On a recent trip back to the ancestral home, I came across an interesting stoush developing in the Northern Rivers area. Malcolm Turnbull, federal parliamentary secretary for water, is floating the idea of diverting water from the Clarence, Richmond and Tweed rivers in Northern NSW to South East Queensland to ease the drought.
On the surface, it seems an idea with some merit. Water is a national resource and water management is an important election issue. However Turnbull would be happy for voters (be it state or federal) to leave the analysis at such a shallow level. Turnbull’s idea is a bad one for a variety of reasons. And not just in regards to the feasibility of building the infrastructure for such a plan.
The Nothern Rivers area is one of the few areas in NSW that is not under drought. It receives quite regular rainfall and the land is looking good. But the Northern Rivers is not drought proof and this is one of the problems of Turnbull’s approach to water sharing. It seems to have been formulated without any consideration of medium and long term rainfall patterns. The rain is good now but what happens when the next drought comes along to affect that area? Also tied into this is a bizare statement from Ian Causley, the outgoing Nationals member for the federal seat of Page:
“Enough water flows under the Grafton Bridge every five minutes during a flood to fill Sydney Harbour every 10 minutes,”
That may well be true but the Clarence river isn’t in flood all the time. At best it is an event that occurs every couple of years. To be fair, Causley may be commenting on the need to trap flood water and take it to storage (or diversion elsewhere). But it is still a strange statement in context of the debate.
The second problem is the environmental effect diverting water will have on those industries that depend on the river. For example, the Clarence is home to a $30 million dollars a year fishing industry. Already, even given the good rainfall, there are siltation issues with the Clarence that affect fishing, especially prawns. Reducing the flow via water sharing would exacerbate the problem and could lead to a decline of the fishing industry. One only has to look at the decline of the Murray river system to see how diversion of water can destroy a river’s ecosystem and the industries that are dependant on a healthy river.
The Howard government has been quick to imply that the states can’t manage water hence control of Australia’s major rivers shoud be under federal control. Indeed, some pettty state parochialism is at play in the issue of water sharing but that doesn’t justify another assault on federalism (which may be the underlying reason for mooting the idea – not so much concern for SE QLD but simply to try and once more attack Federalism). The trouble is that there is no clear means (aside from a referendum) by which the Federal government could gain control of the rivers from the States. But any move by the Federal government to gain control of rivers would be a vote loser in Northern NSW. The Nationals state member for Clarence, Steve Cansdell has come out and stated he would:
stand arm in arm with any of the Greens, Labor and residents of the Northern Rivers in opposing a pipeline
Of course cries of “get yer dirty hands off out water” and argy bargy over Federalism does not help the parched people of South East Queensland. But neither does the grand schemes of Turnbull. It is a self serving, short sighted, simple minded solution to a complex problem.
Good analysis, Shaun.
In one sense I do think we need a national approach to water – it’s just common sense that natural water resources don’t observe state boundaries.
However, I think you’re right that Turnbull is just playing politics on this one.
Also worth noting is the fact that the construction of a pipeline would be very expensive indeed – Qld government engineers don’t believe it can be routed through the Gold Coast hinterland corridor and therefore it would have to go over the mountains.
Perhaps all the people in South East Queensland could move to the Northern Rivers area of NSW.
The only problem with that, Steve, is that in a few years time we may all have to move back again. Until a couple of summers ago (late 2004 from memory) the Hinze dam at the Gold Coast had been as good as dry for a long while. Then they got a half a metre of rain in one day and it has been close to full ever since.
Since then, from observation, the storm tracks and other weather influences have been generous to the area to the south of us. 2004 was an unusual year, but if you look at 2005-6 (24 months) for QLD and NSW you can see that Northern NSW has been about average whereas most of SEQ has been below. It would be heroic in the extreme to think this pattern will never be reversed.
Mark mentioned the difficulty of piping water up here over the mountains. That and the politics will probably keep your water safe.
Meanwhile the Qld Government is going to explore cloud seeding which seems to me a good idea.
We should soon know what precise question we’ll be asked on the water recycling plebiscite.
Other than that water tanks are being manufactured and installed as fast as the supply industry can go. On our 24 perches we’ve been thinking and doing. We had a 10,000 litre tank installed in August and have the potential to store 5 times that if we converted our swimming pool. I keep a rain gauge. We scored just over 700mm last year which is about decile 1 on the averages. With our roof area that still gives us the potential to harvest about 140,000 litres pa.
I think policy needs to push a lot further down this road.
re that map I linked to, you need to set it to ‘deciles’ rather than ‘totals’ to get the deviatins from the norm.
This campaign by Turnbull is quite dangerous. In Sydney he’s proposing that the water aquifer under Centennial Park be exploited to obtain water for the city.
Like his Northern NSW proposal, this just adds more stress to environmental supplies, pushing towards eventual catastrophic failure. That is, where would we be when the Orica toxic plume under Botany starts to contaminate the Centennial Park aquifier, and where would we be when drought hits Northern NSW at the same as Queensland?
As has been pointed out above, this meddling by Turnbull has all the hallmarks of purely political interference intended to promote the idea that the states are failing.
No federal interference would be required if we gave South East Queensland to NSW. Then the New South Welshmen could all sort out their northern water worries amongst themsevles.
Shaun Says:
Leaving aside the obvious point that he has to mean either five minutes or ten minutes, and that it makes no sense at all the way he actually said it, his numbers are wrong.
The Clarence River has a 100 year flood flow (warning, big .PDF) of 23,700 cubic metres per second. This would fill Sydney Harbour in a bit less than 6 hours. During the 1996 flood, flows were 1,200 Gl/day or 13,900 cubic metres per second, which would fill Sydney Harbour in about ten hours.
So maybe he meant to say “Enough water flows under the Grafton Bridge every five to ten hours during a flood to fill Sydney Harbour.”
But so what? The Warragamba River during a flood could fill Sydney Harbour even quicker, in about three and a half hours. It hasn’t flooded since 1998, and until it does, Sydney doesn’t have much water.
Tony, the NSW govt was able to quickly torpedo talk of Turnbull’s Botany aquifer project:
While I don’t know enough about the specifics of this situation to make an intelligent comment about the merits of this specific proposal. And I would certainly agree that over-diversion has severely damaged the Murray River.
However, from a financial viewpoint domestic water usage is about the most valuable (human) use to which water can be put – domestic users pay far, far more than agricultural users do. So if the choice is between supplying domestic water or agricultural water, the highest-value users (residents) should get priority.
http://www.tamworth.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=543529&category=General&m=12&y=2006
Locals recently protested against the transfer of the water to the Lower Namoi to help irrigators and farmers.
From Robert Merkel
“So if the choice is between supplying domestic water or agricultural water, the highest-value users (residents) should get priority”
My son lives in the city and paid about $200 for about 260,000 litres of water last year.
I am an irrigator and am allowed to use several million litres at a cost of…..ZERO. [Except for the licence and pumping etc which can be assets/tax deductions].
Mind you, thanks to my ‘friends’ upstream, I am now in the situation, since Saturday, that there is no water to pump.
The lagoon off the Murray which is my source of water disappeared virtually overnight.
And it could take more than a year to reappear.
Yep, I know. My sister’s the same – lives in beautiful north-east Victoria, pumps water out of the creek, essentially for free.
Though she knows well enough not to give me lectures on wasting water
Thanks for the links SJ. Needless to say I also found the information about the proposed changes to the Pacific Highway just as interesting from an ex-local perspective.
Speaking of floods, there was scuttlebut around Grafton that the old timers reckoned a flood was on the way. Then again I remember regular talk like that when I was a lad. The other newer, improved rumour was that Grafton is ill-prepared for a 100 year flood and a Katrina like disaster is just waiting to happen. Haven’t been able to source that one.
Shaun, you’ll be happy to know that kangaroos have been giving birth all over the west so we’re in for a big wet!
Don’t know that one Brian. The only folklore I remember related to animals and wet weather is that the sighting of a Black Cockatoo is supposed to mean rain. There was one near my parent’s house. Easy to tell from the awful screech they make.
I suggest that, when deciding on proposals to divert water, we consider the sustainability of the uses to which the water is put both at the source of its diversion and at its ultimate destination.
For example, no water should be diverted to support cotton or rice farming, as these are essentially unsustainable forms of agriculture in Australia. On the other hand, water should be diverted to sustain ecosystems that might collapse without it. I’m not a Green, but it seems to me that we need to account for water other than in the abstract terms of economic equations that do not reflect environmental realities.
A final point is the question of who actually controls the water. I have heard that Macquarie Bank and Timbercorp are buying up water rights. If this is the case, in my view it constitutes inappropriate speculation on an essential commodity that should not be treated like any other share in a free market. Just what are the controls on the market that ensure there will always be – subject to suffiecient rainfall – enough water for essential purposes?
Darren: the fact that consumers will always be able to pay a lot more than irrigators.
Even at $2 per kilolitre, hannah’s son could buy his year’s water for $520. Desalination, which allows the production of unlimited quantities of potable water, can be done quite easily for that price.
Robert: Maybe so, but I’m more interested in the huge volumes of water that will increasingly become subject to commercial transactions, including speculation on water based on its future scarcity. Part of our future approach to water must ensure that such speculation, including potential resource monopolies, must not be allowed to arise. My question is how do we shape our water policy accordingly?
Darren: why?
I can try and establish a monopoly on foodstuffs, and many essential drugs are supplied by private monopolies. What’s different about trading in water rights?
In true Queensland style, you’ll be welcomed by our Dear Leader Premier Pete as demonstrating that Queensland is the bestest and simultaneously denounced for being a bloody southerner and putting stress on our water infrastructure.
Hannah, the desal plant they built in Perth will produce water for $1.17 per kilolitre.
I agree with you that a lot of water is currently wasted by irrigators. But the only way they’ll clean up their act is if they have to pay a realistic price for their water.
As to your point about trading in water rights resulting in greater usage of those rights, well, everybody knows that the river is overallocated and governments are going to have to reduce allocations. Everybody but the National Party, that is…
Thanks Robert.
What do you know about the proposed desal plant in Spencer Gulf SA?
If that’s not too off topic.
But the only way they’ll clean up their act is if they have to pay a realistic price for their water.
I absolutely agree. 100%. And they [we] will have to be forced to do it.
Thanks for the link re Perth’s desal plant.
I found a source that states that the capital cost of that plant increased from the $387 million in that article to $434 million. And running costs from $20 million annually to $22 million annually.So I assume that the water cost has since risen to about $1.40 per KL.
At this point in time anyway.
Still if it doesn’t increase in the near future, as such things are liable to do, that’s not too bad.
I’m still concerned about the brine output , the greenhouse emissions [yeah I know it's all claimed as being covered by wind generated electicity but there is still an increase in electric consumption of many MWHs] that is estimated by one source at 100.000 tonnes pa.
Much much simpler and cheaper to reduce waste in agricultural consumption.
Hannah, as I understand it Spencer Gulf is even saltier than typical seawater, making it more expensive to desalinate. That will make desalination more expensive.
We are going to have to change to non-emitting sources of electricity anyway, regardless of whether we desalinate or not.
As to the relative cheapness of improving agricultural consumption, while I support that, in the case of, say, Melbourne it’s not clear that buying water out of the Murray-Darling is the cheapest way to go. It’s 120 kilometres through a mountain range from Lake Eildon to Sugarloaf reservoir (probably the closest connection to the Melbourne supply system).
I guess examples of other commercial monopolies fail to persuade me that they are OK in all cases – especially where essential resources are concerned. The problem with trading of water rights is that we don’t want companies controlling for commercial ends that which we need to survive.
I also submit that the example of essential drugs does not support your case, witness the deaths caused by HIV that could have been prevented with cheap anti-retrovirals in Africa. The barrier in that case? Commercial interests of multinational pharmaceutical companies.
Hannah, the Spencer Gulf desalination project is being considered by BHP Billiton.
Not everyone is happy.
Marine biologists are concerned.
So is the prawn industry.
I did hear an interview with BHP in which their representative said that if there was any adverse environmental impact at all the project would not go ahead. I’d suggest you can take that with a grain of salt!
This spiel indicates that they have costed in greenhouse offsets, and that initial studies suggest the brine is not a problem. The starting date is given as 2012 if the project gets the nod.
Thanks Brian.