Australia's water war

Refilling the basin

Australian farmers are furious about a government concession to nature

See article

Readers' comments



I may be late in putting this comment!
There is only one problem.
The laws forbid anyone to build dams to store up water, unless approved by the Federal government. Nobody (or not too many people are allowed to) can retain water during rainy season for the dry season. So in a not very good year (like a couple of years ago) drought was almost everywhere.
There is a solution. Look at the map of Australia. In Northern Territory there is potentially the biggest reservoir in the world.
Join up Melville Island from the mainland then to Cobourg Peninsula you'll have a reservoir of 20,000 sq. km and a catchment of 30,000 sq. km. With the rainfall of 1.8 metres in that area, the water can supply the whole 20 million people's need.
This needs the building of two 25 km dams in the sea, and the pipelines and the pumping stations all the way to down south. Nothing impossible. Look at the map around Shanghai in China you can see bridges spanning from Shanghai to Ningbo through a few islands (now container port) in the middle of the sea and the total length (not yet completed) is a hefty 60 kilometres.


It takes guts to put one's entire life, the lives of one's children, and years of sweat into farming in a semi-arid region like western NSW.

It also takes guts to make difficult political decisions, above the level of special-interest politics, that determine how scarce resources are allocated among competing interests (farming, nature) that we all would like to protect.

Meanwhile, both sides continue to "talk past each other" and emphasize what they feel the other side doesn't understand -- because there is no room to give ground and still too little water in the Murray basin.

The only thing that will ease the tension and break the logjam is also the only thing that is missing here -- more rain, reliable rain, stable rain. Good luck, Australia, you've come though tight spots before.


...and we can't seem to dry out in the Maritime provinces of Canada. We recently had a storm which rivaled our autumn hurricanes - but in mid-December!
I understand that climate has always fluctuated somewhat, but the times they are a changin'.

Sinickle Bird

This is a longstanding and complex issue - and one that defies solution by some of the simplistic prescriptions on offer.

The Australian environment has, since forever, been characterised by drought and flood. No legislation can change that. Indeed, Australian flora and fauna has evolved to cope with flood, drought and fire.

1. Water allocations (farming and other) are regulated by State Governments. The States have, for generations, over-allocated their resources in the name of "state development", and without regard to the fluctuation from year-to-year. Hence too much consumption.

2. Mining approvals are also granted by state governments. In many cases, the impact of mining on subterranean water tables has been either understated (charitable view) or ignored (probably more honest), again in the name of "state development". Hence reducing inflows.

3. Solution is to take control of the basin away from the states (successfully done) and to bring some realism to the process. Except that Federal Labor, in pandering to the Green constituency, has set up an enquiry whose sole frame of reference is environmental, hence a proposal that effectively withholds water from farming. The figure of 800 jobs lost is an invented one, with no scientific or environmental rigour.

4. It is easy from the city or aborad to preach in favour of the environment. After all, Sydney has just completed its desalination plant (immediately mothballed on account of heavy rainfall), so there is no water constraint in the big city.

However, the question needs to be asked of the simplistic view - "what will we eat, if the city expands over all its surrounding farmlands (almost complete) and we withhold water from the farmers west of the Blue Mountains?". Perhaps we can import our food from China too.

The solution lies in a combination of more efficient farming and more careful husbandry of the headwaters, backed by genuine research. This is the sort of research that can pay back big-time, rather than throwing ever more money to produce the same old climate change dogma that generates headlines and fame, without progress.
Unfortunately, there are simply too many narrow sectional interests influencing electorally-vulnerable politicians, and insufficient vision to actually portray a sustainable future.


Two things the Australian Government can do now:

1. Take the farmers to a tour of the Aral Sea basin, and tell them the same fate awaiths their children (which is arguably true).
2. Talk to Japanese Importers of possible import quota. Choking product demand is equally effective as choking water supply.


Sense Seeker,

It is also evident that Australia needs to grow less water hungry crops, for example sunflower.

Sense Seeker


So you propose to build desalinisation plants to enable to continue growing cotton, rice and other water-hungry crops in Australia? I doubt that makes much economic sense. Desalinisation isn't cheap. I'd like to see some solid cost-benefit analyses before putting my money into such a scheme.


Australia has to use much more sea water the same as Spain has done for decades. There are dozens of desalinization plants, and I think the Australian Govenrment is also supporting desalinization plants. That will free more fresh water for irrigation, apart from further efficiency.


I do believe that government leadership in managing/balancing needs of community and long terms interest of environment and community


I find it so disappointing that farmers still display such little regard for the environment. Sadder still, most of the produce from the Murry-Darling basin is export bound.

After years of hand outs from the government in the form of drought relief, the only thing farmers care about is preserving their personal standard of living.

Lets hope the government show some backbone on this issue before the whole area is completely ruined.

Left of Che


Um, ever heard of "enlightened self-interest"?

If that's too abstract, how about "starving because you collapsed the water table".


It is time for Australia to start thinking outside the box. The solution will need to be a wholly pragmatic and radical one that everyone can live with. Maybe Australia needs to be thinking about establishing vertical farms recently covered in The Economist. Maybe they need to think about de-populating the semi-arid interior areas and pay the farmers to leave. Maybe they need to convert all of the interior into one big park. This is a problem that has been a long time in the making and will need a 50 year solution to resolve.


When there is simply no water left when the next drought hits and large swathes of Australia face a population dying of thirst, I hope the rice and cotton farmers' final words through their parched cracked lips is 'shoudda not grown so much bloody rice sheila'


I guess that most of the sceptical commentators on the need to reduce water used in the Murray-Darling basin are these who are admirers the Aral Sea irrigation schemes. The Soviets also cultivated cotton in dry desert region.


Man is the measure of all things. His interest should always come before those of the environment or any other living beeing or species.

Anything else is anymism and medieval thinking.


How much river water really flows to the sea?
This question can be asked for many rivers in China, India subcontinent as well as Iraq and Iran. Man has been drawing from these rivers for thousands of year, depleting water table and sometimes converting areas to a desert. Sahara was not always a desert and California was not always green.
Water is dammed and used instead of allowing it to go to Sea. Man is not sending water to moon. Salinity of sea in not increasing because farmers use water on land. Finally water used in irrigation also gets recycled as rain.

Robert North

Melbourne Central is now a Green seat. Is it technically correct to call the Darling a river? How much upstream water actually flows to the ocean?


It's unfortunate that the water debate is very ill informed and based on doctrinaire positions rather than scientific facts. The Water Act was prompted by political imperatives rather than scientific, objective and transparent information. John Howard first and the subsequent labor government gave apparent priority to the environment purely for pleasing the green vote rather than adopting a balanced approach that would address environmental, social and economic objectives. What people need to understand is that this is not a pristine basin. There are 2 million people living on the basin and forming a socio-economic system that must be serviced from the basin resources. The position of the Wentworth group and the environmental lobby to return the river to its natural form is no longer possible if we are to sustain the current or any level of economic activity in the basin. That would require getting everyone out of the basin and undoing all the storages built during last century. There are inevitable trade offs between the three objectives for basin management - economic, environmental and social - and unless this is understood and our politicians exhibit some leadership in this regard, there will be no progress towards certainty in basin water management. Water use efficiency is the key to achieving economic objectives with minimum trade offs impacts on the environment. Improving water efficiency will require application of technology to manage and control water for agriculture and for environmental watering. Yet, the basin plan is totally silent in this regard.

Sense Seeker

Much as I can understand the farmers' concerns, they must realise that current practice is unsustainable. Upstream they grow water-intense crops, and downstream Adelaide is having to build an expensive desalinisation plant. Not to mention the loss of biodiversity - unique species of fish and other wildlife are facing extinction. Why would mega-sized cotton farms be granted all the water they want? Why cultivate rice in these dry areas? This is madness.

Living in urban Australia, I indeed hope that the Labor government will show that it has a spine after all, despite it's track record of caving in to vocal interest groups.

I wouldn't mind the government investing in alternative economic activity in rural areas, but water use has to come down. I do think many people in the affected areas realise this, and I would hope the government can find the best ways to achieve the needed reductions. If at all possible in consultation with those communities concerned.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

