that his 10 point plan will “improve water efficiency and address over-allocation of water in rural Australia”.

Will this mean there is more water for our cities?

Will the $10 billion plan proposed by the Prime Minister go someway towards securing Australia’s water future?

I plan to consider the 10 point plan, point by point through a series of blog posts.

Sunday Reading

By

1. WWF Tips to Help Save Energy
by Sun Xiaohua (China Daily),
January 25, 2007.

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) launched its two-year energy saving campaign, “20 Ways to 20 Percent” in China last weekend after the country flunked the first test to meet its ambitious energy-saving goal in the 11th Five-Year Plan period (2006-11).

The goal was to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic products (GDP) by 20 percent in five years, or 4 percent a year.

WWF’s 20 tips aimed at helping China achieve its goal, and include use of energy-saving air conditioners, refrigerators, electric bulbs and tubes and washing machines, unplugging household appliances when they are not in use, making paperless business a reality and using more public transport.

Read the complete article: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-01/25/content_791885.htm

2. Running the Rule over Stern’s Numbers
by Simon Cox and Richard Vadon (BBC Radio 4, The Investigation),
January 25, 2007.

When the Stern Review into the Economics of Climate Change came out last year, it was showered with praise.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called it, “the most important report on the future ever published by this government”.
But expert critics of the review now claim that it overestimates the risk of severe global warming, and underestimates the cost of acting to stop it.

Read the complete article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6295021.stm

3. Bush’s ‘clean fuel’ move may cause more harm, say environmentalists
by Andrew Buncombe (The Independent),
January 25, 2007.

Environmentalists are unimpressed with George Bush’s pledge to develop alternative sources of energy – accusing him of failing to confront the real issues driving climate change.

In his address on Tuesday, Mr Bush called for a large boost in the production of alternative fuels, along with an increase in efficiency standards for petrol-engine vehicles. “These technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change,” he said.

Read the complete article here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2183876.ece

4. US Government proposes geoengineering and plantetary protection as “insurance policy”
by David Adams(The Guardian),
January 27, 2007.

The US government wants the world’s scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be “important insurance” against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.

Read the complete article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1999967,00.html