Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Snowy Hydro tops up floods with environmental flow

By

WHILE residents of Wagga Wagga scrambled to save their belongings from rising flood waters there was a rumour circulating that the crisis was exacerbated by bureaucratic incompetence, in particular that Snowy Hydro was releasing environmental flow water into the already flooded Murrumbidgee River. 

I was angry at even the concept. It was inconceivable. I phoned Snowy Hydro early on December 10 to set the record straight.

I was put through to their media spokesperson, Paul Johnson, who assured me that Snowy Hydro would do nothing to exacerbate the flood crisis and in particular that no water was being released from Lake Eucumbene. The lake has a capacity nine times Sydney harbour, he said. It was only about 25 percent full because most of the rain had been falling below the Lake.

When I fed that reply back into the email stream from which the rumour originated, Ron Pike, a retired rice farmer and tireless advocate for agriculture, asked, “Why then have water levels in Lake Eucumbene been falling despite significant inflows?”

Perhaps water was being sent to the Snowy River, I thought, but surely not to the Murrumbidgee?

I phoned Mr Johnson back, to put that question to him, but he won’t speak to me anymore.  I phoned him back several times during the remainder of last Friday. His assistants initially assured me that he would return my call, but by 4pm, could only confirm that he was in his office and had received my many phone messages.

Earlier in the day I had asked to speak with Mr Johnson’s boss, David Harris, but was told he was unavailable. It was at about 1pm that I phoned around all the Snowy Hydro offices asking the same questions and leaving the same questions with the pleasant women who answer the phones. I hoped that someone knowledgeable would phone me back and explain why water levels were falling in Lake Eucumbene if no water was being released.

Eventually someone did ring me back, a Mr James Muddle from NSW Office of Water.  I said it was very kind of him to phone me, but that I really wanted to speak with someone from Snowy Hydro. He insisted that perhaps he could help. So I asked him, “Is Snowy Hydro releasing water from Lake Eucumbene?” He replied he couldn’t answer that question, that it would be an operational issue for Snowy Hydro whether any water was being released or not.  So I asked Mr Muddle what he did – wondering if I could ask him a question that he might be able to answer.  Mr Muddle replied that the NSW Office of Water was concerned with water policy issues.

“Ahh,” I thought and asked, “Is Snowy Hydro releasing water from Lake Eucumbene because of commitments to the NSW Office of Water to return water as part of its environmental flow obligations?” 

Mr Muddle replied that we don’t normally talk about environment flows when there are floods. So I asked, “No environmental flow releases are being made, that might be topping up the current deluge?”

“You are putting words in my mouth,” he replied.

After more questions from me, all of which Mr Muddle was unable to provide straight answers to, he suggested I phone Tony Webber at the State Water Corporation. And I did. He was not in, but his assistant Jane Urquhart, said she might be able to help and so I repeated my questions.

But alas, Ms Urquhart was unable to answer my questions. She did, however, promise to try and find out and emailed me back with a message from her “water delivery manager” that the information I was after could be found in the operating licence between Snowy Hydro and the NSW Office of Water on the NSW Office of Water website.

Well I went there to have a look, but where to start? The licence has a package of agreements, licences and other regulations and the current licence as at May 1, 2010, is only 102 pages long.  I started to read, but it was not easy going and the more I read, the more I doubted that I would recognise the answer even if I stumbled across it, because the document makes so many references to part three of schedule three then part four of schedule four, and in case of shortfall, in case of excess, in case of base passing flow, in this water year versus next dependent on how much water might be in which of the sixteen major dams at any one time.

So I sent some more queries back into internet world and all was finally revealed. A most reliable source and someone who recently attended a meeting with David Harris, the boss of Snowy Hydro, explained that somewhere in the range of 4,000 to 5,000 megalitres of water per day will continue to flow from the Snowy Hydro System, regardless of downstream impacts, because of environmental flow obligations in the Snowy Hydro operating licence.

Yep! Blowering Dam may be out of control, the water belting out of Burrunjuck, the Central Murray likely to go under again as early as Wednesday, but because of a formal agreement between NSW Office of Water and Snowy Hydro, involving an obligation to South Australia, approximately 500,000 megalitres, equivalent to one Sydney Harbour of water, must be released as soon as possible as environmental flow.

In short, senior bureaucrats have signed off on an agreement, which they are now honouring, which requires environmental flow releases into the already swollen Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers. Of course these men in suits don’t live in the Murray Darling Basin and they will continue to receive a salary, paid into their Sydney bank accounts, regardless of how many extra wheat fields flood and extra homes are destroyed.

Inconceivable, but true.

Also published at Quadrant Online http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/12/bureaucratic-flood-damage

Snowy Hydro Not Contributing to Flooding

By

Communities along the  Murray and Murrumbidgee face more rain and more flooding, and there have been accusations, particularly from Leeton farmer David J. Linsday,  that the situation is being exacerbated by bureaucratic incompetence, in particular, by Snowy Hydro releasing water into already flooded rivers, water that could be filling Lake Eucumbene. 

I phoned Snowy Hydro this morning and put the various accusations that have been filling my email inbox to them.

Paul Johnson assured me that there is nothing Snowy Hydro could do to reduce the flooding because most of the rain is falling below Lake Eucumbene and Snowy Hydro does not have the capacity to pump from the lower reservoirs, for example from the Blowering or Burrunjuck dams, into Lake Eucumbene. 

Mr Johnson confirmed that Lake Eucumbene is only at about 20 percent capacity; and that the Lake is enormous with a capacity nine times Sydney Harbor.

Mr Johnson also said that water in the higher reservoirs, for example Lake Tantangara, that could be diverted to Lake Eucumbene was being diverted to the lake rather than to the lower reservoirs.

The forecast is for more rain and already 35 council areas in NSW have been declared natural disaster zones.  Crop losses are significant and global wheat prices continue to climb.

UPDATE: 

I got it wrong.  To find out what happened after I posted this short note, read  http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/12/bureaucratic-flood-damage

Advertising GM Bread

By

INTERNATIONAL grains industry leaders are building-up their consideration of the market and trade requirements that will underpin the commercialisation of GM wheat.

In parallel to the global R&D program to deliver valued GM wheat varieties – including significant work in Australia – the grains industry’s supply chain-wide assessment process is underway.

A key step is the release at this week’s International Grains Forum in Perth, WA, of the document ‘GM wheat – a seven to ten year program of consultation and collaboration’, prepared by Agrifood Awareness Australia Executive Director, Paula Fitzgerald.

“We have time on our side and are taking a long-term view as it is accepted fact that GM wheat is at least seven years away from commercialisation.

“The document outlines the series of actions that will occur in the years ahead and has been endorsed by a range a key Australian grains industry stakeholders.”

Keith Perrett, GRDC Chairman says the case for GM wheat R&D is compelling.

“It’s an accepted fact that the global human population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 and farmers will have to produce more food from finite land and water resources.

“Australian farmers will have a key role, as while we produce just 3% of the global wheat harvest each year, it accounts for near 15% of the global wheat trade.

“Importantly, wheat is the second largest food crop after corn, yet for the last decade or so, wheat plantings have declined. One reason for this is that wheat productivity and profitability growth lags behind corn, soybean, cotton and canola crops where modern plant science techniques have been utilised to significantly improve their performance.”

Dr Bruce Lee, Director, CSIRO Food Futures National Research Flagship says the use of modern gene technology in wheat breeding is an extension of historical variety adaptation and development.

“Bread wheat as we know it today is genetically complex and has been derived from a combination of primitive wheats.

“Under the guiding hand of farmers over the last 10,000 years, several different species of grasses mingled, cross-bred and hybridised to form a genetically diverse and flexible plant that we can continue to work with for our benefit.

“We can use modern GM technology to accelerate adaptive improvements, to help improve yields, sustain farming in marginal areas, overcome production adversities and improve the nutritional value of our food.

“In turn, all this can help to address food security and achieve healthier and more stable communities and populations.”

In acknowledgment of this scenario, Australia joined Canada and the United States of America to launch a GM Wheat Trilateral Statement in 2009. This statement:

·         recognised the importance of GM wheat research and development, and

·         noted that the three countries would work together to address market and trade considerations, prior to GM wheat being commercialised, to ensure that new crops are commercialised responsibly and provide choice for farmers, the broader agriculture industry, customers and importantly, consumers.

Accordingly, Ms Fitzgerald says over the years ahead, the Australian grains industry will work with domestic and international colleagues to examine and understand customer requirements for GM wheat, which will require regulatory approval in Australia and in export markets.

“Australia has successfully grown GM cotton since 1996 and GM canola since 2008. The Australian agriculture sector will utilise this experience and build on its capacity and expertise in science and global trade to ensure the successful introduction of GM wheat in a timely and responsible manner,” she says.

 GM wheat – fast facts:

·         GM wheat is at least seven years away from commercialisation.

·         Approved field trials of some GM wheat varieties are now underway to assess the plants’ agronomic performance and characteristics.

·         GM wheat will undergo stringent scientific assessment to ensure its safety for human health and the environment as part of the approval process by specialist regulatory authorities.

·         The development of GM wheat varieties is a global collaborative effort involving scientists from both public and private sectors using proven technology.

·         A recent survey in the USA showed strong support for GM wheat with almost three quarters of respondents indicating they would purchase products made with GM wheat, if the wheat was produced to use less water, land and/or pesticides.

 This is a media release from Agrifood Awareness.

Can’t Do as Government Says: MDB Chief Quits

By

“MURRAY Darling Basin Authority Chairman Mike Taylor has announced his sudden intention to step down from the chairman’s role at the end of January. 

“It is understood Mr Taylor had a difference of opinion with the Federal Government over interpretation of the Water Act and its ability to properly consider the social and economic impacts of proposed water cuts, in the Authority’s final plan.

“A statement issued by the MDBA today said Mr Taylor had written to Federal Water Minister Tony Burke regarding the Basin Plan and the chairman’s role.

“Mr Taylor said balancing the requirements of the Water Act 2007 against the potential social and economic impact on communities would be a “significant challenge”.

“The Guide was developed with full regard to the requirements of the Water Act, and in close consultation with the Australian Government Solicitor,” he said.

“However, the authority has sought, and obtained, further confirmation that it cannot compromise the minimum level of water required to restore the system’s environment on social or economic grounds.

“Under the Water Act the further steps the Authority is able to take over the next 12 months in developing the Proposed Basin Plan, and the Basin Plan itself, will necessarily mirror and refine what has been done by the Authority to date…

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/mike-taylor-quits-mdba/2018418.aspx?storypage=0

from Mike Taylor quits MDBA, BY COLIN BETTLES
07 Dec, 2010 08:56 AM

Not too far from the Playboy Casino in Cancun…

By

Members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are meeting with a lot of other people to save us from climate change…

“The Process works like this. A multitude of long, inspissate, obfuscatory, obnubilating, obscurantist draft agreements are circulated, always a day or two late for delegates to find out what they have actually agreed to. The daily timetables for the various ‘working’ sessions of the conference are never available until breakfast-time on the day, allowing no scope for planning the day. By these means, most delegates are kept permanently and completely in the dark.

“Here is a typical paragraph from one of these leaden documents:

‘The SBSTA welcomed the report (FCCC/SBSTA/2010/INF.10) on the second workshop of the work programme on revising the “Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories” (hereinafter referred to as the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines), held in Bonn, Germany, from 3 to 4 November 2010, which was organized by the secretariat as requested by the SBSTA at its thirtieth session.’

“Try to read several hundred pages of this stuff. It simply isn’t possible. And that, of course, is the idea. This is the Mushroom-Growers’ Management Method writ large: keep them in the dark and feed them plenty of sh*t.

“What these ramblings conceal is the remarkably rapid rate at which dozens – no, hundreds – of new bureaucracies are being created as The Process grinds on. As anyone at the Playboy Casino [in Cancun] will tell you, ‘somebody gotta pay for all those lights.’ And that somebody is you, gentle taxpayer. No one has yet managed to discover just how much these hundreds of new supranational climate-change bureaucracies are costing us. That is an international state secret – until Wikileaks gets hold of the figures, of course…

Read more here: http://sppiblog.org/news/from-nopenhagen-to-yes-we-cancun

WikiLeaks Reveal US Obsession with Securing Copenhagen

By

“The leaked US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial “Copenhagen accord”, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

“Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from Saudi Arabia, the world’s second biggest oil producer and one of the 25 richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator Mohammad al-Sabban. “The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy away from petroleum, [Sabban] said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would ‘take the pressure off climate change negotiations’.”

“US determination to seek allies against its most powerful adversaries – the rising economic giants of Brazil, South Africa, India, China (Basic) – is set out in another cable from Brussels on 17 February reporting a meeting between the deputy national security adviser, Michael Froman, Hedegaard and other EU officials.

“Froman said the EU needed to learn from Basic’s skill at impeding US and EU initiatives and playing them off against each in order “to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future train wrecks on climate”.

Read more at the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord