what's happening to OUR water?

[Nitpicker1]

see also http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,1514.0.html


$303m water deal to help Murray River
Sid Maher and Matthew Franklin
May 28, 2009

Article from:  The Australian

KEVIN Rudd has bought the equivalent of half of Sydney's annual water usage in a $303 million deal with a NSW pastoral company aimed at returning water to the ailing Murray Darling river system.

The Prime Minister announced the purchase of 240 billion litres of water entitlements from the Twynam Agricultural Group, which has interests in 285,000 hectares along the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir River systems.

Twynam was founded by Buenos Aires-based John Kahlbetzer, whose net worth is estimated at $609 million in the latest BRW Rich 200.

Mr Rudd said the water purchased would be used to restore the rivers and wetlands of the Murray Darling Basin to health, with the water to be used exclusively for environmental flows.

“This is part and parcel of a process in which the minister has been engaged for a long period of time in order to act to restore the health of the Murray-Darling system,” Mr Rudd said.

The purchase dwarfs the Government's purchase of Toorale Station in September last year which was expected to return an average of 20 billion litres of water to the river system and up to 80 billion litres in flood years.

Mr Rudd said the Government had now bought 297 billion litres of water entitlements under its buyback scheme aimed at combating historic over-allocation of water rights and climate change.

Mr Rudd said a number of high-value aquatic ecosystems could be expected to specifically beneift from the water entitlements purchased from Twynam, such as Macquarie Marshes, Fivebough and Tuckerbil Swamps in the Murrumbidgee, the Gwydir Wetlands, the Booligal Wetlands in the Lachlan and Menindee Lakes in the Darling.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the company would use the money from the water purchase to continue its agricultural operations.

“We are reducing the amount of take from the rivers, which is good for the environment. It means as it rains the rivers get a greater share. It is the responsible thing to do to purcahse water entitlements.”

The Twynam Agricultural Group operates farming properties in NSW with a total land area of approximately 285,000 hectares located on the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir River systems.

The company is involved in cattle and sheep production, dryland farming and irrigated cropping and horticulture.

The company has been realigning its agricultural enterprises over the past four years to diversify its Australian business operations in response to the drought.

It has been changing its production mix from summer irrigated crops to winter dryland cereals and the water sale will help it progress its business transition plans.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25550900-601,00.html

[Lovelee]

Rudd reminds me of a parent - trying to do right - in the knowledge he is doing wrong.

I dont believe this idea will even be a short term fix for the Murray.  Aussies fukked when it comes to water and ground crops now, especially the inland and southern inland area.  This idea is for environ purposes only - to keep the river with water - I wonder what the crop farmers think of this.

We dont have the same climate affects as OZ - we dont have the intense heat for hundreds of kilometres that evaporates probably hundreds of litres a week.  We dont have the salt flats which some say draw the heat down to the water table beneath.

[Nitpicker1]

The question is what's happening to OUR water?
see also http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,1514.0.html

[Lovelee]

I saw your question -- its in the title of the thread --

IMO (as I said in my post) We dont have the same climate affects as OZ - we dont have the intense heat for hundreds of kilometres that evaporates probably hundreds of litres a week.  We dont have the salt flats which some say draw the heat down to the water table beneath.

Ya cant compare apples and oranges 

[Nitpicker1]

what do you think CAUSED

....the intense heat for hundreds of kilometres that evaporates probably hundreds of litres a week.  ..... the salt flats

in Australia's expanding drought areas


Did you see inland South Island in the '50s, have ya seen it again recently??

If you had, seems to me you'd see the connection, and what is happening to OUR water - .
 
 

[Lovelee]

What do I think caused the intense heat in Oz that has emptied not only the Murray but most of the wetland areas from Woodenbong to Adelaide?

At a rough guess I would say the sun.

[Lovelee]

I dont think the 2 countries can be compared when it come to climate and its affect.

The terrain is immensely different, the make up of the physical geography is also different.

I have no doubt that NZ is having water problems -- though when I try to compare the Murray with any NZ river, Im left wondering what are we worried about, in comparison.

No I havent seen the South Islands hinterland, in person -- only seen what they show on the telly -- same with Hawkes Bay and their water problems.  I first went to Oz in 79, I came back for a holiday in 84, we had been telling everyone in Oz how GREEN NZ is, and took pics all over the country.  I could not believe how BROWN the country was.  In particular the road through from Eskdale to Taupo.

What IS happening to our water?

[guest49]

It is being pumped out of the aquafer and used for irrigation.  Most lost to evaporation and transpiration.

In my lifetime, the ceasless pumping has lowered the watertable in the Hawkes Bay, from a bore that gushed when the valve was turned on, to having to pump it from 4 metres down.

[Lovelee]

Yep - theyve done the same in OZ.

So if we turn back the clock to the time they started irrigating large tracts of land, lifting the evaporation levels, what else could they have done?  Maybe, in hindsight, the farm lands should have been left to suffer.

[Nitpicker1]

Maybe, in hindsight, the farm lands should have been left to suffer

NO - not left to suffer, they should be farmed with suitable crops, like Twynam Agricultural Group, the Aussie outfit that was happy to sell it's water entitlement  to Kevin Rudd, which is involved in cattle and sheep production, amongst other pursuits, and now is changing it's mix to 'winter dryland cereals' in preference to summer irrigated crops. That is using the environment wisely imo.

Salts deposits known as hardness, comes from river sourced irrigation water, and added artificial fertiliser use (if it isn't washed into the rivers to pollute them) all build up in the soil and reduce the land to unusable "salt" deserts while polluting and depleting aquifers. 

Snow and rain and river flooding are the natural replenishers of land moisture.  Unrestricted use of dryland-irrigation can only set the scene for disaster and recycling of wastewater for human consumption, even here in lil ole NZ.

[Lovelee]

The salt deposits in OZ are from inland seas.

Sounds like an admirable idea - with grain prices rising astronomically around the world.

The proof will be in the pudding - some ecologists have said in the past that the salt has leeched too high into the 'soil' on the surface and the salt content would flush into the water, killing the crops.  Another problem of course is the intensive farming in oz has meant the topsoil has blown away leaving beautiful white sand as the growing medium, no amount of water will sort out that problem.

So - what about NZ -- obviously we dont have the same salinity problems - we arnt a great grain growing country in comparison - however we still should be growing grains for national use. 

The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development on their website have some interesting stats.

There are about 200 groundwater bodies or aquifers. Each year 500,000 million cubic meters of water fall onto New Zealand as rain or snow, enough to fi ll Lake Taupo from empty eight times over. Most freshwater from rain and snow each year eventually flows to the sea.
Only about 5% of the annual inflow is extracted for commercial use, mainly for farming: the so-called ‘abstractive’ uses.







Id like to see what % of irrigated water is for grain and what is for cattle/sheep farming.


http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/water/content.asp?id=436

[guest49]

Lovelee, the Canerbury plains were a great wheat producer when I went to school, more years ago than I care to count.

Since that time, they have discovered that if they suck all the water out of the aquifers and irrigate, they can wring more money out of the ground by converting to dairy.
Once again, a friend who lives at Lincoln, advises me that the aquifer at his property has dropped by some 3 metres since irrigation started.

[Nitpicker1]

TNKS Yak.
I think you know where I am and what I'm about in this subject, here in Otago/Canterbury most of the irrigation is taken from the rivers, with the same results on the aquifers 

 L'lee, TYFT link. Here's another

  http://www.dairynz.co.nz/file/fileid/14766

from page 19 of dairynz.co.nz file

 use of resources such as water

Additional constraints around water access and cost

should also be anticipated. In areas reliant on irrigation

such as Canterbury, dairying faces pressure to increase

water use efficiency and limits to further irrigation. In the

Waikato, competition from municipal and hydroelectric

water users may limit industry growth. It is instructive

that the main beneficiaries of the original Otago gold

rush in the 19th century were not the gold miners,

but those who owned the water rights. Similarly, in

other parts of the world, cities and industrial users of

water are competing with agriculture for scarce water

resources* . Again, this suggests an environmentaleconomic

constraint inconsistent with the dairy

industry’s growth aspirations.

WHICH LEADS ME ON TO THIS:

* In the Waikato, competition from municipal and hydroelectric water users may limit industry growth.

And a big Q I cannot find an answer to:  ARE OUR SI HYDRO STORAGE LAKES OBLIGED TO RELEASE WATER  to satisfy irrigation requirements when storage levels are seriously low in drought times such as those of Winter Spring Summer as in the 2007-2008 season, that saw big power price increases nationally?

[Lovelee]

And a big Q I cannot find an answer to:  ARE OUR SI HYDRO STORAGE LAKES OBLIGED TO RELEASE WATER  to satisfy irrigation requirements when storage levels are seriously low in drought times such as those of Winter Spring Summer as in the 2007-2008 season, that saw big power price increases nationally?

Who have you asked?  Have you laid your query at the feet of your MP/Mayor/Councillor?

It a valid arguement and being as we here in the north island need you lot to keep the water levels up - one that needs an answer 

[Nitpicker1]

Who have you asked?  Have you laid your query at the feet of your MP/Mayor/Councillor?

UMMMMM

HAS ANYONE EVER GOT A REAL REPLY FROM OUR MP? _{(we are Clutha electorate)} and I lean too much on our Mayor/Councillors in business to become a thorn in their side..


Winston Peters used to take me seriously,

[Lovelee]

An open letter to the MP through the Letters to the Editor 

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Lovelee, the Canerbury plains were a great wheat producer when I went to school, more years ago than I care to count.

Since that time, they have discovered that if they suck all the water out of the aquifers and irrigate, they can wring more money out of the ground by converting to dairy.
Once again, a friend who lives at Lincoln, advises me that the aquifer at his property has dropped by some 3 metres since irrigation started.

Which then results in greedies hatching schemes to take other people's fertile land off them so they can flood it after constructing a dam (as was proposed at Coalgate), then pollute the Canterbury Plains with yet more dairy farming. Fortunately, the greedies have had their plotting and scheming (CPW) to forceably take other people's land knocked back!

[Lovelee]

Lovelee, the Canerbury plains were a great wheat producer when I went to school, more years ago than I care to count.

Since that time, they have discovered that if they suck all the water out of the aquifers and irrigate, they can wring more money out of the ground by converting to dairy.
Once again, a friend who lives at Lincoln, advises me that the aquifer at his property has dropped by some 3 metres since irrigation started.

Im aware of the problems with irrigation.

What choice was there when we started irrigation?

Now we are left with barren land, the owners receiving 'drought assistance' - another name for 'social security assistance payments'.

[guest49]

What choice was there when we started irrigation?

We could have continued growing wheat and other staples instead of now having to import them, I guess.
Of course, this didnt provide the returns that converting to dairy, irrigating, and wringing every last possible dollar out of trhe ground gave.

Like everything else, it was as complex as only politicians can make it.  At the time there were price controls and farmers were more or less incited to change.  Town supply milk price was controlled, but milk for cheese and other products [the bulk of it] wasnt.  Most grain was controlled, if not directly, by the price controls on the price of the final product. [remember bread at 4^d a loaf?]

My neighbour has irrigation on his dairy farm.  If he stopped using it, he would have to get rid of over a hundred stock units immediately.
This last season, he had calculated it was economic for him to run it for 117 days.  The leaching problem is high.  What is leached out has to be re-applied and the wash has to go somewhere, in this case it finds its way into the river and eventually out to sea.
Irrigation on the scales proposed give high returns for those in at the start.  The long term implications for the country are not so good - both the short and long term implications for those downstream or reliant on an aquifer that dries up, are bleak as well.

Possibly the imminent subsidies to be given to American producers may save us from those currently intent on raping the land - if our markets fall and there are no immediate profits to be made, these investors will vanish like smoke!

[Lovelee]

We could have continued growing wheat and other staples

They still needed irrigation though.

[guest49]

Ummmm - No.  They didnt.

[Lovelee]

Ah well -- there you go then.

They are the greedy wasters.

If they didnt need to irrigate they should have left it alone.

[dragontamer]

The flow is easy to follow.  The crop farmers saw there was more money in cattle (for an example).  The local government was greedy and saw the increased income as good news for them, allowed the ransacking of the water with no thought to the future (or at least figured the problems would be 20 years down the track and no longer their problem).

Now there isn't any way back.

[Nitpicker1]

Ah well -- there you go then.

They are the greedy wasters.

If they didnt need to irrigate they should have left it alone.

I first knew the Canterbury Plains and the grain harvest in 1945, when our population was close to reaching 2 million.* There were "trains" of steam engines travelling from farm to farm drawing threshing mills and what we called "stinks" - sort of covered wagons to accommodate the workers who operated the threshing mill using the steam engine belt drive as a power source.

The Plains were (probably still are) vulnerable to Norwester gales and when the paddocks were worked up preparatory to sowing great dust storms blew what little topsoil there was from them. Cumulative effect over the years has seen what was stony paddocks degenerating almost to total gravel and waterworn boulders. Hardly a suitable base for holding water moisture.
 

Direct drilling was being used in a desperate effort to prevent more topsoil loss, too late.

I used to think how great it was to see the effect of irrigation until I realised what it was doing to the flow of the rivers and aquifers supplying it.

I should never have read about the Aral Sea and the Murray/Darling catastrophe, the silting up of our hydro dams, and the theory of more $$$ = better living standards

*
The estimated Population of New Zealand was 1,727,800 as of 31 December 1945
The estimated resident population of New Zealand was 4,306,400 at 31 March 2009.


nuff said, draw your own conclusions

  



 

[Lovelee]

Now there isn't any way back.