Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Water

More on Australia’s Water Crisis and Climate Change, This Sunday on ‘Sunday’

By

I really wanted to walk out of the channel 9 television studio in Sydney last Thursday.

I was there because the ‘Sunday’ program had flown me all the way from Brisbane to be a part of a ‘water forum’ to discuss ‘the water crisis’.

Also there, on the very large forum panel, was federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, Wentworth Group Member and Water Commission Commissioner, Professor Peter Cullen, Australian Conservation Foundation Executive Director, Don Henry and the list went on to also include Laurie Arthur from the Rice Growers Association and someone from the Bureau of Meteorology and of course there was Dr Mike Young from CSIRO and a few more.

I almost forgot. They also had Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, on a video link up from Brisbane.

Before I could get a word in edge ways, Premier Beattie and Professor Cullen with some help from Minister Turnbull and others, had spun the usual story including that due to climate change, the Murray Darling Basin, not to mention the rest of Australia is in the grip of a water crisis.

I don’t dispute that there is a water crisis, but I do dispute that it has much to do with climate change.

Minister Turnbull had also falsely claimed that Australian irrigators are inefficient and need reforming and Don Henry had managed to explain that the Murray River is in ruin. Mr Henry has been making the same claim over and over for about 10 years.

I had naïvely thought it wouldn’t unravel as such.

It was, after all, only last year that ‘Sunday’ ran a feature story on the Murray River explaining that there was no environmental crisis and no salinity crisis. One of their film crews had traveled the length of the river with Ross Coulthart uncovering the extent of the ‘honesty crisis’ – as I described it at the time.

Just a few weeks ago, in advance of the water forum, I had sent more information through to channel 9 explaining that despite all the more recent hype, the river is still doing OK. I also sent them through Bureau of Meteorology graphs, including a graph showing that there has not been a gradual long-term decline in rainfall in the Murray Darling Basin, as is so often repeatedly and falsely suggested in the mainstream media.

rainfall06_bom_summary 2.JPG

But this time most of the evidence was just ignored.

The shows host, Ellen Fanning, let Professor Cullen and others repeatedly confuse inflows with rainfall, drought with climate change and suggest the new $10 billion National Plan for Water Security could solve “the water crisis”.

While Ellen was in complete control of where the cameras were pointing when, I did manage to make a few points in response to Premier Beattie’s claim that southeast Queensland’s water crisis was the fault of climate change and wait for it, local government, and I also managed to correct Professor Cullen when he suggested there was a direct link between the 30 percent increase in global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the current water crisis.

They filmed for 90 minutes and will edit this down to just 30 minutes. So, my efforts may have all been in vain.

There is ample opportunity, thanks in particular to Professor Cullen and Minister Turnbull, for the program to really hone the doomsayers message that we have a ‘climate crisis’ and that the government’s $10 billion plan can really fix it.

But I’m hopeful, if not optimistic, they might find a spot for some balance.

Anyway, the ‘water forum’ on the ‘water crisis’ should screen this Sunday on ‘Sunday’ some time between 9 and 11 am.

Good People Have Short Showers in Brisbane

By

How many times a day do you shower? How long do you shower for?

I live in southeast Queensland, in beautiful Brisbane. The region is famous for its balmy weather, surf beaches, theme parks (including Sea World at the Gold Coast) and general great outdoor lifestyle which often revolves around water and water sports.

Indeed, most people would consider southeast Queensland water rich.

But from the 11th April, when level 5 water restrictions are likely to be introduced, Brisbanites will be expected to comply with a raft of new water saving measures including 4 minute showers.

I don’t have a problem with short showers, but I’m concerned that the government will soon be asking me to have just one shower a day.

Is there any other part of the world where government recommends how long and how often people should shower?

It is extraordinary that the situation has deteriorated to the extent that it has in southeast Queensland.

The Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, keeps blaming the “water crisis” on climate change and the drought. But the real issue is population. Indeed the population of south east Queensland has doubled since the last dam was build in 1985. There has been a chronic under investment in water infrastructure at least in part because of environmental campaigning. Indeed the planned Wolfdene Dam was scrapped about 18 years ago because of concern over environmental impacts. Now government is trying to fast track dams, desalination and waste water recycling.

Queensland Water for Southern Irrigators: The Bizarre Beattie-Bradfield Plan

By

Just 2 years ago the Queensland government passed the Wild Rivers Act 2005. It’s purportedly about preserving the natural values of wild rivers through regulating future development while maintaining grazing, fishing and eco-tourism. The bottom-line is that the legislation was championed by activists to stop the further development of irrigation in north Queensland.

The legislation is resented by many, who perceive double standards from the one government: a government which supports new dams and infrastructure development in south east Queensland, but introduces the first Act of its type in Australia to limit development in the north of the state.

But now to add insult to injury, the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, resurrects the 1920’s Bradfield plan and suggests water be diverted from north Queensland Rivers to the Murray Darling system and for irrigation.

So the Murray Darling Basin is short of water. Well it’s in drought and furthermore inflows to major rivers have been reducing because of bushfires, plantations and more efficient use of water on farm including recycling.

There has been lots of rain in northern Australia and it’s in northern Australia that most of our water falls.

But for a Queensland Premier to suggest that large sums of money be spent building the infrastructure and piping water south, while at the same time restricting development in the north of this own state. Well that’s un-Australian!

rainfall06_bom_summary.JPG

Rainfall for the Murray Darling Basin from 1900 to 2006

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.

‘Snow Job on the Snowy’ by Ian Mott

By

As the Murray Basin gets another “summit” for it’s troubles it is timely to take a good hard look at the facts behind the last river to get the “can do” swagger from our politicians and environmental saviours. In October 2000 the Feds, NSW and Victorian governments gave us another “milestone” in the great pantheon of environmental achievements. They agreed to return 21 per cent of the Snowy River’s water that has hitherto been captured in the dam system and sent down to the Murray irrigators.

The hype merchants and word molesters were out in force. They had “saved an Aussie icon” and “restored the mighty river to its former glory”. There was no room at all for the fact that these custodians of the public good had just seriously impaired the contributive value and efficiency of a public asset, the dam system and related power generating capacity.

But that is only small beer compared to the character, scale and extent of the gross misrepresentation of facts that had been introduced into the policy process, without any apparent challenge by the professional officers involved, leading up to this decision.

A good grasp of the kind of arguments put by the self-appointed saviours of the Snowy River, prepared by East Gippsland Independent State MLA, Craig Ingram, can be seen here. If this MP has made similar representations to the Victorian Parliament then there are grounds to investigate whether he has engaged in grossly misleading and deceptive conduct.

He informed us that:

“The value of the Snowy River to the Australian people is beyond calculation. Right now, this national icon lies at death’s door. The once mighty Snowy River has been reduced to a series of small, stagnant pools, choked with weeds and sand. Seawater is intruding upstream and native fish are fast disappearing”.

Note the clear implication that river flow is negligible and that this condition is present over the entire length of the river system. This perception was reinforced under the heading “a matter of equity” with the claim that “Australians are asking for 28 per cent of the original flow to be returned to the Snowy River”. And who, one may ask, could possibly argue against an apparent restoration of a river from 0 per cent to 28 per cent of its former flow?

But let’s put this into perspective. This 28 per cent amounts to about 330,000 megalitres or 1.3 times the total volume used each year by the 1.5 million residents of greater Brisbane. It was followed by the claim that, “the water needed for the Snowy can come from efficiency savings in irrigation”.

They quoted Professor John Lovering, former Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, as saying, “just a 10 per cent improvement in irrigation and farm management practices could deliver one million megalitres of extra water to irrigators”. And then implied that a simple, unstated, back-door, tax-in-kind, of 33 per cent of the farmer’s gross, hard won, efficiency gains, on top of all their existing tax obligations, was all that was needed to fix this “matter of equity”.

No one asked if any other segment of the broader community was being asked to hand over a full third of their gross efficiency gains over more than the next decade. Per capita productivity gains in Australia are generally in the order of 1per cent per annum and those gains are already taxed at between 30 and 45 per cent. But the parties to this water agreement, both Liberal and Labor, thought nothing of taking the first 33 per cent as water tax, oblivious to the fact that the farmers would subsequently be taxed another 30 to 45 per cent on the remainder. The effective tax on these farmers productivity gains would be 55 to 60 per cent.

In blissful ignorance, it was such a simple, seductive concept that it was easily taken up by otherwise intelligent departmental officers, who lacked either the time or inclination to think the matter through.

The Alliance lists as references:

1994 scoping report commissioned by NSW and Victorian Governments. Recognises 28 per cent of the Snowy’s original flow is needed to reinstate the ecological function of the river;

1996 expert panel of scientists conclude that insufficient water is released from Jindabyne Dam to maintain a healthy ecosystem. They recommended 28 per cent;

1998 Scientific Reference Panel of the Snowy Water Inquiry conducted by NSW and Victorian Governments supports a minimum of 28 per cent.

The ACT Environment Commission also gets into the act with the narrow perspective of the Snowy River Shire when it claims, “The scheme diverted close to 99 per cent, or 520 gigalitres each year, of the Snowy River flow into the Murrumbidgee and Murray River system. This left the Snowy River with only 1 per cent, or nine gigalitres, of its average annual flow. A decision in 2002 saw this environmental flow increased to 38 gigalitres each year, or 6 per cent of the total flow.”

But it then includes a very important rider, stating, “No estimate of the volume of water that escapes the Shire in the various river systems, where that water is not captured by the scheme, is available”.

You see, all the claims about absent flows, and so on, have been in relation to the minor portion of the river system immediately below the dams. And both the public, and the policy process, has been encouraged to assume that this applies to the entire river system. But as each additional tributary joins the river on its way to the sea the more “healthy” the river becomes.

Indeed, the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority provides the first glimmer of evidence that the Snowy system is not quite as bad as it has been made out to be. It has a map showing entirely unmodified tributaries (listed for their heritage values) and a photo of what looks like a very healthy river.

It is not until we go to the Australian Natural Resource Atlas that we get closer to the real story on the Snowy River.

Total catchment area = 1,589,600 hectares

NSW catchment area = 894,000 ha

Victoria catchment area = 685,600 ha

NSW mean annual runoff = 1,317,000 megalitres of which 513,000Ml is captured in dams.

Victoria mean annual runoff = 863,000Ml plus 804,000Ml from NSW.

And this tells us that about 1,664,000 megalitres out of total catchment runoff of 2.18 million still makes it to the sea at Marlo. So we have a river system which has numerous tributaries that still exhibit zero disturbance in normal flows and allow the lower river to still deliver 76.3 per cent of total runoff into the sea.

The claimed requirement for another 330,000Ml, deemed by the above mentioned “expert panels” as the minimum required to restore the ecological function of the river, would send 91.5 per cent (1.99 million Ml) of total runoff into the sea.

Note that there is some discrepancy in the Alliance’s maths. If 330,000Ml is 28 per cent of flow then total flow would only be 1.18 million Ml not the 1.317 million Ml reported by ANRA as the NSW share of the runoff. What we do know with absolute certainty is that no mandate would have been given by the public to undermine the efficiency of expensive infrastructure for the dubious benefits of lifting river flow from 76.3 per cent to 91.5 per cent.

But wait, there is more. The Victorian part of the catchment is still largely timbered so we can assume that the runoff volumes from the Victorian portion are close to the original pre-settlement volumes. The same cannot be said about the NSW portion where, outside of the National Parks and reserves, extensive clearing has increased the runoff volume from pre-settlement volumes.

The Australian Natural Resource Atlas has good, but apparently limited access, data on the extent and type of original vegetation and the extent of subsequent clearing. An exact area is not available but by visual estimate about 66 per cent of this part of the catchment has been cleared. And from this we can make a reasonable “guestimate” at the change in runoff volumes since settlement.

We also know the mean annual rainfall at Bombala is 645mm which is quite evenly distributed throughout the year. This even distribution is also present at Nimmitabel with mean annual rainfall of 690mm. And from the work on 21 Victorian catchments by Holmes and Sinclair in 1986, as reported in Vertessy et al, 1998, “Predicting water yield from Mountain Ash catchments”, we can determine the changes in yield with some accuracy.

Where there is an annual rainfall of 700mm a forest will use 650mm while 50mm is runoff. If you clear that forest to pasture and, assuming it is not overgrazed, it will use 545mm of rain with 155mm of runoff, an increase in yield of 210 per cent.

So when we look at the catchment below the dams and above the state border we find 1/3rd uncleared land that produces 100 per cent of presettlement water yield and 2/3rds cleared land that produces 310 per cent of pre-settlement water yield. And this means that the current runoff of 804,000Ml represents (1x 0.333 + 3.1 x 0.666 = 2.4) 2.4 times the original pre-settlement flows.

Hence, the total pre-settlement flow from both cleared and uncleared land was 335,000Ml while the cleared land now delivers an additional 469,000Ml to the Victorian part of the river.

This tells us that the original pre-settlement flows at the mouth of the Snowy River consisted of;

863,000Ml from the Victorian portion;

335,000Ml from the NSW portion below the dams; and

513,000Ml from above the dams,

for a total flow of 1.711 million Ml.

And that means that the current mean annual flow of 1.644 million Ml is actually 96 per cent of the pre-settlement flow. In effect, all but 44,000Ml of the 513,000Ml that is diverted from the Snowy to the Murray is already compensated for by the increased runoff from clearing in the NSW portion.

But the downstream observers in Victoria only have visual and anecdotal references to river flows that have occurred after the upstream clearing activity has increased flows. And it is this man-made increase in river flows that they are now seeking to convert to some sort of baseline for an environmental duty of care to minimise harm. But if they succeed in getting the existing agreement implemented they will lock in an entirely unwarranted ecological surplus at the expense of the Murray system and the communities that depend on it.

The facts are that the current 4 per cent reduction in river flows is almost statistically irrelevant in terms of the normal range of variation in rainfall and runoff. For example, the 1st decile event for Bombala is only 457mm (71% of mean) and the 9th decile event is 866mm (134% of mean) for a natural range of 66 per cent of mean.

This is not to say that the 30 to 40km of river below the dam is not significantly diminished, it obviously is. But pouring $50 million worth of valuable water into the ocean is a very silly, indeed, incompetent way of fixing the problem. There is a much better way – based on the fact that the one type of water use that is most suited to recycling is water used for environmental flows.

The Snowy River itself does a great deal to assist in the recycling of its environmental flows. It traces a large, 95km, bend in the section concerned that ends only 27km away from where it starts. So the construction of a short pipeline and pumping system would enable the release of just a single day’s worth of environmental flow which could then be pumped back to the starting point (recycled) to do the same job each day for the next 364 days each year.

This would take place before the steep drop onto the Victorian lowlands and the countryside that the pipeline would need to cross is already cleared with comparatively mild undulation that is well suited to pumping and syphoning.

The key to the feasibility of this sort of recycling of environmental flows is; can we pump a megalitre of water along a 27km pipe with modest head for less than the price that a farmer would pay for the same megalitre? Clearly, the answer is an unambiguous “Yes”.

Adelaide pumps its water 170km from the Murray River, and over a hill, presumably at an acceptable wholesale price.

Farmers in the Brisbane Valley are eager to pay for recycled Brisbane sewerage that will be pumped more than 60km.

The plan to reintroduce recycled water into Wivenhoe Dam will involve a lift of more than 100 metres and more than 40km of pipeline and be reintroduced to the urban water system at a profitable margin on a wholesale price of $170 per Ml.

So even if there was a sound case for restoring flows to the Snowy River then taking good water out of the dams is not the best option. The Greens’ target of 330,000Ml in water savings could be ploughed back into more production that will inject $132 million into towns on the Murray each year. A modest pumping load of 100Ml a day would deliver 36,500Ml of river flow to the actual section of river that needs it while leaving 36,400Ml for farmers to add $15 million worth of crop value to the remainder.

For the moment, the most inefficient water users, and those most reluctant to adopt new ideas, technology and innovations, are the Green movement and their captive departmental minions. Unlike sewerage or storm water recycling, water that is released for environmental flows needs no expensive processing to enable it to be used again, and again. And this capacity for multiple recycling gives it an entire order of magnitude greater priority than all other water efficiency options. We all need to get a lot smarter with our use of water but our self appointed environmental guardians have a lot further to go than anyone else.

More importantly, neither the federal government, nor any of the state governments would be complying with our well defined principles of “proper exercise of power” if they continue to try to develop catchment wide water allocation policies without taking the highly relevant factors of clearing induced changes in water yield, and the potential for recycling environmental flows, into account.

To continue to do so in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence would not only be grossly negligent but may also constitute criminal conspiracy. It has to stop.

Ian Mott,
Byron Hinterland
Australia

———————–
Ian Mott is a third generation native forest owner, miller and regenerator from the Byron hinterland.

A former Sydney and Brisbane Executive Recruiter with his own agency, his interest in the family property has seen him evolve, over the past decade, into a property rights activist and consultant. He is secretary of the Landholders Institute Inc and has held a number of positions on national, state and regional level policy and planning bodies.

A version of this article was first published at On Line Opinion on 23rd November 2006.

Australian PM Announces New Water Plan

By

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has just today announced a new plan for the management of water in Australia. He suggested a $10 billion budget for the following 10 point plan:

1. A nationwide investment in Australia’s irrigation infrastructure to line and pipe major delivery channels.
2. A nationwide programme to improve on-farm irrigation technology and metering.
3. The sharing of water savings on a 50/50 basis between irrigators and the Commonwealth leading to greater water security and increased environmental flows.
4. Addressing once and for all, water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin.
5. A new set of governance arrangements for the Basin [Transfer of governance from the States to the Commonwealth].
6. A sustainable cap on surface and groundwater use in the Basin.
7. Major engineering works at key sites in the Murray-Darling Basin such as the Barmah Choke and Menindee Lakes.
8. Expanding the role of the Bureau of Meteorology to provide the water data necessary for good decision-making by governments and industry.
9. A taskforce to explore future land and water development in Northern Australia.
10. Completion of the restoration of the Great Artesian Basin.

Following is the transcript of the speech at the National Press Club, Great Hall, Parliament House:

“A National Plan for Water Security Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I’m happy again to address the National Press Club on some of the great challenges that face our nation in 2007. Last year I spoke about the great sense of balance in public life and public policy which have been a hallmark of the Australian achievement.

Today I want to address in a very direct and detailed fashion one of the great challenges of our time and that is water security. Before doing so let me, of course, remind you that whatever policies we may have, in areas as specific as water security, ultimately, for their effective implementation, they depend upon the continuing strength and growth of the Australian economy. And there is no greater single challenge in face of this government and of others in public life, than demonstrating a capacity to maintain the enormous prosperity of this nation at the beginning of 2007.

Our lowest unemployment rate in more than a generation, a higher level of business investment, a very pleasing reminder that inflationary pressures are tending downward rather than in the other direction; none of these things have occurred by accident. They are not some kind of automatic God given right, they are only achieved by the implementation of the right policies in the right fashion based on experience and a capacity to take the decisions necessary to maintain the prosperity of our country.

Water has always been at the very heart of the existence of the Australian nation. It influenced the life and the activity of the first Australians. It determined that the British settlement would occur at Port Jackson rather than at Botany Bay, and the great Federation drought of 1892 through to the early part of the next century inspired Dorothea Mackellar to pen those immortal words about droughts and flooding rains. As we grew and prospered as a nation after World War II, we placed heavy demands on our water resources, but that was a time when we invested heavily in infrastructure. We built the great Snowy Mountains Scheme, we invested heavily in dams and other ways of ensuring that our water resources were there and were available.

But by the time of the 1980s, policies began to change. Governments became reluctant, for a combination, in some cases of misguided implementation of environmental policies, became reluctant to invest in the construction of water conservation infrastructure, particularly dams. And that, of course, created understandable concern about the availability of water to look after us in the years ahead. In the last decade or so, we’ve begun to turn this around. Billions of dollars both at the state and a federal level have been set aside for projects individual projects. Our own $2 billion Water Fund is leveraging major investments in every state. And through the Living Murray Initiative, we are on the way to restoring six iconic environmental sites in our greatest river system. And with the National Water Initiative, a long-term framework is finally in place to increase the efficiency of water use, to service the needs of communities, and to return our river and groundwater systems to environmental health. Despite this, the current trajectory of water use and management in Australia is not sustainable. In a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change.

I regard myself as a climate change realist…

Read the full transcript here: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech2342.html

I intend to post a critique in a day or two.