Submission on the proposed Basin Plan

TO: Murray Darling Basin Authority
DATE: 6 December 2011

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I have visited the Murray Darling basin on many occasions, from the headwaters of the Murray River at Cowambat Flat all the way to the lower lakes of the Murray mouth and the Coorong.

The river system is remarkable. Its natural systems are unique in Australia and irreplaceable.

It has been obvious for decades that too much water was being drawn from the system, mainly for agricultural use. I studied Agricultural Science at Latrobe university, during which I learnt that much of the irrigation infrastructure was very wasteful of water, including open channels, flood irrigation of dairy pastures, sprinkler irrigation systems and even rice cultivation.

South Australia has born the brunt of the problems with drastic depletion of the river flow in its lower reaches and serious pollution of the water by heavy salt burdens and agricultural chemicals. Adelaide still sources the majority of its drinking wate from the Murray River.

The drastic impacts on the lower Murray, its lakes and the Coorong during the recent 10 year drought were unacceptable. Some lakes drained, exposed soils became acidified and toxic, and sea water threatened to invade the freshwater system and severly impact its freshwater ecosystem.

Regular flushing of the river system - as used to happen during regular floods - is essential for its health.

Appropriate regular ecological flows are essential for preserving the integrity and life of the Murray Darling system. I understand that scientists have recommended a minimum of 4000 gigalitres.

Reducing ecological flows in response to political campaigns and pressure from industries that continue to demand unsustainable quantities of water from the system will damage and even kill the system. When this happens, the industries will be forced to reduce their water use - they cannot use water that is not there.

The 2750GL now recommended by the Authority is not enough to save the system.

In addition, the doubling of extraction from groundwater resources is also likely to deplete aquifers.

The low environmental water flow and more extraction of groundwater will put ecosystems, communities and industries at risk.

The Plan must halt the decline of waterbirds, fish, red gums, flora and fauna, reduce blue-green algae outbreaks and improve water quality. A minimum of 4000 gigalitres is necessary to achieve this.

Peter Campbell

Information about how to make a submission is here: Murray-Darling Basin Authority

Water and the Murray Darling river system

We have recently seen the Murray Darling river system - Australia's greatest river system - drastically affected by reduced water flow due to the combined effects of climate change and irrigation from the river.

For several years the Murray River stopped flowing into the sea.  Barrages (like dams) are in place to stop seawater  moving backup through the lower lakes and river systems, including the wonderful Coorong.  If saltwater were to do this, the freshwater ecology of these parts of the system would be greatly damaged.

The drought that lasted over 10 years exceeded all wort-case estimates by climatologists and weather experts.  It has been broken in 2010, but the underlying causes for it have not gone away, and this cycle could be repeated within the next decade.

The drought drastically reduced water flows.  Many farmers with water allocations ("rights") along the river simply could not get their water.  Orchards, vineyards and dairies relying on water from the river had to shut down or close, and many commercial trees and agricultural crops died.

There is no point having water rights if there is no water.

The Wentworth Group of Scientists warned of this scenario over a decade ago, but their warnings and recommendations were ignored by governments and policy makers.  There has been much talk about "doing something" to restore desperately needed environmental flows to the river system, but very little effective action to date.

The Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has now commenced community engagement about actions and recommendations to restore environmental flows the river system.  They have released the a Guide to the Basin Plan document.

Some of the proposal and information on the guide include:

• Proposed basin-wide cuts to water extraction of 27 to 37 per cent.
• $9 billion has been allocated to buy back water allocations
• No one will be forced to sell water
• In many river valleys a lot of the reductions in water allocations has already occurred
• Two-thirds of the minimum 3000-gigalitre reduction will be achieved by 2014 through programs already in train.
• The amount of additional surface water needed for the environment is between 3,000 GL/y and 7,600 GL/y (longterm average).
• The current average volume of water provided to the environment is about 19,100 GL/y, so this range of additional water would mean that the long-term average volume of water provided to the environment would be between 22,100 GL/y and 26,700 GL/y.

The guide details possible water reductions required in numerous regions within the basin.  This has generated major concern within rural communities within many regions, who fear that reduced water allocations will have drastic financial impacts on agricultural producers and the local economy and towns they support.

This will certainly be the case - but similar impacts have occurred, and will occur again, when water in the river system becomes scarce again.

There have been loud and irrational outbursts at public consultation and meeting and directed and the Federal Government , the Water Minister and numerous other members of parliament.

It is worth noting that so far only a guide to the plan has been release, not any binding plan or commitments.  This is being misrepresented by emotive claims by some rural commentators - and federal politicians such as Senator Barnaby Joyce - that "this plan (sic) will lead to the decimation of rural agriculture and country towns".  This is not consultation or a debate - this is a beat up.

Cotton, rice and vineyards all produce crops and products that require vast amounts of water (more information).  Ditto for dairies. I think it is clear that this type of production should happen in regions that have sufficient available rainfall, rather than chronically depleting a river system.

It is not hard to see why there has been no effective action on restoring environmental flows in this river system to date.  Any attempts to do so are met with a barrage of emotion and accusations, which in the past have  lead to major water reforms being shelved.

It is to be hoped that the current water reform process doesn't suffer the same fate.  Otherwise the next severe drought will cause decimation of rural agriculture and country towns along with like death of much of the ecology of the river system.

The new parliamentary committee for regional Australia, chaired by independent MP Tony Windsor whose electorate will be affected by the plan, appears  likely head up a parliamentary inquiry into the social and economic effects of the proposed cuts.  Let's hope he acts in the best interests of all Australians in doing so.

External links

• Basin plan, Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)
• Guide to the Basin Plan, Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) 
• Angry crowd gives basin consultants a taste of things to come, The Age, 13 October 2010
• Irrigators vent fury at proposed water cuts, The Age, 14 October 2010
• Gillard needs to move quickly to stem rural anger, The Age, October 15, 2010
• Welcome back to a long-lost friend,  The Age, April 12, 2010
• Gillard buckles on water cuts, The Age, October 15, 2010
• Water needed to produce food, Greenlivingpedia
• Windsor warns Parliament won't back plan, The Age, October 15, 2010
• Don't think you can keep on neglecting me, Darling, The Age, October 13, 2010
• Murray Darling Basin

This post is part of Blog Action Day: blogactionday.change.org

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

Roads, water, smart meters and the 2010 Victorian state election

The phoney campaign for the 2010 Victorian state election is well and truly underway.  Unfortunately, this highlights the failings of politics and government to follow due process, public consultation and make appropriate decisions.  Some examples follow.

Smart meters
The business case for smart meters has not been proven, yet residents are being forced to pay for them whether they want them or not.  Greater benefits at much lower cost could have been obtained by installing simple in house energy meter displays to allow consumers to see real time how much power they are are using and therefore set about reducing it.  Unfortunately, these "in home displays" have been dropped from the mandatory section of the Victorian Government's smart meter specification.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/smarts-on-hold-but-consumers-still-paying-for-meter-20100327-r48y.html

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/smart-meters-another-dumb-economic-idea-20100412-s40m.html

Water
The Brumby government has embarked on a carbon intensive and environmentally damaging water strategy that also has no solid business case.  The north south pipeline steals water from the chronically deprived Murray Darling basin and sends it over the divide to Melbourne.  The desalination plant will consume large amounts of energy, pollute the Bass Coast, and result in high net carbon emissions.  Meanwhile, water tanks, recycling and stopping logging in water catchments are all ignored, despite being more effective, cheaper and better for the environment.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/brumbys-water-plan-savaged-20100327-r4dh.html

The relaxing of stage 3A water restrictions is a political stunt for the election.  Melbourne's water storages are still too low for this.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/water-restrictions-never-again-above-stage-3-20100316-qcl6.html?autostart=1

The economics of the desalination plan just don't stack up, and due diligence has not been a feature of the business case or the planning/approval process for it.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/water-plans-drift-behind-a-veil-of-secrecy-20100411-s0os.html

Planning
The internal workings of Government - including sham public consultations - is revealed in the media strategy written by Planning Minister Justin Madden's media advisor and accidentally sent to the media.  Madden and Brumby have claimed repeatedly that the document is "unusual" and "irregular: and even that they have "seen nothing like it".  What a load of nonsense.  This sort of spin and manipulation is clearly common.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/madden-media-plan-shows-the-inner-workings-of-spin-20100306-ppts.html

What has Victorian Attorney General Rob Hulls and the Brumby Government go to hide? Given a Ministerial advisor wrote at document that indicates planning processes would be subverted (for the Windsor), why should they be "excluded" from giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee? This has a whiff of corruption about it.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-advisers-may-face-jail-20100412-s47q.html

Public transport
Decades of neglect and inadequate funding for Victoria's public transport by both Labor and Liberal governments have taken their toll.  Trains don't run on time, or at all, and are packed when they do.  Trams in the city are infrequent and now crowded to capacity.  Privatisation is a failure. The new Metro operator is as bad or worse than the previous one.

The majority of funding in the 40b dollar transport plan is still going to roads and freeways.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brumby-rail-promise-stalls-20100214-nzgk.html

Logging old growth forests
The 2010 Timber Release Plan (TRP) for East Gippland published by the Victorian Government will dramatically increase old growth forest logging in 2010. It deliberately targets old growth forest areas from maps used during negotiations with environment groups about the government's 2006 election commitment to "protect that last significant old growth forest in East Gippsland" Download the letter to get the full story.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Image:2010_VicForests_logging_letter.pdf

VicForests, under the control of the Victorian Government, has been taken to court by Environment East Gippsland to protect Brown Mountain.  The government refused to take appropriate action to protect endangered species such as the Potoroo from logging.   It is to be hoped the judge finds the government should do what the law says and survey for threatened species in forests before logging them.  Currently they don't - because they don't want to find them - which would mean they can't log the forests.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Brown_Mountain_old_growth_forest

This track record is not good.  I think it may even cost them the next election.  Unfortunately, a Liberal/National government would most likely continue with all these flawed policies and practices.

So think about voting Green or independent and choose carefully where YOUR preference goes.

Sustainable water solutions are needed not costly ineffective ones.

It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Tim Holding and the Brumby government are in a state of panic over Melbourne's reduced water supplies.

Water Minister Tim Holding's continual refusal to enact cost effective and high water yield options such are recycling waste water (200 gigalitres per year), capturing stormwater and more domestic water tanks (200 gigalitres), stopping logging in water catchments (30 gigalitres) is just not acceptable.

Recycling more water would have the added benefit of stopping pollution from the ocean outfall at Gunnamatta beach.

Instead he is intent on building a pipeline that will deliver very little water to Melbourne, and the extremely expensive desalination plant that will belch out greenhouse gases and destroy an pristine coastline.

Its time to go Tim.

Links

• Denying recycling just won't hold water, The Age, Ken Davidson
• Melbourne water usage, Greenlivingpedia
• North south pipeline, Greenlivingpedia
• Stop logging Melbourne water catchments , Greenlivingpedia
• Victorian desalination plant, , Greenlivingpedia

Down the drain

This was published as a letter to the editor in The Age, 17/4/09



OUR use of mains water has been close to zero litres since 2001, when we installed water tanks. Despite record low dam levels our tanks are still half full.

If more homes were provided with rainwater storage of about 5000 litres per bedroom, the rivers of water that go down the drain every time it rains would instead be captured.

Tanks are a cheaper and better option than energy intensive engineering projects such as the desalination plant and the north-south pipeline. Using tanks, a daily target of mains water usage of less than 20 litres per person is achievable now.

Peter Campbell, Surrey Hills
Source: The Age

More information

• http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Water_tanks
• http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Melbourne_water_usage

The Victorian Government's water strategy is all at sea

This is a letter to the editor from Brian Wilson of Doncaster East published on April 5, 2009 [link]

I think it describes concerns about the Victorian Government's obsession with large scale water projects, and the overlooking of more sensible, sustainable water options such as water tanks and recycling. It highlights to me too that many in the community want more focus on sustainable water options, and the government that is supposed to represent us is not listening or consulting, and that the government's agenda is driven by the "big end of town".

Recycling washes best

"Water projects 'not needed' " (29/3) included reference to the consultants' (ignored) recommendation that recycled water for drinking should get "serious consideration", but that this would require a large public education campaign. Unfortunately, the only "education" campaign by this government to date has been to reinforce the public misconception that water recycling is somehow unsafe; the reality is that the reverse is true.

Water recycling is being used with complete safety in many parts of the world, and Queensland is also well down that path (an initiative that, it could be argued, the voters in that state have recently endorsed).

And just think of the advantages that recycling, rather than desalination, would achieve. The waste water treatment plant (or plants) would be located at or near existing treatment facilities. So no need for the Wonthaggi site and connecting pipes and power lines.

And waste water would no longer contaminate the ocean at Gunnamatta as it would be recycled. And the end result would be exactly the same — pure water!

Recycling uses the same reverse-osmosis process as desalination, so much of the current design would be retained. But because it is far less energy intensive, running costs (and therefore the impact on the environment) would also be less.

And as for the north-south pipeline, its only possible redeeming feature, given it now appears to have passed the point of no return, is that one day it may be used to pipe north some surplus recycled water to help relieve the stressed Murray-Darling system.

Video
Check out this video about the desalination plant, and visit http://www.getrealonclimatechange.org/

We need sustainable water solutions

Water Minister Tim Holding's helpful suggestions of the things we can do as individuals to save water, such as shorter showers and voluntary water usage targets, are already embraced with enthusiasm by many Melbournians.

As an example, water usage at our Surrey Hills house is about 5 litres per person per day thanks to our water tanks, which have just been topped up by the welcome rain. These tanks have now kept our house supplied for 7 years, so I really wonder why the Government is spending our money on huge energy hungry engineering projects such as the desalination plant and the ill-considered north south pipeline when they are not needed.

These risky, expensive and environmentally damaging projects should be the last options considered rather than the first.

Melbourne needs to better utilise its water sources. Storm water capture, recycling and stopping logging in our water catchments are all much better options for saving our water and much more affordable, but they are currently overlooked by government.

Safeguarding our water supply is important to us all. Government has a key role in choosing and developing sustainable water strategies and projects - such as legislating for decent water tanks for all new houses, assisting local councils to build suburban storm water capture facilities, and recycling and reusing water rather than flushing it out and polluting the ocean at Gunnamatta.

One wonders when they will listen to what the public want.

Links

• Water crisis requires more than a cold shower, The Age Editorial, November 25, 2008

The death of the Murray Lakes

I could not really believe reading today that Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong has written of the lower Murray Lakes. This is a monumental and catastrophic failing of our political system - which has now compromised our environment and water supplies to the point where irreversible damage has been done - and worse is to come.

At the same time, in today's newspapers Victorian Planning Minister Justin Madden has given approval for the Brumby Government's "north south pipeline" - to take water from the Goulburn river (and hence the Murray Darling system) - even though there is no water there for them to take! If it was a comedy it would be funny. But they are serious!

89% of voters in the Heraldsun online poll on this topic:

Certainly oppose this lunacy.



On Q&A on ABC TV tonight, Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett defended the Rudd Government's manifestly inadequate emission reduction targets (60% by 2050) AND the north south pipeline "because Melbourne needs the water".

The best Garrett and Wong can do is claim they are better than the opposition - who are still basically stuck in climate change denial and rubbery non-commitments.

And the emissions trading scheme shows every sign of being ineffective in reducing carbon emissions - it is too complicated and won't price carbon enough to drive reductions.

We really need to get water, climate change and energy policy out of the political arena and in the hands of a taskforce who can really do something - before our politicians preside over the total collapse of our ecosystems, our climate and our economy.

Blaming the Howard government is just not good enough.

Links:

• North South Pipeline, Greenlivingpedia
• Welcome to the emissions nightmare | theage.com.au
• Pipeline clears crucial hurdle | theage.com.au
• Last rites for stricken Murray River lakes | theage.com.au
• North-south pipeline under the pump | Herald Sun
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Brumby claims water tanks use more power than desalination

I have just send this letter in to Premier John Brumby. It will be interesting to read his answer, although I suspect I won't get one.


Premier Brumby,

You stated on ABC 774 radio on Thurday 26 June 2008 that "the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant would use less power than equivalent rainwater tanks"

Can you please provide evidence for this claim?

Studies of water tanks have shown that they would use one fifth of the power of the desalination to supply the equivalent amount of water (150 gigalitres).

I have a power meter on our rainwater tank pump on our house so I will provide you with more empirical data on this next week to confirm this data.

Information about the plant and why rainwater tanks would be a better option is available in this article: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Victorian_desalination_plant

I look forward to your timely response to this very important question.

The Brumby government has got it wrong on water

The Brumby government has announced their strategy for coping with the now chronic water shortage due to Victoria's greatly reduced rainfall.

Rainfall in the state has reduced 75% over the last ten years, which far exceeds the worst case predictions by the CSIRO when they modeled the effects of climate change.

It is therefore appropriate that the Victorian government take fairly urgent action to address this very serious issue that now impacts all Victorians. The question is, have they got the right strategies in place?

The government's Water Plan, also labeled as “Our Water Our Future” details the following key initiatives:

1. A new desalination plant for Melbourne
2. Modernising Victoria’s Food Bowl irrigation system to capture lost water for farms, the environment and Melbourne
3. Expansion of Victoria’s Water Grid
   
4. Upgrading Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide over 100 GL of recycled water in 2012 and assessing a range of alternative uses of this water
5. Supporting new and existing water conservation programs for homes and industry.

While elements of this plan seem reasonable, the projects arising out of it to date are highly questionable.

The desalination plant

The proposed desalination plant at Wonthaggi is supposed to provide 150 gigalitres of water per year – enough for one third of Melbourne's consumption. However, this plant will require 90 megawatts of power to run. This translates to 1 terawatt hour per year (1,000 gigawatt hours).

The government has stated that they will source renewable energy for this, but there is significant risk that they won't be able to get enough.

Premier John Brumby stated on ABC Radio 774 on 26 June 2008 that the desalination plant would cost less to install and use less energy than installing domestic rainwater tanks with electric pumps. The information he based this claim on appears to be incorrect. Calculations on domestic pumps supplying one million households indicated that they would only consume 365 gigawatt hours per year, less than half the amount required to power the desalination plant.

More energy is also need to pump water from the desalination plant to Melbourne.

Stopping logging in Melbourne's water catchments would yield about another 30 gigalitres per year.

Modernising Victoria's irrigation system

This $750 million project is part of a government water strategy, which would also modernise infrastructure in the region to save 225 billion litres of water now lost through evaporation, seepage and system inefficiencies.

While replacing fixing leaks and water losses in irrigation infrastructure is a good thing, the Victorian government has announced a plan to pump water from the Goulburn River, which is in the water-deprived Murray Darling catchment, over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne.

The two glaring problems with this are:

1. There is not enough water in the Goulburn River to take more out without critically endangering both the Goulburn and Murray Rivers.

2. The water taken out, estimated to be 75 gigalitres, will be pumped over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne, which will result in more carbon emissions

Expansion of Victoria’s Water Grid

The concept behind “expanding the water grid” is to provide interconnections between river systems and storages across the state of Victoria.

The claimed benefits for this include:

• Increase the security of water supplies by diversifying the sources of water available for communities connected by the Grid

• Enable water to be traded more readily, by making it easier to transfer water to where it is most needed and valued

• Increase the value of supply options (current and future) by increasing the flexibility and diversity of uses.
• The expanded Victorian Water Grid will allow more water to be transferred between water systems.

However, around 10,000km of expensive new pipeline is required to create this network.

There are social equity issues with taking scarce water from rural areas to for Melbourne's domestic water supply.

Environmental flows have not been provided to the Yarra River which flows through Melbourne, contrary to scientific recommendations and a previous government commitment. This environmental flow should be provided to ensure the health of the river.

Carbon emissions are generated every time water pumped through a pipeline unless renewable energy is used for this.

Upgrading Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide over 100 GL of recycled water in 2012 and assessing a range of alternative uses of this water

This proposal is a good one. However, Melbourne produces around 320 GL of wastewater per year. Around 400ML per day is pumped out from Gunnamatta Beach outfall alone.

The government should set a higher target for recycling water of at least 200GL, and eliminate ocean outfalls.

Latrobe Valley power stations consume 140 billion litres (GL) of water per year, so recycled water could be used for this purpose rather than drinking water.

Supporting new and existing water conservation programs for homes and industry

This initiative is commendable. However, Melbourne's daily water usage is still quite high at 277 litres per person per day. A reduction to 150 litres per person per day is achievable, which would greatly reduce demand for water, and expensive new infrastructure to provide it.

Summary

The Brumby government has embarked on an expensive plan to address Victoria's water shortage, with a particular focus on ensuring Melbourne's water supply, with some severe impacts on rural areas resulting. In particular, the loss of water from the ailing Goulburn River, and the building of an energy hungry and polluting desalination plant at Wonthaggi will have major impacts to these regions.

The entire Murray Darling River is now at risk. Rather than taking more water from the Goulburn River, increased environmental flows should be provided to both the Goulburn and Murray rivers.

The $4.9b spending on these water projects will be passed onto Victorian taxpayers, with water bills increasing by about 15% already in 2008. It is projected that water prices will double by 2012 to pay for these projects.

Simple proven measures to increase water supply by protecting water catchments from logging are being ignored.

Melbourne's water supply needs would be better and more cheaply met by:

• reducing water consumption through increased efficiency measures

• stopping logging in water catchments

• major investment in domestic water tank systems, which have the added advantage of being installed incrementally

• harvesting, storing and using more of the 450 GL of storm water Melbourne loses per year

• recycling at least 200GL of sewerage per year and stopping ocean outfalls.

These initiatives can be funded from recurrent spending at cheaper rates (10%) than funds for giant projects such as the proposed $3b desalination plant (20%) under a Public Private Partnership.

The other worrying aspect of the government's water strategy is the apparent lack of supporting information on how their decisions were made, and grossly inadequate public consultation during its development.

The water strategy has been delivered as a fait accompli by government; they are not showing any signs of investigating lower risk and cheaper, more distributed alternatives.

Water for swimming pools is bad for the environment and climate change

Cycling to work this morning through Camberwell I happened upon these two trucks that were pumping water into a house, presumably to fill a swimming pool.



Melbourne water restrictions disallow filling pools from the mains water, so now people pay to have it trucked in from country Victoria.

The direct consequences of this are:

• Depletion of acquifers (underground water) where this water is pumped from
• Carbon emissions from pumping from the ground, truck transport, then pumping from the truck to the pool.

I think this practice is really inappropriate for these reasons. Perhaps the time has come to only allow the filling of pools from roof storm water, or to just ban them? Surely this is now a luxury that we cannot really afford, if we are serious about taking all available steps to combat climate change.

The average pool would only get used about 15 days in a year in any case.

Of mythical water grids, pipelines and logging in catchments

After a period of denial and inaction about our looming water crisis, the Brumby Labor government is now hell bent on pushing their so called "water grid" as a solution for our ongoing reduced rainfall. I am not sure where they got this concept from. It seems to have entered "government speak" around the world from the Thames in the UK to Queensland.

Unfortunately the concept as described in Victoria has a number of serious flaws and seems to be mainly a public relations exercise.

My understanding of the concept in Victoria is that large scale engineering works - such as the North South pipeline, and perhaps the planned $3b desalination plant at Wonthaggi - will create a system where water can be transferred long distances to places where it will be used.

The major problems with this approach are:

• Any pipelines that are not gravity fed will require a lot of energy (mostly derived from coal-fired power) to pump the water. This will result in major greenhouse gas emissions.
• The proposed North South pipeline is taking water from the Murray Darling catchment - where it is desperately needed - to Melbourne, where it is not. This has major impacts for people living both along the Goulburn, and all the way down the Murray River to Adelaide, whose residents rely on the river for most of their drinking water
• The costs of pipelines is high. The 70km North South pipeline is estimated to cost $750m.
• The environmental impacts of pipelines is high. The North South pipeline route has the potential to affect 75 threatened animal and plant species.
• The planned desalination plant will produce a lot greenhouse gas emissions too, and the water from it will have to be pumped all the way to Melbourne.
• Logging in Melbourne's water catchments continues - which is resulting in less water and a reduction in its quality.
  

The Brumby Government's rationale for all this is not clear. We are quite obviously running low on water, but we are not yet on Stage 4 restrictions, and Melbourne's daily household water usage is still quite high.

People still have their swimming pools full too - topped up with water trucked in, resulting in yet more greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a cruel irony in climate change causing reduced rainfall, then most of the governments measures to address water shortages resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions, which will further exacerbate climate change.

Brumby has also stated that:

"the only way you can find new water is by reducing savings, evaporation and seepage and those things".

Fixing leaky irrigation channels and pipes does save water loss and is worth doing, but it doesn't "find new water" (or create it).

Here is my proposal for addressing the water shortage:

• Mandate water tanks for every new household - 5000 litres storage per bedroom - to catch and use rainwater.
  
• Subsidise a retrofit scheme for water tanks to existing households, or provide a rebate on water bills for those who have tanks installed.
• Aim to recycle 80% of the water we use, rather than just flushing it down sewers and out to the ocean. Cease putting water out at the Gunnamatta and other ocean outfalls.
  
• Aim to reduce domestic usage to 120 litres per person per day
• Stop logging in Melbourne's water catchments immediately - this should save 30 gigalitres of water per year.
• Use recycled water for the cooling towers of Latrobe Valley power stations, rather than drinking water.
• Design gardens that capture water. A lot of new housing developments have more paved area than garden, which results in more water runoff and less entering the soil and water table.
• Shift agricultural usage to the most efficient methods. Eliminate sprinkler application and flood irrigation where they are still in use, in favour of drip irrigation.
  

Links

• Pipeline route to threaten protected species ABC Goulburn Murray
• Melbourne water usage - Greenlivingpedia
• State water grid to secure supply: Brumby - ABC News
  
  

Time for action on water, not more reviews

It is a great concern that Melbourne's water storages have just dropped below 30% for only the second time since the severe 1967 drought.

Looking at Melbourne Water's information on our reservoirs and consumption, we have about 320 days of water until we get to 10% levels if we continue to consume water at our current rate. 10% could be a realistic minimum amount as it could be problematic to get access to or use remaining water below this level. If no significant rain falls, Melbourne will effectively run out of water by March 2008.

Yet with an apparent crisis looming, there is scant provision to address our water shortage in the Victorian State budget just announced by Treasurer John Brumby, despite windfall income from gambling revenue.

The best that Minister Thwaites can tell us is that the Government is still “looking at options”. It is time for action, not more reviews.

Two possible options for managing and conserving our water are:

• Introduction of a “luxury use” premium for water used in excess of normal household usage, or;
• A domestic water trading scheme similar to that used for agricultural irrigators could be introduced for households. Such a scheme could effectively establish a market price for scarce water. Households could have a non-tradeable allocation so that reasonable domestic use is covered, and a tradeable allocation that could be on-sold. Tradeable allocations could also be reduced in times of drought.

At this point in time, there are no significant financial incentives for those who do the right thing and install large water tanks, and people are still topping up domestic swimming pools that lose a lot of water every day due to evaporation.

A family of four can normally get by with about 25,000 litres of water storage. Most domestic swimming pools contain significantly more water than this – up to 50,000 litres is not uncommon.

Perhaps it is time that domestic pools are converted for water storage purposes rather than used for recreation.

Some real action on and funding for addressing the causes of climate change such as reducing our huge greenhouse gas emissions could also help address the causes of the drought.

Note: an edited version of this letter was published in The Australian on Saturday 5 May, 2007

Links

• The Age: Rain not enough to boost dams
• Heraldsun: Labor's plan high and dry
• The Age: Government keeps lid on bleak water warnings

LETTER: Praying for rain, or just praying for votes?

Here is a good letter by Peter Kartsounis, Footscray published in The Age on April 23, 2007, reproduced in full.

LAST week delivered one of the saddest ironies in Australian political history. A Federal Government that has spent the better part of a decade being sceptical of the growing accumulation of scientific evidence of climate change has had to tell people to be prepared for one of the direst consequences predicted by that science: that the second driest continent on Earth faces a year without sufficient water to meet all its needs, and that there is no way of predicting when this situation might be alleviated.

It has had to tell people to be prepared for great losses in our national economy, with reduced exports and greater need for imports, and to expect an impact upon the cost of living for ordinary households as the price of foodstuffs rises to unprecedented levels. This from a Government that has sold itself to voters on its supposedly superior credentials in economic management.

And John Howard still just plays politics. His dire announcement is perceived, by many, to be primarily aimed at forcing Victoria to end its resistance to a handover of powers to Canberra — under a "back of the napkin" water plan that has provided no details and appears to reward other states (such as Queensland and NSW) for decades of water mismanagement, compared with the relatively more responsible administration at Spring Street.

We might all be praying for rain. Howard is praying for votes. His administration does not deserve another chance after we, ordinary Australians, have been made to endure the severe consequences of previous years of federal neglect over environmental matters that crucially impact upon the common good.

This year, we might have hardly any local vegetables or fruit in our diets: next year we might simply have no water to drink. Many saw this coming, and we must not reward a Government that consistently failed to heed earlier warnings because of the "economic rationalist" blinkers all its ministers were directed to wear by its leader. We need a government we can trust to act in a more timely fashion to a better set of national priorities than the usual school of "economic rationalists" have.

Author: Peter Kartsounis, Footscray

Source