Jew World Order

Remember the furore over the home insulation scheme last year?

Supposedly designed to create jobs and energy efficiency, the poorly-planned policy ignored industry and bureaucratic warnings about its shortcomings, opening itself up to massive rorts and then the deaths of four people involved.

Similarly Labor’s school building program was so poorly designed during the rush to get the program rolled out; schools were forced to accept buildings they didn’t want or were not appropriate over other school equipment and was again being rorted in some cases by opportunists in the construction sector.

Now another program supposed to deliver on a major government promise of reform is wasting large sums of money and resources, this time sending costly water to the environment without any plan for how water is to get where it’s supposed to and the best times to use it.

A serious lack of planning and accountability in the government’s environmental water agenda means there are now cases where precious water is being returned to the river system when it needs it least.

On top of this, the capacity of the basin’s storage and infrastructure to handle the volumes of water deemed by bureaucrats as necessary for the health of the river system is also being put to the test, well before the magic 2,750 gigalitres of water earmarked for the environment has even been secured.

Such capacity constraints raise serious questions about how the government conducts its buyback process, highlighting a failure to protect private infrastructure, assets and environmental icons from fake flooding damage.

The long-awaited draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan http://www.mdba.gov.au/draft-basin-plan contained no hint of a delivery management plan for environmental water, instead passing that job to state governments to conclude over two years.

Given the basin plan is probably 12 months off being gazetted, the earliest we can expect an environmental watering plan is three years away.

Meanwhile big deliveries of water are forecast over coming months and two major tenders for the purchase of water in the northern basin have just closed.

Even though the Federal Government has bought more than 1,000GL of water for the environment at a cost of more than $1billion so far, irrigators have long been angry at the fact these buybacks, and now the water delivery, took place ahead of any delivery strategy.

For 12 months, farmers have lobbied for a water delivery plan acknowledging artificial flooding risks and encouraging government investment in engineering works that save water.

Such investments would reduce the amount of water otherwise removed from productive agriculture, but prevent flooding risks and maximise the environmental outcomes.

According to its annual report, tabled last month, the Commonwealth Environmental Water has delivered 554GL of environmental water since 2009, with 387GL delivered in the past year.

In June this year the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder made its largest environmental flow release, sending a 160GL flood (110GLof which was federal water) down the Murrumbidgee River to water “hundreds” of needy wetlands in southern NSW, with flow-on benefits as far south as the Murray mouth according to the government.

Yet this artificial flood was sent on top of record natural inflows into the Murrumbidgee and Murray catchments, inundating environmental hot spots far from needing a drink.

By topping up the river in such an artificial way, the June environmental flow event has caused major headaches for landowners and communities from Yass to the NSW-Victorian border, flooding country outside usual wet seasons and washing away crops, livestock and infrastructure, including bridges and roads which were cut off and damaged east of Wagga Wagga.

Local farmers in the Murrumbidgee irrigation district tell me there was no consultation, and next to no warning.

However, no official reports have come to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder regarding damage as a result of the June release.

Based on market values for Murrumbidgee water, which the Federal Government purchased in 2008-09, the value of the June flood would be approximately $160 million.

The 160GL released generated five days of flows of up to, and in some cases more than, 30,000ML a day past Wagga. Inflows from August rain triggered the same flow rates in the Murrumbidgee but cost Australian taxpayers nothing.

While no one’s saying it publicly, there’s widespread suspicion the release of flows in June had little to do with saving red gums or watering wetlands.

Instead it was to let water out of a near-full Burrinjuck Dam and use some of the Commonwealth’s allocation as a publicity exercise before June 30 when allocations roll over to the next water year.

While the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder’s office says this is untrue, farmers right through to senior bureaucrats in the Murray Darling Basin Authority disagree, arguing the Murrumbidgee release was a classic case of “use it or lose it”.

Murrumbidgee irrigator Rel Heckendorf said Murrumbidgee billabongs were full well before the release.

“They were filled up by flooding at Christmas. There was absolutely no need for that June release.”

Murrumbidgee Private Irrigators Association chairman Murray Shaw said the release flooded half his property, covering low-lying flood plain property before he was about to move stock onto it.

He said the flood was for no apparent reason other than to “flush water down the tube”.

“They’d be better off spending their water fund on improving infrastructure first then buy water back if they felt they needed it,” Mr Shaw said.

“There’s no science, it’s pure politics to please the latte set in inner-suburban Sydney or Melbourne.”

An opportunity, not a waste

The government insists the June release filled hundreds of small wetlands, improving river and red gum health.

In a media statement, Minister for Water and the Environment Tony Burke said, “this one event, equivalent to releasing the water in 75,000 Olympic-size swimming pools, is the largest use of Commonwealth environment water that has occurred to date”.

“Because we have had a wet year in 2010-11 this is a real opportunity to build on good flows and carry over water in dams for future use,” Mr Burke said.

“In effect this means there is improved insurance for the environment when drier times return.”

Opposition water spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, said the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder – now technically the largest irrigator in the land – should be scrutinised the same way as any other commercial user of water.

“…instead of watering things like cotton they’re watering environmental assets,” Senator Joyce said.

“But the capacity to manage what will be the multi-billion asset they hold is seriously called into question. If you get it wrong, you will create a flood of mud and absolutely no environmental outcomes, in fact you’ll do more harm than good.”

He said the June release of water was a complete waste of money an asset.

Water management and ‘adaptive process’

Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Ian Robinson defends the government’s watering agenda and disputes any suggestion water was wasted or used to beat carry-over rules.

He makes no apology for delivering water in wet years – in fact, it’s part of the strategy.

“The focus of 2010-11 water use was to capitalise on the environmental benefits of rainfall by building on natural river flows and also by providing river “freshes” in autumn and early winter when rainfall was lower. This was a significant change in approach compared to previous years, where water was mainly used to support important refuges during the recent drought,” his annual report to government said.

It said an audit into environmental water used concluded there were “adequate arrangements within the department to support timely and effective decisions by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder”.

“As management of environmental water is an adaptive process it is expected these use options will be developed over time.”

Mr Robinson insists the Commonwealth operates in the same way as irrigators, working against a strict set of criteria weighing up ecological outcomes against cost effectiveness and risks.

Reports highlight lack of management plan or accountability

In June last year rural policy think tank, Australian Farm Institute, forecast the mess the government’s water policy could become in the absence of a proper management plan.

Its report, ‘Making Decisions About Environmental Water’, found major “inconsistencies” and “shortcomings” in the use of Murray-Darling Basin water bought by the government.

It said scientists, environmentalists and economists agreed water was not being properly managed or monitored.

At a seminar coinciding with the launch of the report it was suggested current understanding of water flows and ecological responses to those flows was very poor and the policy of securing environmental water had advanced ahead of knowledge on what and how much was needed, and how to manage it.

“There is still much policy development that needs to occur around decisions about the amount of water that should be available to the environment, and how judgements can be made about how well that water is being managed,” AFI’s Mick Keogh and Gaetane Potard concluded.

A parliamentary committee, chaired by Independent MP Tony Windsor, investigating the impacts of proposed basin reforms had similar criticisms.

The Windsor report on the impact of the MDB plan on regional Australia , tabled in June, called for transparency in the use of environmental water in areas including volumes required and released, location, timing, and the outcomes achieved.

It pointed to “major inefficiencies” arising from the uncertainty about how much water is actually needed for the environment and the variability of environmental demand for water, with some submissions to its inquiry stating “if it is not needed by the environment it should be put to productive use by irrigators”.

Evidence given to the committee revealed while commercial users were required to meet stringent water use guidelines, and prove water use meets the highest tests of efficiency and value, hundreds of thousands of megalitres of water seem to go to the environment with no accountability whatsoever.

The most recent criticism of the government’s lack of planning has come from the National Water Commission in its biennial assessment of water reform in Australia, released in October.

“Despite the effort to recover water for the environment in some areas, many water resources are still not being managed sustainably,” the report found.

“There has been some progress across jurisdictions in the development of environmental management institutions and their capacity to deliver environmental water.

“However, accountability for environmental outcomes remains weak. In particular, monitoring capacity is often inadequate, the necessary science to link environmental watering with ecological outcomes is generally weak, and there is a lack of transparent reporting of results.”

Knowles wants more accountability

Murray-Darling Basin Authority chairman Craig Knowles said he wants the MDB plan to direct ‘better co-ordination’ between states and the Commonwealth to enable more efficient use of environmental water.

Mr Knowles acknowledged the management regime for the environment “needs to be far more transparent, probably needs to be better understood in communities and far more engaged with local communities in how watering regimes are managed”.

“There are different water holders – none seem to be talking,” Mr Knowles said.

“My hope is our work will require them to talk and co-ordinate and further engage more local and regional communities into the conversation so people can have a better understanding that when they time and release volumes of water they have regard for everything from physical constraints of the river through to all the other things happening at that time.

“We need to strike a regime that values every drop of water, irrespective of its purpose, whether it’s for consumptive or environmental use.”

Mr Knowles said it must be recognised there is a cost attached to environmental water.

“I do think there is a view in some communities and some places, often urban communities, that water for the environment is a free good – it just appears out of nowhere – when in fact there is a cost to it.

“It should be able to be measured and quantified and we can then make rational choices about how we use it.

“The same principles must apply to environmental water holders, recognising they’re in the business of managing environmental assets.”

Watching a catastrophe unfold

Chairman of both the National Irrigators Council and Murray Irrigation, Stewart Ellis, says he is watching an environmental catastrophe unfold on his own property; not because of too little water but too much.

Mr Ellis, a farmer all his life, produces beef, rice and cereal crops west of Deniliquin, with part of his property bordering the renowned Barmah-Millewa Forest which is home to one of the world’s most iconic river red gum populations.

Mr Ellis said for the first time in his memory parts of his farm have been covered by water for between nine and 12 months, which he attributes to artificial flood events sent on top of last year’s very wet summer.

He said the government was buying water entitlements during the drought when there was no yield but will discover it will not be able to physically use all the water it now owns.

“I think the government will soon find it has too much water on top of natural events.

“It’s fine to develop a plan on paper, but it hasn’t taken into account the physical practicalities or capabilities of the system.”

Mr Ellis said there was a crucial need for a complete review and identification of the social and economic risks associated with the government’s accumulation and use of environmental water, ranging from the impacts of lost production due to environmental water taking up excess dam capacity, to the risks of ill-timed releases – like the June event – and the impact such releases could have on production and business operations.

He said who bears the financial responsibility for damage caused by environmental flooding also needs to be identified.

Mr Ellis said the federal government had ignored requests for an environmental water delivery plan and irrigators were concerned any watering program might be typified by a “trial and error” approach, significantly undermining farmer confidence in the government and its ability to manage water.

Lucy Knight is a freelance rural journalist with more than 10 years reporting experience on issues in the Murray Darling Basin. She was commissioned by the ABC to prepare this report.

Editor’s note

This article has been ammended since first publication as a result of consultation with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.