Hello and welcome to the blog...and Oh Mr Hart, Water Mess as promised yesterday...so no delays, no diversions, straight in at the deep end as it were...but if I may open with...
Let's not lose sight of what fresh water is to the vast majority of the world's population...an incredibly precious and often unobtainable commodity...
Limestone Coast (South East) Water Allocation Plan: and here I'm immediately skating on thin ice, because in trying to follow the issue, my personal knowledge is quickly overtaken by the debate, so I'm forced to rely on greatly conflicting opinions...some stating that this is perfectly reasonable and just, and others that it places an irresponsible and "inappropriate" impost on Forestry and/or irrigators.
Not surprisingly, the support/criticism divide seems set along political lines, ie, the Labor government obviously supports the LCWAP, it is after all their plan, along with (as reported in The Border Watch) Member for Mt Gambier Don Pegler and the Forestry sector ...whilst Liberal commentators like MP Mitch Williams have been panning the Plan for hurting irrigators and/or burdening Forestry.
I note that Mr Williams seems far more upset about the Forestry Allocation costs than anyone associated with the Forestry Industry.
One Irrefutable Fact: is that the Water Allocation cuts to the Irrigation Sector, in some cases at 50-55%, will have a massive impact on those primary producers. It was front page TBW that there is a possibility of legal challengers, "South East irrigators yesterday foreshadowed taking possible legal action against...(the LCWAP)"...also fact, that Forestry has been effectively handed those allocations, albeit with a price tag of approx $800,000 per annum.
The issue/Plan is further complicated by the number of 'sleeping water licenses' (that is, allocations currently not being used), and only yesterday Mr Williams was arguing this out on ABC Radio re areas North/North East of Naracoorte...and even then it descended into a polite disagreement revolving around the likelihood that those licences will or won't ever be used and how that affects the allocations, etc.
I tend to agree with Mr Williams, in that it needs to be considered what the total would be if all of those licenses were activated at once...it cannot be assumed that a certain percentage will remain dormant...I have no problem with a little bit of water getting through 'un-utilised' for the sake of maintaining a buffer that itself can only benefit the 'natural' environment, be it remnant natural scrub, wetlands, etc.
In my previous posts I have flaunted my unabashed 'old hippyness' with heterosexual abandon, haha, in that I would like to see parts of the South East returned to natural swamps simply by altering and yes, ultimately closing particular drains...personally I would like all drains closed, but I recognise that that is unfortunately not an economic reality...also, strong arguments often arise against centre pivot irrigation, or 'flood ' irrigation, which both draw heavily on aquifers.
I have not read the report/Plan, (still no off-blog Internet, sorry) but I hope that it makes allowance or at least mention of the potential impact of Climate change, which, even if it is only a natural progression (which I believe is exacerbated by our behaviours, eg, burning fossil fuels), means any change will be likely a reduction in rainfall likely coupled with wildly fluctuating and often unseasonal weather patterns and events...I hope it mentions the possibility (and impacts) of the Goyder Line shifting South, which would greatly reduce production in those areas with massive economic impacts for SA.
It is also fact that finalising the Plan has taken roughly 10 years, effectively 3 times as long as it should have (approx 3 years), and virtually the entire tenure of the Rann/Weatherill Labor government...whilst I understand that this is a complicated process, that seems incredibly drawn out...and I self-cynicalise immediately by noting that this finalising is related to the state election.
It was delivered the very last day (second last?) of this entire parliament under the Rann/Weatherill Labor government, meaning that there will be no parliamentary accountability before the March 2014 state election...it also allows Labor to self-congratulate for having supposedly resolved the issue...I spy with my cynical eye, something that starts and ends with electioneering...
My personal position, and it is more of a philosophical than legal one, is that when the SE Forestry Estate was owned by the people of South Australia, then any rain that fell on it and/or was drawn from the Aquifer, was a commodity, a resource, being utilised to produce an 'asset' for the people of SA, namely the trees for local mills, etc...it didn't matter what rain fell in a single year and how that affected Aquifer replenishment, etc, because it was all 'owned' by the people of SA, and could be relatively easily monitored across decades, with adjustments made for droughts, etc...
That is, the 'swings and roundabouts' of 'paying for that rain' were absorbed by the ultimate production profit...we didn't have to pay for our rain because whatever price we put on it was worn by us via production processes, etc, and that also helped focus attention on the well-being of the aquifer in times of extreme drought.
Now that the SE Estate has been sold to an overseas business, the Water, the most precious resource, including the rainfall (now on in to be referred to as Vertically Integrated Irrigation)...every drop belongs to the people of SA and if Plantations 141 want to use it they can damn well pay for it...or are they already?...is part of the ludicrously low sale price for the '3 Rotations' considered as payment for that irrigation?
I don't care if that water never hits the aquifer, because the trees suck it all up first...and that's irrigation of someone else's trees with South Australia's water...and primary food producers, eg, dairy, cropping, etc, can easily be excused from 'paying for rain' legislation by defining the rainfall vs draw/usage requirements for particular crops or other usages...eg, native replenishment like maintaining a swamp could also be exempt.
We already have a wealth of evaporation and expiration rates data, etc, for particular crops, that would make defining this plan reasonably easy...processes of market demand and crop production costs, etc, will dictate what is the best use for the land, based on what is best for the land, it's aquifers, and those whom we rely on to produce our food and fibres re farming.
Sorry, I got a little bogged down in that one 'Forestry' issue, but in closing I would note with some dis-ease that there is talk that some Blue Gum plantation sites will likely be returned to cropping...with these increased allocations to Forestry is SA, does this mean that sections of the SE Estate will not be re-forested but instead cleared of the mature timber we have grown for 141 Plantations and then turned to cropping, etc?
What control do we as South Australians have over these decisions after 141 Plantations' 5-10 year 'contracts' expire?...are they going to strip the mature timber, ship it all out via Portland, and then use these new irrigation allocations to grow food?...have Labor 'sold' the Aquifers too?...are local Timber Mills doomed either way?...am I just a completely paranoid conspiracy theorist cobbling together unrelated issues?
There are several more major issues to cover re Water, so,
Tomorrow: Mo' Water Mofos
Drains, De-Salination, the murky Murray River, Frickin' Frackin', and on and on...
I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...
No comments:
Post a Comment