Please refer to previous posts re Water policy (pick one, there's so many to choose from - policies that is).
Today's is a slightly philosophical piece, but ultimately the ugly politics of water will not be denied.
Conflicts over water are nothing new, not least of all because geographical features like rivers often define a country's borders, eg, the Great Lakes system between Canada and the United States of America, or run through multiple countries, eg the Nile River.
There have been some minor border issues between the North American countries, but decades ago Egypt straight out threatened to destroy a proposed dam to be built across their southern border in the head waters of the Nile; they literally stated to (I think it was Zambia?-sorry) don't bother building that because if you do we're just going to fly in there and bomb it.
Countries with neighbouring coastlines are even more problematic, often quarrelling over scraps of rock and a few seagulls, eg, the contiuous 'sabre-rattling' of China and Taiwan over a small group of islands they both claim, (this conflict in itself a literal metaphor for the broader issue of Taiwanese sovereignty), or even between 'good neighbours', eg, the division of resources in the Timor Sea.
Even in Australia this happens, where we use the Murray River to define the border between Victoria and New South Wales, and economic regions, eg, the Riverland, the Riverina.
My grandfather, a Second World War veteran, rarely spoke of such things, but was adamant that future major conflicts would be increasingly motivated by issues of water security, and less and less by other resource security issues, eg. the US invasion of Iraq that is largely accepted as a 'War For Oil' rather than a 'Crusade For Democracy'. (There are those whom believe that the Iraq War is a Crusade, continuing a millenium long conflict between Judeo-Christians and Muslims...Christianity vs Islam.)
But I digress, other than to note that water was critical to human development as a species long before 'Religion' even existed; directed where the crucible for 'agricultural civilisation' began in Sumeria 5000+ years BC (between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers-now Iraq/Iran), the annual flooding of the Nile fuelled Egypt's development; etc.
As 'religion' developed, water was a central feature, often with similar attributes, assigned it's own Gods, etc. In several cultures millenia and continents apart, still waters represented the 'gateway' to the Underworld (as there is Heaven so must there be Hell...thus nature restores the balance), eg, the Mayans on the Yucatan Peninsula and the Limestone Ceynotes that are windows to a massive fresh water aquifer, or pagan tribes in Europe and Great Britain who had bogs and swamps as important sites for sacrifices and even burials.
Rivers were vital trade links to the extent that we built false rivers, canals, to expediate the movement of bulk goods, and today globalisation (whether you agree with 'it' or not) continues that trend, where vast quantities of minerals, food, etc, traverse oceans via the Suez and Panama Canals.
The British Empire was founded on naval power, and how many times did that tiny, shallow strip of water we call the English Channel, protect Blighty? Apart from the Vikings, very few European protagonists have successfully traversed what is a relatively tiny geographical feature.
London is where it is because the Romans built it on a river, as are nearly all the major cities of Europe and most cities in Australia, except Adelaide - the Torrens is a seasonal creek that would probaly run dry if it weren't for a weir...which brings us to the Murray.
I tried not to repeat my previous blogs in a very sarcastic, even caustic paragraph about the internal conflict that our poor Premier Jay Weatherill is having over water (previous post), but the truth will not be denied.
Mr Weatherill says how important the health of the Murray River is and therefore he (a Labor lawyer) must use tax-payers money to pay state Labor lawyers to attack federal and other state Labor lawyers over water that doesn't actually exist, all promoted via an expensive advertising campaign, but then states that he's moth-balling the multi-billion dollar De-salination Plant (before it's even been used) because it's been raining alot in the Eastern States so therefore it's ok to draw Adelaide's water from the Murray.
Again, I put it to Mr Weatherill that reports that the De-sal plant doesn't work are correct and that this is the real motivation for the aggressive stance on the river; it's not even about pandering to important inner-city green voters.
And furthermore, says Mr Weatherill, for the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes (and therefore the Murray) there needs to be a massive new $130million South-East drain built to syphon fresh surface water into the Coorong, but he completely ignores the massive environmental damage across the SE that current drains already cause, eg, the death of wetlands, aquifer degridation, etc.
I re-iterate; that only a few years ago this Labor government was prepared to build a weir at Wellington to secure Adelaide's water supply, and knowingly therefore kill the Lakes and Coorong, but now, when it 's convenient, they are all about the 'health of the system'.
So when it suits Mr Weatherill its all about the health of the environment, the Murray, the Lakes, and the Coorong, but I guarantee that the Wellington weir is only one short drought away because Labor has stuffed the De-sal plant., and I would suggest that this summer is a short, sharp reminder of what Australia can provide or withdraw regardless of what Mr Weatherill says. (...put on some Stevie Ray Vaughn and sing it with me.....Couldn't Stand The Weatherill....sorry, but I just had to.....)
And what does Mr Weatherill propose to do when push comes to shove and drought forces Victoria and/or New South Wales to build a weir upstream of the border? You know they will if things get that serious. What then Mr Weatherill? A dead river through a dead state and no water at all for Adelaide.
There's no sarcasm believe me when I say I genuinely hope to be wrong, but because of the way we treat the Murray River, it is only ever a few years away from irretrievable demise.
We must change our habits, but are we capable?
Tomorrow: N F McDonnell and Sons - The Judas Goat of SE Forestry
Whether they realise it or not, the NF McDonnell and Sons mill is being used by the Labor government to manipulate and deny the atrocious realities of the Forestry Sale by saying "...come on, it's not that bad...look...here's one company who's doing really well..."
The deliberate and direct inference is that if your company fails due to the immoral, non-sensical, and I would suggest illegal sale of the Forestry rotations, then it's not the government's fault, it's you, you're a failure, because good ol' NF McDonnell are doing alright...look, look at them expand, etc,etc.
Nobody sings from the Vested Interests Hymn book with quite the fervour or commitment of The Border Watch's Graham Greenwood, and his latest article is line, verse, and chorus the Judas Goat Agenda....very poor show Mr Greenwood.
No comments:
Post a Comment